Christopher Nolan has dealt a mortal wound to the Christian-conservative movement. He has demonstrated that the moral resolve of most Western Christians and conservatives is non-existent. Many are downplaying his intent and casting choices as “artistic” decisions. Some argue that he is simply obeying the DEI requirements for his movie to be considered for Oscars. But intent doesn’t really matter — even though his intent does align with what most conservative commentators are denying — when we consider our own cultural context from which this film was birthed.

Two Things Can Be True at Once

Right now there are generally two camps of reviewers of The Odyssey. The first is to review it purely on cinematic qualities. Essentially asking the question, “Was the movie worth my money?” It’s a Nolan film, so it probably is worth your money on a purely cinematic level. It’s all IMAX all the time, and Nolan’s one of the few directors that continues to shoot his films on, well, film.

The second way is to evaluate from our civilizational or cultural moment. That is, to evaluate within the current cultural tensions in which we find ourselves and ask the question, “Which way is this going to move the cultural needle on issues like race, transgenderism, religious liberty, perceptions of Western history, etc?”

On the first way, Christians and conservatives are saying that the film is a masterpiece, a work of Oscar-worthy cinema. This is especially true since, from what other podcasters have said, Hollywood has placed diversity quota requirements on directors. This means that directors like Nolan must either conform to the quotas or be disqualified from his films being considered for Oscars.

The second way to evaluate the film is according to the times in which we live. For those who have read the writers who survived Nazism (Frankl) and Communism (Solzhenitsyn), there is no doubt that we are living through a revolutionary moment. Since film affects culture, it is appropriate to criticize Nolan in light of our cultural moment. In fact, to not do so would fail to recognize art as the impetus for cultural change. Christians, more than anyone, should recognize the power of a well-written or spoken parable to change the world in which we live.

In considering our cultural moment, we discover a culture whose government, academia, religion, and entertainment are incapable of answering the following questions: What is an American? What is a woman? What is a man? What is a marriage? What is a baby? What has more rights, a human or a dog?

When we recognize that our society cannot answer these questions truthfully and without doubt, it becomes clear that we are in a Marxist Revolution. Nolan’s film is not mere eye-candy, but an EKG intended to resurrect the transgender and DEI movements. Whether Nolan intended this doesn’t really matter because far-left outlets have already proven and celebrated Nolan’s film as a woke triumph.

Our entire cultural, historical, and religious foundations are under attack by Marxist revolutionary forces known by the fancy academic term, “cultural hegemony.” This idea was put forward by the cultural Marxist, Antonio Gramsci.

Gramsci believed that you could manipulate people to achieve ideological dominance without relying entirely on government coercion. This was accomplished through dominating three non-governmental institutions: churches, media, and schools.

Once “hegemony” has been achieved, a new social order can be established in which the coercion of the citizen no longer comes exclusively from the government, but almost entirely from the pressure of the citizen’s peers. Society itself serves as the enforcer and government is called upon only when someone really gets out of line.

In other words, by dominating the cultural institutions, of which Hollywood is one, people can be coerced to submit to bad ideas, even if they don’t believe them personally; even if the person is very smart and well educated, they will submit. If for no other reason than that they do not want to be ostracized. 1

You Better Start Believing in Ghost Stories

The facts about revolution are undeniable, but they are easily ignored because revolutions take time to gain momentum and footholds in their culture. Like a frog slowly boiled in water, by the time the frog realizes he’s in danger, he’s already cooked.

There is a great line from the movie The Pirates of the Caribbean that captures this idea more clearly. The actress Kiera Knightley plays a character named Elizabeth Swann. Swann is captured by a bunch of pirates who are actually dead, but unless the moon shines on them, you can’t tell.

Swann does not believe in ghosts, and the captain of the ship decides that it’s time to reveal to her the reality of their plight and rid her of any denial she might have about the dark supernatural forces at work in her world. As the moon comes into full view, the music becomes more dramatic, and as the Captain’s skin washes away under the light of the moon, he says, “You best start believing in ghost stories…you’re in one.”

For those of us experienced in the consequences and dangers of DEI ideologies, it can be difficult to explain the dangers of our current cultural moment. Trying to explain it to those unfamiliar, especially as it relates to Nolan’s The Odyssey, is a bit like trying to convince Elizabeth Swann that ghosts actually exist. They won’t really believe it’s happening till they experience it themselves.

Most people that I know who saw the film are focused on the in-fighting on the right. Those in favor of Nolan’s film have already started blaming their conservative allies as “Woke Right.”

They conclude that those few right-wing voices condemning the film as “woke” are overreacting. They argue that our desire for sanity in the arts is what is ruining the entire industry. But those conservatives that hold these positions fail to recognize that The Odyssey reviews coming out of left-wing outlets are calling The Odyssey proof that “Go Woke, Go Broke” is a myth.

Here are a couple of major news outlets affirming the idea that Nolan went woke and got rich. One of the articles is from an outlet called THEM, which describes itself as “The award-winning authority on what it means to be LGBTQ+ today — and tomorrow.”

• Vanity Fair: “The Odyssey’s Epic Box Office Haul Breaks The “Go Woke, Go Broke” Myth”

• Slate: “Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey Supposedly Went “Woke.” It Did Not Go Broke.”

• The Guardian: “Go woke, get rich: why rightwing hate campaigns don’t affect the box office”

• THEM, a self-described “award-winning authority on what it means to be LGBTQ+,” published this article: “Go Woke, Go Broke? The Odyssey Sails to Massive Opening Weekend Despite Racist, Transphobic Backlash”

Articles like these demonstrate that those on the right using words like “masterpiece” or scolding their fellow conservatives are joining the far-left in shaming people for condemning a movie where a woman was allowed to take a male role because she’s delusional.

To give you an idea of how far left these news outlets are, here is a quote from one of their “live-update” pages that they put up for their coverage of the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Kirk’s rhetoric regarding trans people was often cruel and conspiratorial. He not only gleefully used anti-trans slurs, but advocated for physical and political violence against trans people. He also advocated for ways to further marginalize and ostracize them and their supporters.

People are free to like whatever movie they want. But if you like The Odyssey, then just know that your movie choices are shared by those who mischaracterized Charlie as someone who “advocated for physical and political violence.” These are advocates for all the destructive ideas that Charlie died fighting.

These same people see The Odyssey as a win for their side. This is why it’s absurd to think that Nolan’s take on Homer’s epic is somehow right-wing coded, a theory floated by many conservative commentators trying to cope.

The fact that Nolan has submitted himself to such insanity proves that the originator of the idea of “cultural hegemony,” Antonio Gramsci, was right. If you don’t believe in Marxist Revolutions, you better start believing it because you’re in one.

No one had to threaten Nolan to make this movie, as they would have in Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia. They just had to adjust the incentive structure within his institution. In doing so, the woke Hollywood elites won over one of the greatest filmmakers to their agenda and exposed the moral apathy and ignorance of the Christian and conservative influencers. These are the same people who, for the last ten years, have faced cancellations, threats against their lives, illness, and even death for fighting the very ideologies that are woven throughout Nolan’s The Odyssey. If you don’t recognize this, you’re either an ignorant pawn for the left to parade around as a conservative who agrees with them or you're a coward.

Youth & Entertainment

Plato and Aristotle understood the power of media and its influence on culture, especially as it relates to the youth. Here is a quote from Plato’s The Republic where he is talking to Socrates about music and its influence on politics and the youth:

§ 424d - § 425a [Music] softly overflows upon the characters and pursuits of men… from these relations it proceeds against the laws and the constitution with wanton licence, Socrates, till finally it overthrows all things public and private.”
“Well,” said I, “are these things so?”

“I think so,” he said. “Then, as we were saying in the beginning, our youth must join in a more law-abiding play, since, if play grows lawless and the children likewise, it is impossible that they should grow up to be men of serious temper and lawful spirit.”

In other words, if all the kids are listening to gangster rap, nihilist rock, or worship songs where man is omnipresent and God is nowhere to be found, then there will be negative consequences for society. It will be a culture with no common sense and no conscience.

Those in the pro-LGBTQ+ side of the culture war have been strategizing this way for years, but for the sake of time we won’t cover that here. If you want to see a quick breakdown on that topic as it relates to The Odyssey, check out Catholic Apologist Trent Horn’s video, “Why I Refuse to See The Odyssey.”

Again, Nolan’s film is not just an artistic experiment. It is a tool for propaganda, whether he intended it to be or not. Most people who disagree with this statement do so because there were no “overtly transgender” ideas conveyed in the story.

Not only did Nolan’s casting of Ellen Page as Sinon normalize transgenderism, but it was also a middle finger to Jordan Peterson, who was suspended from Twitter for criticizing Ellen Page and not referring to her by her new identity, Elliot Page. This was prior to Elon Musk buying it and rebranding it as X. Daily Wire supported him at the time, published articles, and eventually supported him as a content creator on their platform.

It’s not just Hollywood that is attacking our cultural and religious roots; it's also educational and religious institutions. This also shouldn’t be radical since it was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is one generation away from being lost.

The pattern is clear. It’s happened in China, Poland, Russia, and now America. But we Catholics especially should not be surprised. Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised that Nolan’s film is so subversive and culturally accepted since so many other institutions are doing the same thing.

Rewriting History

Recently, on the popular Christian news podcast, The World and Everything in It, Joe Riggney discussed his experience taking his family to the Smithsonian this past summer.

Riggney visited the Smithsonian with his family, and their experience was an anti-American one. He describes the Smithsonian as a propaganda outlet for “retelling” the American story. The following is pulled from the podcast transcript:

It’s become common place to say that many of today’s culture war battles are really fights over definitions. What is a man? What is a woman? What is a citizen? But they’re also fights over history. I visited the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History with my family earlier this year, expecting to revisit the story of America’s founding. Instead, we found ourselves walking through exhibit after exhibit devoted to progressive political causes. We may not have learned much about Washington, Hamilton, nor the influence of Christianity on our nation, but we did learn that illegal aliens and vaudeville lesbians of the 19th century literally built America. 2

His anecdotal experience was confirmed by a report put out by the Trump Administration titled, “Saving America’s Story.” Riggney continues,

The report claims that progressive activists have captured the Smithsonian and are telling our history through the lens of race, gender, and sexuality instead of focusing on the nation itself. The report claims that Museum’s leadership has embraced what it calls restorative history, making social justice the organizing principle of its exhibits.

The result is striking. The pilgrims and Puritans are largely absent. The founding generation receives little sustained attention. Instead, visitors encounter exhibits celebrating illegal immigrant activism and gender ideology. Progressive causes have become the museum’s organizing story about America.3

When we consider the revisionism happening at schools, universities, and museums, we are realizing that we truly are in a new Cold War. There are two visions for America. One believes that America and its values are basically good, while the other believes that America is a force of oppression and its ideas must not remain freely represented in the world.

Now, you may be wondering, “How does this relate to Nolan’s film?” There is an answer.

Nolan’s Intentions

Most people will say that Nolan isn’t woke and that he’s just a guy who wants to make movies. He might be willing to bend the knee on a few issues to get the movie made, but in the end he’s really just an artist exploring his craft. Let’s fact-check that claim with some recent interviews he did about The Odyssey, where he explained some of his casting and writing decisions.

• Nolan admitted that his film was intended to “do away with the cultural prejudices we have when we think about the ancient world.”4

• Nolan admitted to taking a revisionist approach to certain scenes because the source material was “too misogynistic.” 5

• Multiple far-left outlets praised the Odyssey for debunking the myth of “Go woke, go broke.” We dive into them later.

• Nolan’s film is one of the first to spotlight a transgender actress — a woman who thinks she’s a man — and put her into the role of a man.

• Nolan put many different ethnicities in the film as if they are all Greeks, including Africans and Asians.

In reality, what people are missing, except for Matt Walsh and a few others, is that two things can be true at the same time. The Odyssey can be considered a cinematic masterpiece, but it’s also true that it is a devastating blow to our progress in the culture.

Whether we like it or not, just as Nigerian culture and mythology are black, so Western culture and mythology are mostly white. Stating this basic historical and cultural truth should not be controversial, but the fact that it is controversial demonstrates that Americans have become bullied into thinking they are the only ones not allowed to be proud of their country or their ancestors. But this does mean that when Christopher Nolan says that he’s going to have a woman play a man and he’s going to load up the Greek Armory in his story with every ethnicity on the planet, with the ironic exception of “Greek,” we are justified in saying, “Hey, interesting casting choice. Why are you doing that?”

The issue is not that film can’t welcome different ethnicities into a predominantly white story, or even an exclusively white story. The issue is that when you make a film like this one at a time when people are explicitly calling Whiteness a disease in media and peer-reviewed journals, then it would be foolish not to see these casting decisions as a kind of racist act. Especially considering some of the journal articles that have been published in recent years. Here is a quote from the Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association (JAPA), which is still publicly available on PubMed:

“Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility.”6

That is the first line from the abstract. Imagine if the word “whiteness” was replaced with Jewishness or Blackness and think about the cultural outrage that would occur. Returning to Hollywood, we see that this double standard is not merely in academia, but is demonstrated in other films too.

Right after The Odyssey’s opening weekend, news reached social media of a new African mythological epic set in pre-colonial Africa. The set and costumes look amazing. Images from the set and costumes revealed that, for the time being, the cast is entirely black, which makes complete sense, given the culture and heritage the director is trying to represent. Here are some screenshots:

Now imagine someone asking why there is no “white representation” in this movie, Children of Blood and Bone. People should rightly say, “Uh, because all the characters are black.”

But if this is reasonable for Children of Blood and Bone, then it shouldn’t be racist to criticize Nolan or at least question him for replacing traditional roles played traditionally by white actors with black ones.

In other words, had Nolan made his film during the 2000s, when we had comedies like White Chicks and Tropic Thunder (see image below), his film would have been criticized for his casting decisions, and his film would have flopped. Today, not only is it not possible for comedies like White Chicks and Tropic Thunder to be made due to cultural pressures, the things they mocked are now openly celebrated: women are now playing male characters unironically, and black women filling roles that are traditionally intended for white women.

If a white person says that they want to do a movie that celebrates their heritage, everyone immediately thinks of the KKK — or that amazing Chapelle skit with the blind KKK member — as if racism is the only thing white people have contributed to history.

But when Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson says that he’s honored to play Maui in the “live-action,” heavily CGI, remake of Moana, a film that represents ancient Polynesian culture, everyone ignores the fact that his heritage also has dark elements. Many tribes participated in human sacrifice and cannibalism, but we’re supposed to just accept the Disney version of these cultures, while accepting the revisionist history that ignores the sacrifices that white and black men and women made to build this country.

It’s not racist to say that the optics and the decisions of Nolan’s film are an attack on Western culture and our Judeo-Christian values. When Nolan casts a transgender woman in the role of a man and makes Odysseus’ Greek army an ad for a Democrat campaign about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), these are Marxist attacks on Western values. Note also, this is not my interpretation of the facts. This is affirmed by the woke-left’s celebration of Nolan’s decisions for casting and his revising of the story in a more anti-Western way.

Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings

I’m not going to berate people for going to see this movie. It’s Christopher Nolan, and it’s going to put butts in the theater the way that Trump puts eyeballs on the media. But while there is no moral prescription to abstain from attending this film, that doesn’t mean that your decision to do so was prudent. Just stop saying it’s not woke simply because you can’t admit that you like a woke movie.

Directors make movies for a reason; their casting decisions are intentional, not arbitrary, and Nolan made several anti-Western and anti-Christian decisions for The Odyssey. If you want to support those kinds of movies over movies like Young Washington, that’s your choice. But the facts are the facts, and as one prominent endorser of The Odyssey is fond of saying, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”

So, let us revisit some key defeats that Christians and conservatives have had in the last 10 years, leading up to this moment. Some of these are obviously related; others may not seem to be. The main point is to show that we are losing on virtually every major cultural front right now. Hopefully this helps some Christians and conservatives understand why they should be hesitant to jump on the Nolan bandwagon:

1. Charlie Kirk was killed, and all evidence appears to point to the shooter being Tyler Robinson, an individual who was a member of the trans community.

2. Before Nolan’s film, we have had multiple shootings by members of the trans community targeting private Christian schools where children were murdered.

3. Jordan Peterson was being persecuted by the Ontario governing body for psychologists, the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO), for criticizing Ellen Page and her doctor who did her “top surgery.” Here’s what he posted on Twitter: “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.” He was also suspended from Twitter (before it was X.com).

4. Academic journals have published racist peer-reviewed articles, which were later picked up by mainstream news outlets. American Psychoanalytic Association (JAPA) that “whiteness” is a disease (2020). Here’s the first line from the abstract:

   “Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility.”7

5. Feminism has spread like a cancer in this country, destroying families and leading to low fertility rates among the next generation. This is a major theme in the film.

6. In conjunction with the rise of Feminism, witchcraft and paganism have also been rising. According to an NBC opinion piece from 2022 titled “Why paganism and witchcraft are making a comeback,” Wicca found its inspiration from feminists: “Wicca began to be practiced in America in the 1960s by feminists, environmentalists and those seeking a nonstructured spirituality…”

7. Related to feminism is the decrease in our birth rate. Our birth rate is at an all-time low, while anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high. Here’s a chart to help you visualize the birth rate:

7. Matt Walsh had to move his family due to death threats. This was directly related to his work fighting the Transgenderism and DEI culture wars. But don’t worry, Nolan just undid all that.

8. In my own life, I told a friend to take a stand on trangenderism in the state of Colorado. She did, and she lost her job. Her name was Kaley Chiles, and she ended up at the Supreme Court.

For a while, it seemed like we were just going to keep losing this fight. Then Trump won the 2024 election. Executive orders were signed against the insanity of transgenderism. DEI began to be rooted out of our military. It seemed we were finally pushing back on the woke mind virus on every level.

But then Nolan made a movie, and everyone seemed to forget about the war they were in. In fact, to summarize the entire failure of the Christian and political right on this issue, one might say “they just forgot what they were fighting.”

Podcaster Hypocrisy Exposed

In one weekend, the Christian and conservative podcaster world showed that their values could be purchased for the cost of a movie ticket and a bucket of popcorn. To be clear, I’m not saying someone who has decided to go see this film is an evil person. But there is a big difference between an individual who is going to the movies for fun to see Nolan’s epic versus the cultural warriors who have told their listeners to fight woke ideology at every level of society, even if it means losing your job, your friendships, or even family. Then to tell these people to kick back and go see The Odyssey after years of lectures on being uncompromising feels jolting. For example, Michael Knowles said this at a CPAC speech in 2023:

The problem with transgenderism is that its acceptance at any level necessarily entails the complete destruction of women’s bathrooms, women’s sports, all of the specific rights and spaces that women currently enjoy. There can be no middle way in dealing with transgenderism.

— Michael Knowles, CPAC Speech, March 4th, 2023 (emphasis mine).

It should be surprising that the man who made that statement is the same guy who told his audience they should go see The Odyssey, the biggest film to affirm and normalize transgenderism to date.

Nolan is so good at making films that no one can resist him. Nolan has somehow, without making a single argument, completely flipped the script on the conservative movement’s resilience to transgenderism, DEI quotas, and racism. Our experience this weekend should show that great art can be great propaganda.

But before I list off those who compromised their values, read more of the infamous CPAC speech from Michael Knowles, a trad Catholic by the way:

There can be no “middle way” in dealing with transgenderism. It’s all or nothing. If transgenderism is true — if men really can become women and women really can become men — then it is true for everybody of all ages. If transgenderism is false, as it is — if men and women really are different, as we are — then it is false for everybody too. And if it is false, then we should not indulge it, especially since that indulgence requires taking away the rights and customs of so many people. If it is false, then for the good of society and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion, “transgenderism” must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.

— Michael Knowles, CPAC, 2023

With that top of mind, consider the following list of top cultural conservatives who have endorsed The Odyssey:

• Michael Knowles - Endorsed it, and then proceeded to say it was full of modern woke ideologies and subtexts. Towards the end, he tries to justify it with some psychological analysis, Nolan being Odysseus in real life.8

• Ben Shapiro - Said it was a “Masterpiece,” and that you’re missing out if you don’t go and see it. 9

• Jonathan Pageau - close friend of Jordan Peterson, argued that it was the most “meta” thing he had seen and that conservatives were dead wrong about the film.10

• Michael Brendan Doughtry - Writer for the National Review, penned a piece titled “Open Mind on Nolan’s The Odyssey” in which he argued that people were jumping to conclusions and then later penned another one saying “The Odyssey Is Going to Be a Smash.”

• Spencer Klavan - Although his relation to Andrew Klavan is disputed, he has published several reviews to various news outlets: “Nolan’s gorgeous ‘Odyssey’ makes the controversies evaporate,” “What Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ Leaves Out,” and “There Is Good and Evil. Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ Isn’t Afraid to Say So.”

• Dave Rubin - Former liberal from far-left show, the Young Turks, posted to X.com, saying “The Odyssey was an absolute masterpiece.”

It’s a long list, and it’s only getting longer. But we should have known. After all, Michael Knowles told us that this is the norm for conservatives.

Transgenderism did not even exist as a political issue until about eight years ago when Barack Obama and some liberals in North Carolina proposed this lunacy through military policy and bathroom ordinances…

And then a handful of devoted, radical left-wing activists pushed relentlessly to normalize this crazy notion. The craziest part is that now many conservatives want to meet them halfway. But there is no meeting halfway between truth and falsehood, between reality and delusion. There is no neutrality either. We are either gaining ground or losing ground. Meeting the liberals halfway will always take us all the way down their road to perdition in the long run. That’s the story of the last 50 years.

— Michael Knowles, CPAC, March 2023

Michael probably didn’t realize that he would be talking about himself in two years. Jonathan Pageau was an ARC speaker this year, an event about preserving and fighting for Western ideas and values. In his excitement, he even began to refer to Ellen Page by her male name, “Elliot,” during his review of the film. He even used the full range of male pronouns in referring to her — he/him/his. He later apologized and admitted that he slipped, but that only proves the Nolan Effect is real.

At this point, one might ask, “So what. Are you saying that we can’t just go to the theater and enjoy a good movie?”

Why Nolan’s Trojan Horse Matters

Our country is sitting on a time bomb. On the left, they are being overrun by a cultural Marxist revolution that has entrenched itself at virtually every level of our society. Trump has only delayed its progress. Nolan has proven that the march through the institutions continues, and the conservatives who gave his film glowing reviews without any consideration for its negative impact on the culture have evidenced that the left still controls the arts.

On the right, there is a growing number of disenfranchised conservatives who feel that their country does not care about their future or their history. The left cannot stop the rise of Communist and Marxist ideas on their side, and cultural conservatives on the right who fail to live up to their own principles will only lead young nihilists to seek more radical and conspiratorial voices. If Ben Shapiro and company want to keep people from listening to Candace, they need to understand that suffering people will gravitate to those who appear to be suffering for what they believe, even if what they are suffering for is morally reprehensible.

The Catholic Bishop, Venerable Fulton Sheen, soon to be beatified, said

Communism offers a secular version of the Christian doctrine of sacrifice. It announces that self-denial, purges, liquidation, the violence of revolution are needed before man can enter into a new kind of heaven upon earth. Communism has found many who subscribe to it — not because its teachings are true, but because men had wearied of the milk-and-water Liberalism which new no evil wikced enough to condemn and no good high enough to be worth dying for.11

In a recent speech, Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed the slow tolerance of left-wing violence that has spread through America. In this speech,12 he compares the violence of neo-Nazis to that of Marxist revolutionaries, but explains that our think tanks and fellowships tend to think of the bombs, “planted by a Marxist revolutionary…” as merely “a tragic excess of idealism. Perhaps its means were misplaced or overzealous, but its ends were virtuous and just. That’s the implication of how they treat it.” He continued by explaining how the West has come to tolerate ideological violence from the left, when both violence from the left and right should be equally condemned.

For years, this extraordinary ideological prejudice was embedded in the way we talked about political violence and extremism. It was repeated again and again, until it was accepted as the neutral and objective baseline, so entrenched – so entrenched in the mainstream conventional wisdom that it came to be regarded as an apolitical fact. It is the reason why, here in my country, so many people in positions of power have repeatedly dismissed acts of violence and even terrorism as legitimate forms of political expression so long as they served a left-wing cause.

— Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, July 2026

The reason why Nolan’s movie matters is because it comes at a time when Americans and Europeans are being crushed on either side.

Dostoyevsky said, “Beauty will save the world.” One of the most important aspects of beauty is its ability to radically change the beliefs of people. It does this without firing a shot and without making an argument. It just shows you.

A clear example in which this was done for good was Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. That movie saved souls because of its beauty and authentic telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. People were interviewed after the movie weeping at the thought of Christ dying for them, some of them not even Christian.

If beauty in the right hands — preferably nail-pierced ones — can save the world, then beauty in the wrong hands will destroy it. Art is a weapon used by both God and man in the war for men’s souls. It’s far greater than logic or reason, precisely because it can, like Christ, walk through the locked door of our minds and pierce our hearts, for good or for ill. Perhaps this is why, regarding his own films, Nolan has said, “Don’t try to understand it, just feel it.”

Nolan has proven himself to be someone who can wield beauty to tell a story in profound and powerful ways that actually change the way that culture thinks about the world and their own culture. One of the clearest examples of this ability was demonstrated when Nolan decided that he was going to tell the story of Bruce Wayne in the Dark Knight trilogy.

One might argue that Marvel’s cinematic universe is indebted to Nolan because he widened the audience’s range of “suspension of belief” — the idea that there is a limited tolerance among audiences for how much of the “fantastic” they are willing to accept before they find the story absurd. Whether Nolan intended to or not, his Batman films completely changed how people saw heroes on the big screen.

What Nolan did with the Dark Knight completely changed the audience’s perception, not only of Batman, but their boundaries of belief. It’s this “Nolan Effect” that proves that he is not a normal director.

His films change the way people think about ideas, people, and cultures. Nolan’s films are one of the few shared cultural moments our society has left, and Nolan just decided to use his latest film as a beautiful but woke atom bomb that will, whether he intended it to or not, resurrect the DEI, Transgender, and neo-feminist ideologies that have been ripping our American and European countries apart. It’s this “Nolan Effect” that makes The Odyssey so dangerous.

— DR

Do Protestants and Catholics Live the Same Way?

Catherine of Siena had a deep love for sinners and those fallen away from the Church. She also had little doubt about who was on their way to hell and who was not. One thing Protestants and Catholics can agree on is that if you don’t know who Jesus is, you might get into heaven on an exception, but your chances are a lot higher if you have the chance to put your faith in Him.

Another saint is St. Brigette of Sweden, who, prior to St. Catharine, attempted to get multiple Popes to return to Rome, rather than remain in Avignon out of fear. These two saints were very loving and firm in their preaching; they were even willing to warn Popes about the consequences of sin and the risk of eternal separation.

But since coming into the Church, I can assure you that apparent inconsistencies and heavily nuanced arguments around Catholic-Protestant beliefs are some of the big reasons many Catholics don’t evangelize, and why many Protestants presume that there is no salvific reason to consider Catholicism. The former thinks they need to be some scholar to tell someone they should be Catholic, while the latter looks at the scholars and says, “They told me to just follow my conscience; I guess I’m alright.”

For example, Trent Horn will say that Protestants and Catholics basically live their moral lives the same way. He proposes the idea that if we were to set up security cameras and spy on a devout Catholic and a devout Protestant, we would probably find that they live their lives the same way.

Trent Horn is a favorite apologist of mine. If you know a little about my story, you know his books are excellent, and I continue to recommend them. But his approach to evangelism reminds me of what evangelicals would call “seeker-friendly” evangelism. That is, downplaying the consequences of rejecting Christianity in favor of emphasizing its truth, goodness, and beauty. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with this approach, but it can sometimes be overused.

For example, Trent has said that Protestants and Catholics basically live their moral lives the same way. He proposes the idea that if we were to set up security cameras and spy on a devout Catholic and a devout Protestant, we would probably find that they live their lives the same way.

WATCH:1

In many areas, this is true: prayer, devotions, going to Church, etc. But in morality, I don’t think we can say that Protestants and Catholics teach or live the same way. As a Protestant, I would have denied this. But now, as a Catholic, I have to say that modern Protestantism has produced some of the worst and morally questionable books on marital relations in a Christian context. Even many evangelical pastors and influencers are preaching that sins like masturbation, oral sex, and even the more extreme forms of sodomy are considered licit in the Christian marital chamber.

I knew that these things were affirmed in some circles of Protestantism because one of my textbooks for ethics affirmed some of them. But I assumed it was only fringe groups. When I became Catholic, I started listening to Trent Horn’s channel even more (I highly recommend it) and was shocked to find out how prevalent the belief is that “consent” is the only criterion for whether or not something is morally licit in marital intimacy.

DISCLAIMER: The following videos for this segment get into sexual ethics and marriage. If you have kids in the room, don’t play videos that say “WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING”2

Here is a clip where Trent explains that, according to the Catholic Church, masturbation is a grave sin, but he has a problem with the fact that many Protestants condone this activity within the marriage bed.

WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING:

Trent argues that these Protestants are leading people into sin. But just a moment ago, we saw that Trent made the case to Allie that Protestants and Catholics basically live their life the same. So which is it? Can Protestants commit these sins of masturbation without risk to their soul, or does Protestant theology lead to some pretty insane moral frameworks?

In the next clip, Trent demonstrates that Protestants are willing to go even further on the topic of sodomy within the marriage bed.

WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING:

I won’t post another video on this topic, but even in Trent’s most recent debate with Ryan from NeedGod.Net, this topic of sodomy between married couples came up in the context of eternal security and salvation. Trent was arguing that people could lose their salvation by committing these actions, and the Protestant, Ryan, would not concede the point that Christians would be risking their salvation in doing so. Even from a Calvinist perspective, you could at least say “They were never saved to begin with.” Still, Ryan would not concede. Wild….

For the record, Trent crushed it. There is a link in the footnotes. It is easily one of the best debates I’ve seen on Eternal Security and why it is so dangerous. You can find the full debate in the footnotes.3

At the end of this debate, it seemed clear to me that Trent was scandalized by the brazen attitude that Christians could commit murder and sexual immorality, with no eternal consequence. Considering that the Church condemns these as grave sins, it was obvious that, to Trent, the reason this debate was important was because of the potential damnation souls might experience; assuming Catholicism is true, Ryan would be leading and encouraging people to go to hell.

In reality, those outside the Church not only don’t have the sacraments, but they also don’t have the teachings of the Church to protect them from committing acts of grave sin. The gravity of the sin is the first precondition to a mortal sin — sin that, if unrepented of, will lead to damnation. Some Protestants want to bet their salvation that there is no way one could lose their salvation, but this, ironically, is not a safe bet since that doctrine is held by a very small and novel minority.

But if, according to Trent Horn, Protestants and Catholics basically live the same life morally and believe the same truths, then why is he warning Protestants about prominent figures in evangelicalism promoting grave sins? I suspect it is because he believes that these Protestants, being outside the Church, are more prone to the fires of hell since they are promoting and engaging in sins that the Church considers eligible for mortal sin.

But I don’t think these contexts would be as confusing if Trent had never taken the step of endorsing Protestants who actually teach heresies that lead to immoral frameworks and a rejection of the Church. But when we present individuals that preach against our denomination and its teachings as contrary to scripture and the gospel, and then turn around and say those preachers’ teachings are dangerous, it can feel like Catholics don’t actually know what they believe or are just unwilling to give a straightforward, common-sense answer.

— DR

Thanks for reading. This excerpt came from the long-form article: Can We Go Too Far With Ecumenicism? In it, I discuss how presenting anti-Catholic influencers as preaching the same teachings as Catholic ones only leads to apathy on the Catholic side and confusion on the Protestant side. Enjoy.

I sympathize with Protestants who look at the Catholic Church and assume that they are safer outside of the Church than they are within it, because many Catholic apologists will say one thing and do another. For example, saying that we need a magisterium because heretics are smart and persuasive and can lead souls to hell, but then posting videos promoting Protestants who explicitly say to Catholics, “Leave the Catholic Church,” is understandably confusing for the sincere Protestant trying to understand what is at stake if they choose not to become Catholic.

Consider Allie Beth Stuckey. She is a prominent Protestant podcaster. She has a view that the Church teaches a false gospel as well, and has had guests who come on her show, like ex-Catholic Mike Grendon, whose ministry is to get people to leave the Catholic Church and embrace the Gospel of Biblical Christianity.

In Allie’s conversation from 2025 on Catholicism with Catholic apologist Trent Horn, she borders on accusing Catholics of committing the sin of necromancy because of the Church’s teachings on the intercession of the saints. But none of this stopped Trent from endorsing her as an evangelist that Christians should “listen to and learn from.” Disclaimer: I think Trent is one of the best Catholic apologists, and I have not read a book of his I would not recommend.

To be clear, I’m not worried if Catholics and Protestants listen to Allie’s show; she is an incredible cultural warrior and ally on many moral issues shared by both Catholics and Protestants, especially on bioethics. But giving an endorsement based on the idea that we have so much in common that the substantial and “real” differences we have are not a potential risk to someone’s soul breeds confusion among both Protestants and Catholics.

It causes Catholics to think there is no reason to evangelize someone to swim the Tiber, and it leaves Protestants thinking there are no seriously dangerous heresies within their ranks. I say “seriously dangerous” because most Protestants consider the fact that they could have a heresy in their doctrine a humble feature of their institutional dogmas, not a bug.

Furthermore, if Catholicism is true, then Protestants necessarily are preaching a heretical form of Christianity to varying degrees. You can find a lot of saints who were very firm in their condemnation of heretics and the dangers they posed to the salvation of the faithful. Consider this quote from around the year 100 A.D. about the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus, and those who denied it being a danger to themselves and the Church.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ…Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes…It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.1

There are a lot of factors that keep one from seriously wrestling with Catholicism, but our rhetoric around the Gospel and salvation, in my experience, can certainly contribute to that confusion and apathy. Even Fulton Sheen said that people were leaving the faith, not because it was too hard, but because it had become too soft. Having been confused on the other side of the Tiber, I think that Sheen’s quote has continued into our time.

For example, consider the following clip of Allie Beth Stuckey from 2023 when she did a debate on The Daily Wire with Candace Owen’s husband, George Farmer.

Allie said,

Of course, I would just want to know what is the gospel and what do you think it takes to be saved? Because if someone tells me, “Well, it takes this, this, and this as a part of the Catholic Church to be saved,” well, then we’re both going to disagree. We’re both going to think the other one is not saved.

After that clip, Trent makes an argument based on the meaning of the word “gospel” and scripture.

WATCH:

Trent Horn is the one critiquing Allie’s responses. He argued that scripture never explicitly defines the gospel. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 as the closest description. He draws a distinction between the story of Christ’s life and the teachings about how to receive the graces that come from Christ’s life. The latter is what the Church teaches is required for salvation, and that those who knowingly reject this do so at their own risk.2

I don’t disagree with Trent here, and he’s right to clarify in contrast to Allie’s view. However, Protestants, like Allie and Wes Huff (Wes is addressed in the full version of this article), would argue that faith alone is part of the Gospel. Trent appears to be reading his definition of the Gospel into the definition held and promulgated by hostile Protestants like Allie and Wes. Why? I’m not sure.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this strategy because you might be trying to show common ground, but it seems to me that Trent has taken it too far when he starts endorsing these Protestants as the exemplars of Christian evangelism when they are evangelizing that people leave the Church. After all, how many pastors do you know who would endorse an evangelist who regularly called out your pastor’s church for preaching a false gospel and told that your pastor’s congregants to find a different church to join?

If Protestants say, “We preach a different gospel than Rome, and our gospel is the true one!” We should not, as Catholics, say, “We agree on the first part about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, so it’s basically the same thing.” If Protestants tell you their gospel is different, believe them. If they are willing to argue that Rome is heretical on their paradigm, then we should ensure we don’t give the impression that there is no difference between what the Church teaches and what they teach.

— DR

Thanks for reading.

This is an excerpt from a much longer article on ecumenicism titled: Can We Go Too Far With Ecumenicism: A Friendly Critique of Trent Horn’s Recent Videos. You can read the full article for free by clicking the link below.

Leave a comment

Can we go too far with ecumenical dialogue? I think that the answer is “Yes.” To be clear, I’m not talking about the Catholic priests out there who say Christians should celebrate gay pride in order to reach the LGBTQ+ community. This would be an obvious and blatant example of ecumenicism going too far.

I think that we can go too far with ecumenicism in our Catholic-Protestant dialogues. When Catholics over-emphasize the positive qualities of their Protestant brethren, who these same Catholics believe hold to heretical and even damnable beliefs about the teachings of Christianity, I think we are creating more confusion than we are understanding.

Maybe I’m just settling into being a Catholic (coming up on three years), but I’ve noticed some Catholics being inconsistent on what they think the risks of being a non-Catholic are. On the one hand, non-Catholics, specifically Protestants, teach some very dangerous morals and heresies. Take your pick of Protestantism. Regardless of the one you pick, they all have at least one formal teaching that is condemned and could potentially lead their followers into heresy, schism, or both. On the other hand, you have Catholic apologists like Trent Horn endorsing prominent Protestant evangelists in their evangelism of the Gospel. While Trent is consistent here based on a technicality, I’m reminded of the quote from the character Sir Thomas More in the film A Man for All Seasons, who says,

The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.

Sometimes, I think that our ecumenicism can be like this. Technically, we are not saying anything wrong or in error, but we forget that we are preaching to a world that will judge our content according to their wits, not according to the law. That said, I think all the Catholic Apologists out there are doing a really good job. That’s obvious considering the number of people, including myself, who have decided to swim the Tiber. This is just more of a critical questioning that is hoping to foster dialogue and clarity around the way we should engage ecumenically and the rhetoric we select in doing so.

Are Protestants True Evangelists?

If the Catholic Church and her saints have argued that the Eucharist is the “food of immortality” and that it is essential to persevering in the life of grace, then it follows that those who preach the opposite could not be considered evangelists in the sense that Catholics ought to mean it.

For example, Trent Horn, one of my favorite apologists on the internet, recently posted a video titled “The Best Living Evangelists.” In it, he proposed that there were three criteria for being considered:

1. Fruit of the Spirit

2. Bold Proclamation

3. Influence or Reach

But it seemed that “Preaches the Truth” should have been a requirement. If Catholics really do believe, as Trent does, that merely believing in Jesus is not enough to be saved, then the Protestants who do preach this cannot be true evangelists on Catholic teaching. But if Protestants are preaching the truth by simply trying to get people to have a “belief” in Jesus alone, then Trent and the Catholic Answers team should pack it in because Protestants and Catholics don’t have any meaningful disagreement.

As I said, Trent is one of my favorite apologists, so my critique here is more of a disagreement in strategy than I would say a disagreement in content. As a regular watcher and reader of his content, it seems to me that he may be spreading himself too thin rhetorically and opening himself up for easy wins from his Protestant opponents. That doesn’t mean I’m going to take it easy on him. But I hope that this is seen as an “iron sharpens iron” article, not one of antagonism or attack.

For those who might think this is too harsh, there is a list of recommended books from Trent on Catholicism that helped me become Catholic in the footnotes.1 If Trent responds, that would be awesome. What would be even better is if we could have a conversation. Who knows, maybe someone who knows him will see this and share it with him. But until providence shines on me with such grace and fortune, I’m going to share my thoughts here and on my podcast in the hope that more dialogue on the subject between Protestants and Catholics occurs.

As one of my favorite soon-to-be Catholic saints said,

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing”

— Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen

To be clear, I think that ecumencial dialog is great, but I don’t think it’s great in itself. The “ecumenical” harvest we find ourselves in can be extremely fruitful as we are really making headway in recognizing our shared beliefs, but if our theological differences were actually “just differences” or matters of Christian preference, then I would have never become Catholic. Ultimately, Protestants and Catholics are trying to convert each other, and if we deny that, then both end up in a kind of indifferentism.

My Critique of Trent

Did I mention that Trent was one of my favorite apologists? Great!

Recently, Trent Horn posted a series of videos engaging with Protestants on this question, and the more specific question, “Do Protestants need to become Catholic to go to heaven?” (I plan to respond to this next week) But before those videos came out, he posted a video (mentioned above) called “The Best Living Evangelists.”

On the male side, Trent nominated Fr. Mike Schmitz (Catholic) and Wes Huff (Protestant). On the female side, the nominations were Lila Rose (Catholic) and Allie Beth Stuckey (Protestant).

So you don’t have to scroll up to the top; recall that his criteria were the following:

1. Fruit of the Spirit

2. Bold Proclamation

3. Influence or Reach

As I mentioned, truthful preaching was not part of the criteria, and I think that is problematic. Especially since throughout the video, Trent seems to condemn Protestants like Joel Osteen for preaching a false Gospel. Trent has argued that the Gospel is not defined in scripture and that it’s simply the “paschal mystery,” which is essentially just telling people about who Jesus was and why he came, i.e., Jesus was God, died for your sins, and rose again.

I think this video is problematic for several reasons. First, Allie and Wes, as we will see, do not accept the idea that the Gospel is merely preaching the life of Jesus. Secondly, Allie and Wes are, theologically speaking, extremely hostile to the Catholic Church. They have frequently argued that Catholics must leave the Church if they are “mature” Christians and want to believe the “Biblical Gospel.” For example, take a look at this clip from a video — “6 Reasons why I’m not Roman Catholic” — that Wes posted a week before Trent’s video came out.2

Some might argue that Trent was unaware of Wes’s video, but Trent was aware because he referenced it in the “Best Evangelists” video. Additionally, Trent was already preparing to respond to Wes’s video because two days later, Trent dropped the video responding to Wes’s 6-point argument. In his “Why I’m not Catholic” video, Wes goes on to condemn the Mass as contradictory to the Gospel.

WATCH:

Trent “nominating” Wes Huff as one of the best “living evangelists” gives the impression that Wes and Trent are preaching the same thing about salvation. In one sense they are, because they both preach about several necessary truths: God’s existence, the Resurrection, and even some moral truths. However, Trent has written a book titled Salvation is From the Church: How Christ Uses the Church to Bring Us to Him, in which the actual title shows what Trent thinks Protestants need to know about salvation that is missing from their understanding of the Gospel. Wes just told Catholics not only that salvation does not come from the Church, but that if a Catholic wants the true gospel, they need to leave the Church that Trent believes is necessary for salvation. How then can a Catholic apologist knowingly endorse a Protestant who is so adamantly opposed to the Catholic Church? Especially when apologists frequently cite the existence of people like Wes Huff (intelligent, articulate, friendly, and heretical) as the reason we need the Church so that we don’t fall into heresy and risk our souls.

Catholics: “We Preach the Same Gospel”; Protestants: “No, We Don’t”

I sympathize with Protestants who look at the Catholic Church and assume that they are safer outside of the Church than they are within it, because many Catholic apologists will say one thing and do another. For example, saying that we need a magisterium because heretics are smart and persuasive and can lead souls to hell, but then posting videos promoting Protestants who explicitly say to Catholics, “Leave the Catholic Church,” is understandably confusing for the sincere Protestant trying to understand what is at stake if they choose not to become Catholic.

Like Wes Huff, Allie Beth Stuckey is also problematic. She has a view that the Church teaches a false gospel as well, and has had guests who come on her show, like ex-Catholic Mike Grendon, whose ministry is to get people to leave the Catholic Church and embrace the Gospel of Biblical Christianity.

In Allie’s conversation from 2025 with Trent on Catholicism, she borders on accusing Catholics of committing the sin of necromancy because of the Church’s teachings on the intercession of the saints. But none of this stopped Trent from endorsing her as an evangelist that Christians should “listen to and learn from.”

To be clear, I’m not worried if Catholics and Protestants listen to her; she is an incredible cultural warrior and ally on many moral issues. Giving an endorsement based on the idea that we have so much in common that the substantial and “real” differences we have are not potentially a risk to someone’s soul breeds confusion among both Protestants and Catholics. Furthermore, you can find a lot of saints who were very firm in their condemnation of heretics and the dangers they posed to the salvation of the faithful.

Consider this quote from around the year 100 A.D. about the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus, and those who denied it being a danger to themselves and the Church.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ…Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes…It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.3

Protestants like Wes Huff and other academics have argued that the Catholicism of today just doesn’t seem to look like the Catholicism of history. Some Catholic apologists think these Protestants object to the development of doctrine. But I think when one reads the language and writings of saints, you see a courage and unwavering attitude for the truth that is lacking in modern Catholic-Protestant discourse. Even Fulton Sheen said that people were leaving the faith, not because it was too hard, but because it had become too soft.

There are a lot of factors that keep one from seriously wrestling with Catholicism, but our rhetoric around the Gospel and salvation, in my experience, can certainly contribute to that confusion and apathy.

For example, consider the following clip of Allie Beth Stuckey from 2023 when she did a debate on The Daily Wire with Candace Owen’s husband, George Farmer.

Allie said,

Of course, I would just want to know what is the gospel and what do you think it takes to be saved? Because if someone tells me, “Well, it takes this, this, and this as a part of the Catholic Church to be saved,” well, then we’re both going to disagree. We’re both going to think the other one is not saved.

After that clip, Trent makes an argument based on the meaning of the word “gospel” and scripture.

WATCH:

Trent argued that scripture never explicitly defines the gospel. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 as the closest description. He draws a distinction between the story of Christ’s life and the teachings about how to receive the graces that come from Christ’s life. The latter is what the Church teaches is required for salvation, and that those who knowingly reject this do so at their own risk.4

I don’t disagree with Trent here, and he’s right to clarify in contrast to Allie’s view. However, Protestants, like Allie and Wes, would argue that faith alone is part of the Gospel. Trent appears to be reading his definition of the Gospel into the definition held and promulgated by hostile Protestants. Why? I’m not sure. I don’t necessarily disagree with this strategy because you're trying to show common ground, but it seems to me that Trent has taken it too far when he starts endorsing these Protestants as the exemplars of Christian evangelism when they are evangelizing that people leave your Church. After all, how many pastors do you know who would endorse an evangelist who regularly called out that pastor’s church for preaching a false gospel and told that pastor’s congregants to find a different church to join?

If Protestants say, “We preach a different gospel than Rome, and our gospel is the true one!” We should not, as Catholics, say, “We agree on the first part about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection, so it’s basically the same thing.” If Protestants tell you their gospel is different, believe them. If they are willing to argue that Rome is heretical on their paradigm, then we should ensure we don’t give the impression that there is no difference between what the Church teaches and what they teach.

Do Protestants and Catholics Live the Same Way?

That previous point is especially important since the Catholic Church teaches that it is a grave sin to leave the Church. Which is precisely what Wes and Allie constantly promote and preach. Saints throughout history have always been loving of those outside the Church, but they also recognized the dangers of heretics. We saw this earlier with Ignatius of Antioch, who told his recipients that they should avoid people who denied the Eucharist.

Catharine of Sienna is another saint who had a deep love for sinners and those fallen away from the Church, and who also had no doubts about who was on their way to hell and who was not. Another is St. Brigette of Sweden, who, before St. Catharine, attempted to get multiple Popes to return to Rome, rather than remain in Avignon out of fear. These saints were very loving and firm in their preaching; they were even willing to warn Popes about the consequences of sin and the risk of eternal separation.

Now, listen to this clip from Wes Huff and ask yourself how Ignatius or Catharine of Sienna would have responded to, not Wes himself as a person, but the message that Wes is preaching.

WATCH:

Note the “I reject that…I reject that…I reject that…” This is harsh language according to my understanding of Catholic teaching. Wes does not appear ignorant of the Church’s teachings or the arguments that the Church might make in response. In other words, it’s safe to say that Wes is not invincibly ignorant. A Catholic is going to find it difficult to argue that Wes is simply rejecting the Catholic Church out of ignorance, maybe in error, but even here it’s unlikely since he was lauded as not misrepresenting the faith egregiously. This argument is going to be especially difficult to make when exceptional Catholic apologists like Joe Heschmeyer (another apologist I would recommend) have credited Wes with having “one of the best” and most charitable “Why I am not Catholic” videos they have seen — something with which I certainly agree.

But since coming into the Church, I can assure you that apparent inconsistencies and heavily nuanced arguments around Catholic-Protestant beliefs are some of the big reasons many Catholics don’t evangelize, and why many Protestants presume that there is no salvific reason to consider Catholicism. The former thinks they need to be some scholar to tell someone they should be Catholic, while the latter looks at the scholars and says, “They told me to just follow my conscience; I guess I’m alright.”

For example, Trent Horn will say that Protestants and Catholics basically live their moral lives the same way. He proposes the idea that if we were to set up security cameras and spy on a devout Catholic and a devout Protestant, we would probably find that they live their lives the same way.

WATCH:5

But then Trent will do a response video to the horrible sexual ethics that Protestants teach.

DISCLAIMER: The following videos for this segment get into sexual ethics and marriage. If you have kids in the room, don’t play videos that say “WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING”6

Here is a clip where Trent explains that, according to the Catholic Church, masturbation is a grave sin, but he has a problem with the fact that many Protestants condone this activity within the marriage bed.

WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING:

Trent argues that these Protestants are leading people into sin. But just a moment ago, we saw that Trent made the case to Allie that Protestants and Catholics basically live their life the same. So which is it? Can Protestants commit these sins of masturbation without risk to their soul, or does Protestant theology lead to some pretty insane moral frameworks?

In the next clip, Trent demonstrates that Protestants are willing to go even further on the topic of sodomy within the marriage bed.

WATCH: LANGUAGE WARNING:

I won’t post another video on this topic, but even in Trent’s most recent debate with Ryan from NeedGod.Net, this topic of sodomy between married couples came up in the context of eternal security and salvation. Trent was arguing that people could lose their salvation by committing these actions, and the Protestant, Ryan, would not concede the point that Christians would be risking their salvation in doing so. Even from a Calvinist perspective, you could at least say “They were never saved to begin with.” But Ryan would not concede. Wild….For the record, Trent crushed it. There is a link in the footnotes. It is easily one of the best debates I’ve seen on Eternal Security and why it is so dangerous.7

At the end of this debate, it seemed clear to me that Trent was scandalized by the brazen attitude that Christians could commit murder and sexual immorality, with no eternal consequence. Considering that the Church condemns these as grave sins, it was obvious that, to Trent, the reason this debate was important was because of the souls; assuming Catholicism is true, Ryan would be leading and encouraging them to go to hell.

In reality, those outside the Church not only don’t have the sacraments, but they also don’t have the teachings of the Church to protect them from committing acts of grave sin, which is the first precondition to a mortal sin — sin that, if unrepented of, will lead to damnation. This seems to be Trent’s actual position, but it seems to get lost in different contexts.

But I don’t think these contexts would be as confusing if he had never taken the step of endorsing Protestants who actually teach heresies that lead to immoral frameworks and a rejection of the Church. Had he never made the video endorsing these Protestants, I think everyone would reasonably presume that he was tailoring his responses to those specific contexts for evangelistic and prudential reasons. But when we present individuals that preach against our denomination and its teachings as contrary to scripture and the gospel, and then turn around and say those preachers’ teachings are dangerous, it can feel like Catholics don’t actually know what they believe or are just unwilling to give a straightforward, common-sense answer.

Closing Thoughts

Trent and the other Catholic apologists are doing incredible work. I’m not offering this critique because I’m an expert on Catholic apologetics and evangelism. Instead, I’m offering it as a hearer who finds himself confused, along with my Protestant friends and family, when trying to figure out what some of these apologists are saying.

Second, these apologists, like Trent, have years of videos. If I had published videos two times a week on my YouTube channel for as long as Trent has, I’m sure that others would be able to use AI to find and clip the videos to reveal some holes in my presentations too. That’s why I don’t see this as an argument against Trent, but a demonstration of the fact that sometimes we can be overly precise and nuanced in our rhetoric, creating more confusion than understanding. Trent just happened to be the guy I listened to the most, and so, unfortunately, he was the easiest to critique. But he’s not the only one who has unintentionally caused confusion in ecumenical dialogues.

I have also seen this kind of rhetoric at ecumenical events where the vibe feels like we are there to just mingle and chat, rather than discuss the stakes of being wrong about the Church you submit to. I’ve also met Catholics who have told me that many Catholics chose not to evangelize because they were worried that sharing the Gospel with someone would remove their ignorance and make them culpable for the non-Catholics rejection of the Gospel, thereby damning the person they were trying to save.

These ideas come from the false belief that ignorance is just as probable a way of salvation as submission to the Church. I would argue that our rhetoric and “soft” nuances are a major reason we have confusion on this issue. Yes, many are coming into the Church, but are they coming into the Church with an understanding of what is at stake, what they will have to defend to those who disagree with their decision?

When I finished OCIA with my wife and the deacon assigned to our class, on the last day, the deacon said, “Now, just know that you are culpable if you reject this.” The implication was that I was no longer ignorant of the teachings of the Church and that to reject what they had instructed me on could lead to eternal consequences. He was not judging me. He was simply looking at the spiritual symptoms based on his human understanding of Church teaching and the young couple in front of him and making a judgment, not a condemnation. I’m grateful he did this because it reminded a theological nerd like me why we investigate and seek God on these matters. It’s because we want to hear the words, “Well done.”

We as Christians must taste the grace of God and be so changed that we not only want to save other people, but that we want them to experience the love of God in the most radical way possible this side of heaven, which is only possible in the sacraments. The reality is that, as long as one is outside the Church, they are missing out, not just on the assurance of salvation the sacraments give, but on the intimacy with God that is only found in His Church, His sacraments, and His saints.

Yes, God is not bound by the sacraments, but all Catholics must recognize that it’s safer within those sacraments precisely because they are the ordinary means of salvation. My main point here is that if we emphasize the exceptions over the ordinary ways of salvation, or we emphasize the kindness of heretics to the obscurity of their errors, we will create confusion and apathy among both the faithful and the lost.

That doesn’t mean we “go Rambo” and “hell, fire, and brimstone” on a person, but we do have to recognize that becoming Catholic is a sacrifice that has real cost, and that remaining outside the assurance and confidence in the Church also has real cost. But, having been on both sides of the Tiber, the best way to sum up this wager is the way my confirmation sponsor did before I came into the Church: “You’re gonna lose a lot, but you will gain so much more!”

— DR

Leave a comment

Regardless, my friend crushed it in this interview about his conversion to the Catholic Church. He grew up Baptist, as did I, and then got into the Charismatic movement. Did some crazy stuff — you gotta listen! But Chase is incredibly thoughtful in his approach to theological issues. He’s one of those rare intellectuals who always recognizes the close connection between the head and the heart when he is talking about his faith. I hope you take the time to listen to a little bit of his story.

God Bless

Watch:

The future is here, and it’s insane!

But the future may not be here for you…yet. If you’re not in computer software or robotics, you probably don’t realize that there are major movements happening in the technology space that are going to drastically shift our economy, politics, morality, and religion. That’s why most people are downplaying the technological revolution we are now living through.

My day job is writing code, or at least it used to be. At the end of 2025, AI seemed like it had flatlined in its capabilities. Then I received a LinkedIn article about how AI had made a major improvement in coding, and I decided to give it another shot. The results were unreal.

The work I was doing was immediately enhanced. Gaps in my knowledge were immediately filled, my rate of code production was higher than ever, and developing a solution for technological problems was a breeze. If social media notifications are a dopamine drip, then this was a dopamine fire hose. But as with all the highs, there was a major crash.

The crash came when I realized that I was not actually producing anything with my skills, but with prompts and knowledge. It became clear that before AI, I was the driver and the computer was the car. Now, AI was the driver, and I was just a passenger. Technology had gotten to the point where our experience with it was going to be just like Google Maps. I know where I need to go, but I can’t remember how to get there. Good thing I have my Google Maps, or else I’d be in an interesting situation.

Of course, optimists will object, “But you still have the knowledge that makes the AI build what you need.” Which was convincing for a while, until you realize that we are quickly moving towards something called Recursive-Self-Improvement (RSI), which is just a fancy word for saying, “Technology that improves itself,” not technology that merely fixes or maintains itself. We are closer to this than you think. Watch:

This will not replace all jobs, but it will significantly reduce the number of jobs that are needed in a given industry. AI optimists will say that we are going to have more work to do than we can fulfill. Which means that for most people, definitely not all, you are either going to be without a job or we are going to have to take a job where you’re worked to the bone. Neither option is particularly great.

Similar promises were made about the computer. You’ll have a four-day work week because so much is going to get done. But, of course, computers did create more work for us to do, in fact, more than we could handle. So, we ended up going remote, and now we are at our company’s beckon call 24/7. When they no longer need you, they just send you an email and lock you out of the system.

The obvious difference between the computers that promised a 4-day work week is that the computers were not coding or manufacturing themselves. RSI was only in movies, and the process to attain it had already worked itself out in the fictional world playing on the screen.

AI is just one piece of the technological revolution. In reality, there is nothing that this technology will not touch. The creators of these technologies now possess the most empowering technology the world has ever seen. And given their deep love of God and exceptional virtues, we can rest easy knowing that our technology overlords are going to wield this technology for God and the common good. But then again, there is that whole, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Moving on.

Leave a comment

The New Priesthood

The main question that always comes up with any major technological shift is, “What does it mean to be human?” This is born out of the experience of technology taking away something perceived as essential to the human experience. When you spend 8 hours a day laying railroad and getting compliments from your co-workers, only to be outdone by a mechanical version of your job, you begin to question your purpose in life.

Pope Leo XVI’s forthcoming encyclical will most likely address this and other questions like it. He wrote the following post on X this morning:

“As evidenced by the unbridled promotion and implementation of technology at the expense of human dignity, we are truly experiencing an eclipse of the sense of what it means to be human…”

— Pope Leo XIV. May 22, 2026

But today’s technological innovations are leading us to ask the question, “Are we God now?” It will be interesting to see if the encyclical will also address the tendency among the technology leaders to see themselves as God. The transhumanist view sees no limit or moral boundaries to technology, and many actually believe that technology is the path to man attaining “eternal life.” This view is extremely popular among atheists and technologists.

Can you really blame them for thinking this way? Take a look at this video from Elon Musk talking about the latest developments from Neuralink. Watch:

To be clear, I’m not interpreting Musk’s comments as if he’s claiming to be Jesus. Musk is simply saying out loud what everyone is thinking. His company is solving things that previously could only be solved by prayer. His comment is shocking because when he describes the capabilities of this technology, everyone thinks, “Wait a minute, that’s what Jesus did!”

Why does this matter? Because with power comes perceived moral authority, especially if you attained that power through ingenuity and grit, rather than by inheritance or birthright. Whether it’s Nebuchadnezzar or Caesar, the man who wields the power is often entrusted with the power to decide moral issues, either by his influence or by his might.

This leads to moral and religious apathy. This is seen in the Exodus account when Moses comes to Pharaoh to free the Israelites, but Pharaoh doesn’t listen to Moses because the Egyptian magicians are able to do cheap knock-offs of the same miracles. As the story progresses, the miracles become even more aggressive until the magicians can no longer imitate them, but at this point, the plagues are so devastating that Pharaoh has no choice but to let the people go.

Regardless of whether you think AI is amazing or this technological future is doom and gloom, the fact remains that it is being developed and implemented by men who are more like Nebuchadnezzar than they are George Washington. Hannah Arendt was a survivor during the Nazi regime’s rise to power. She wrote about the shift in morality from religion to the scientists in her work, The Human Condition.

“The radical change in moral standards occurring in the first century of the modern age was inspired by the needs and ideals of its most important group of men, the new scientists…”

The Human Condition, 2nd Ed. (271).

Subscribe now

Final Thoughts

There are a lot of similarities between the way people are talking about AI and the way previous generations talked about contraception. The pill promised so many of the same things that people are saying that AI will bring, but it came at a cost.

If people back then knew that they would usher in the era of Abortion Rights and that America would be murdering over 2 million babies every year based on technologies developed from it, they might not have been so optimistic about the future. Not to mention all the other factors. I’ve shared this video in previous posts, but it’s extremely relevant to the idea that technology always has unforeseen consequences. Watch:

No one thought that this little pill would lead to such a moral catastrophe, except those naysayers in the Catholic Church. But we are seeing a similar perspective emerge with AI. What are we going to be giving up if we unquestioningly embrace this technology?

Here are just a few questions we should probably be asking:

• Teachers are already seeing kids use AI to spoof their assignments. Is education morally formative, or are we just keeping kids busy for a workforce that can’t place them because they can’t read and write?

• What about the military? How do our military strategies and incentives change around war when we can send robotic military units to do the political “dirty work”? People were already upset with drone strikes. How about occupying a neighborhood with robotic soldiers?

• What about robotic encounters with civilians? Consider being pulled over by Robocop; that is apparently what China is experimenting with right now.

• How about incubating a baby in your garage? Scientists were able to take an embryo from a chicken egg and gestate it to term in an artificial egg. In a longer video, the scientists talk about developing other “artificial wombs” for “other species.” What’s to stop the government from solving the birth rate problem by issuing stipends for citizens to donate their gametes to a birthing center to help boost the population?

• How will Christians respond when a woman who is dying of cancer just wants to have a baby before she dies, but it’s too dangerous to get pregnant, so she and her husband decide to take his sperm and her eggs and gestate a child in their garage? Is this permitted? Even if it is, should we permit it if it is going to lead to major abuses from predators and human traffickers?

These are only a few of the scenarios. There are a lot more implications that we didn’t address. But one thing is clear: we appear to be proving that given enough time and money, science fiction will eventually become fact.

However, the likelihood that this technological shift ends up bringing us more freedom and fewer moral atrocities is extremely low.

We appear to be witnessing the battle lines being drawn between the transhumanists and the Church, specifically the Catholic one. Protestant Churches have very little written institutionally on these topics. 70% of evangelicals already affirm IVF procedures, and their churches openly support them (I’m talking about liberal denominations).

Not everyone who uses AI or loves robots is a transhumanist. I use it every day for my job, and my son loves robots. But we are facing a morally uncertain future, which is why it’s vital that, regardless of your tradition, you pay attention to whatever the Church says over the next few months. You don’t have to agree with everything the Church says on this matter, but it’s clear that she is the wisest teacher on matters like this.

The Catholic Church has always been concerned with technology and the moral implications of it. But Protestants, taken as a whole, have always taken a “Let’s shoot first, ask questions later” approach to modern morality and technology. This is why Pope Leo XVI’s encyclical is relevant to the whole world, not just Catholics.

In uncertain times, like the ones we find ourselves in, we need the Church more than ever. You’re going to be shepherded by someone or something. You can either be guided by the AI overlords or you can listen to the Church on this matter. Considering the atrocities that followed in abortion and IVF after the world ignored the Church in the 1960s, people everywhere, but especially Christians, should listen this time around.

The Pope’s encyclical will be released on May 25th, 2026.

— DR

I’m Daniel Roberts, a Catholic convert from Protestantism with a Master’s in Philosophy in Religion from an evangelical seminary. My writing explores the intersection of faith, culture, and technology.

On May 1st, Fradd posted an article, “7 Reasons Joseph Smith Was A False Prophet.” This angered some of the Mormon subscribers at Daily Wire, and so Klavan took it upon himself to respond to Fradd’s zealous evangelistic tendencies.

Klavan “Started the Fire” 🎵🎶

In the video, Klavan argued that Matt should not be criticizing Mormonism. Which, if you know anything about Mormonism or Christianity, is a shocking thing to hear from a self-professing Christian. But this is because for most hosts at the Daily Wire, their faith is the backdrop for their political commentary, which most Mormons and Christians would support. But for Fradd, his content has always been Catholic first, culture second. Which means there is a conflict of interest in terms of what is “good for business” for the Daily Wire.

This is a fair question to ask: Is it true that Daily Wire will permit Fradd to keep his brand if his desire to “Win souls for Jesus” conflicts with their business model?

After expressing how much he loves Matt Fradd as a friend, Klavan proceeds to critique Fradd’s decision to publish the article. Here’s a bit of what Klavan said,

I have to say I don’t agree that [Matt] should be doing this. I’m not saying, ‘Oh, it’s a terrible thing.’ I’m just saying, you know, people love their religion. It sustains them. We all know we have disagreements between our creeds…but if Mormons aren’t blowing people up, you know, leave them alone. You know, that’s why I pick on religions when the religion is producing something bad.

Whatever Klavan’s intent, the optics definitely give the vibe, “Hey, do you know where you work? You can’t do that kind of stuff! You’re angering our customers!” You can watch his full video below.

But this article is not intended to be a “gossip” piece about the Daily Wire drama. Rather, Klavan presents a form of Christianity that is intellectually prideful Christianity masquerading as intellectually humble Christianity. Which is worthy of a response, even though he’s not blowing anyone up.

Klavan represents a growing belief within Christianity that everyone’s belief systems are equally valid because all of them have nice people in them. More and more people are saying things like, “Well, in the end it doesn’t really matter as long as you love Jesus,” or “We all have something doctrinally wrong in our Christian expression.” Klavan is a good guy, and I’m sure he and I would have a great time chatting if I ever get the opportunity. But in the end, if Matt, according to Klavan, cannot criticize the Mormon religion, and Klavan can criticize the Catholic religion, then one ought to criticize whatever kind of Christianity it is that Klavan represents.

Artists & Truth

Klavan is an artist first, podcaster second. For most of us, we are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends, and workers first, and “theologians” second. That is, we have a lot of competing responsibilities in our lives that keep us from going as deep or speaking as clearly on controversial topics as we would like.

This is an important detail because artists tend to be better truth tellers in their preferred medium than they are when they are asked or choose to speak on a particular topic or issue. The artist’s gift is enhancing the brilliance of truth by uniting it to the passions.

An artist loves fiercely, which is great when he loves the truth, but when it’s divorced from truth, it leads to greater errors. That is what appears to have happened here with Klavan. He loves Jesus, loves his family, but the artist in him recoils whenever someone reminds him that, without truth, one’s theology is either a good lie or a beautiful one.

With that qualifier out of the way, Klavan made several claims in the video, but there were three major ones that he made in quick succession that I would like to address.

#1 Peaceful Religions Don’t Need Jesus

First, the idea that a peaceful religion is a religion that doesn’t need the truth. In the video, Klavan says, “If Mormons aren’t blowing people up…leave them alone.”

This implies that a group can be called “Christian” just by virtue of claiming the name, Christian. This is a nominalist view of Christianity that asserts that as long as your religious name includes the word “Christian,” then the rest of the world should acknowledge you as a valid expression of Christianity. Furthermore, this logic is the same logic defended by the transgender movement.

Both groups, the people who say you must acknowledge their Christian identity regardless of their doctrinal assertions and those who claim that you must acknowledge they’re a gender identity regardless of their biological facts, are depending on your desire to avoid conflict so that their ideology or religion can be normalized.

Boys and girls are born with a certain nature and identity. Similarly, one is born again by a certain baptism, which is Trinitarian — “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Not all groups that claim the name “Christian” will agree with that statement, Mormons being one of them, since they deny the Trinity.

But Klavan’s argument is essentially: “If non-Christian groups are nice, just leave ‘em alone.” But obviously, this is not the criteria for evangelism that spread the faith around the world. Furthermore, how many atheists are happy and good citizens? Assuming they’re happy and having kids, should we just let them wallow in their materialistic bliss and hope that Jesus appears to them? Christians who hold to this idea are viewing Christianity as a political tool, not a source of salvation for all mankind.

The reason Matt Fradd and other Christians evangelize Mormons is that they believe Mormons are leading souls away from the Church and into apostasy. Any soul that is ignorant of or rejects essential Christian teaching is ultimately a soul risking their salvation.

For example, Klavan has argued that St. Paul is too conservative about sexual sins and the Church needs to change her teaching on homosexuality — perhaps Klavan has changed his position on these statements, but as he said in the video, he’s pretty set in his ways.

The reality is that St. Paul, the apostle who wrote most of the New Testament and whom Andrew Klavan takes serious disagreement with, talked extensively about false teachers and the need to destroy their claims and arguments.

For the weapons of our battle are not of flesh but are enormously powerful, capable of destroying fortresses. We destroy arguments ⁵ and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ, ⁶ and we are ready to punish every disobedience, once your obedience is complete.

2 Cor. 10:4-6

Matt Fradd was destroying the Mormon arguments because it is a religion that “raises itself against the knowledge of God.” The fact that Klavan decided that he was going to attack Matt Fradd for trying to lead people away from the errors of Mormonism. Perhaps there were Christians in the early Church who shared Klavan’s perspective, which might be why St. Paul wrote, “…we are ready to punish every disobedience…” One can imagine Klavan responding with, “Who does this guy think he is, telling me what to obey and what not to?” As individuals, we all have issues that need to be corrected, but if no one corrects us, we will remain in ignorance.

#2 No One Agrees, So No One Needs to Evangelize Their Creed

Have you ever heard someone say, “Well, no one has it all right,” or “I think that God is working in all the denominations, so I focus on the strengths of each denomination rather than the weaknesses”?

Klavan takes this angle too, and I have heard this objection more frequently since becoming Catholic. I intend to do a deeper dive on the errors in this kind of thinking, regardless of whether you’re Catholic or Protestant, but for now, the response will be brief and specific to Klavan’s video.

Subscribe now

Statements like the ones above are not compatible with Christian teaching. Christians who hold to this view are unintentionally emphasizing an agnostic belief over the Christian teaching that we can know the truth.

Klavan does this when he says, “We all know we have disagreements between our creeds…” This is a subtle critique of Matt Fradd and any Christian for the last 2000 years, Protestant or Catholic, who believed so profoundly in their Church’s teachings that they evangelized others to the point of death.

One might object because Klavan doesn’t explicitly mention Protestant-Catholic disagreements in this quote. But later on, Klavan, again breaking his own rule about the people blowing up people being the ones we should criticize, attacks Catholics on their theology of Mary’s Virginity.

We all have areas of doubt. And I think that when people challenge a proposition [sic] I talk about the perpetual virginity of Mary all the time. Catholics and Protestants, you will go crazy when you challenge it. And I think, why? You weren’t there?

This shows that much of Klavan’s critique is rooted in his frustration with Catholics generally. He really struggles with the teachings of the Church and its exclusivist claims. Klavan would rather a Catholic who says, “Yeah, I’m just Catholic for the smells and bells. I don’t really care about what people believe,” rather than a Catholic who is so convinced that the Church’s teaching is true and superior to any other Christian expression.

But before he launches into this critique of “crazy” Catholics and Protestants disagreeing over the virginity of Mary, Klavan has a very insulting take on anyone who would dare to get “prickly” about their beliefs,

“This is not about Mormons. You know, this happens to everybody. I think people get very, very prickly about religion. And personally, I think it’s because they are unsteady in their belief.”

According to Klavan, if you’re secure in your faith, you will keep your faith and criticisms of others to yourself.

Based on Klavan’s perspective, we would have to assume that St. Paul was evangelizing the world, suffering on behalf of Christ, and preaching about sexual immorality to the entire Roman Empire because he was not “secure” in his faith? This reminds me of the claim that those who criticize homosexuality are homophobic. It’s an attack on someone’s psychology rather than dealing with the argument that they are making against a particular belief and lifestyle.

Klavan decided that he was going to go after his friend for writing an apologetics article arguing against Mormonism. Then, after getting flak for his post, he doubled down and implied that Fradd and the Christians who evangelize and defend their doctrines passionately are insecure in their own beliefs.

It couldn’t be that these people actually believe Christianity is the answer to all errors and evils in the world.

Klavan’s perspective is “None of us were there, so no one really knows what is or is not Christianity. Which is why you should listen to me because I’m the one who figured it out.” This position leads one to believe that Klavan lives as if Christianity and its teachings are a “choose your own adventure,” and there is a Christian morality for everyone!

The person who says, “No one has figured out what is or is the fullness of Christianity,” is revealing something about their own hubris, not something true about reality or the nature of religions in general. They might say this calmly, even intending peace and unity, but they are subtly setting themselves up as the judge of all individuals and institutions based on their own ignorance.

This is especially offensive to Catholics since the tacit ask is, “You agree, right? That Catholicism has errors in its doctrines, just like my church does?” To which the Catholic is obligated to say, “No”.

One might say, “But, if there were a Christian church that got all the doctrines right, that would be a miracle!” Yes, it would.

#3 Klavan’s Inconsistency

Finally, Klavan makes the statement, “You know, that’s why I pick on religions when the religion is producing something bad.” But what gives Klavan the right to say that the heresies of Mormonism are not “bad” enough to warrant a response? Maybe Matt Fradd knows something about what Mormons teach that Klavan doesn’t?

This is why Christian listeners get frustrated with Klavan. It’s not because he’s “started a fire storm,” it’s because he is a liberal Christian who claims to be a conservative one. For whatever reason, Klavan does not see how his views of the world are the seeds of relativism and the woke mind virus that convinced the world that men could become women. The advocates of this movement even made similar arguments about homosexuality and transgenderism that Klavan is making about which religions should or should not be critiqued: “Well, they’re not hurting anyone, so just leave them alone.”

Advocates of LGBT+ ideologies could say this because society had not embraced homosexuality and transgenderism as normative. But now that the lifestyle is embraced openly by society, we are seeing atrocities that are unique to this group.

Babies born to gay partners born from surrogacy are crying for their “mamma,” while the gay man says, “There’s no mamma now.” Or even worse, two gay men are now charged with the murder of a baby boy they adopted.

Does this justify us in critiquing homosexuality and its morality as harmful to society, while simultaneously acknowledging that Klavan’s son is a brilliant and exceptional thinker about Christianity? Klavan would most likely say, “Yeah, we should condemn these individuals, but that doesn’t mean that all gay men are murdering babies.” Which is true! We would say, “Christians do evil things, but this doesn’t mean that Christianity is evil.” This is why Klavan’s principle doesn’t work. We should be attacking the claims of a religious group, because the evils that individuals commit do not necessarily implicate their entire worldview: “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”

With stories like the one above, does this permit Christians to evangelize those living a homosexual lifestyle, per se, or will this be bad for business, too?

Not all homosexuals are committing heinous crimes like this one. But the headline highlights the inconsistency in Klavan’s argument. There are many within the gay community taking stands against Transgenderism, which is a win for political and Christian conservatism, but that doesn’t make the gay community off limits for evangelism and criticism any more than it does Christianity or Mormonism. To view this way would be to see groups primarily as political pawns that you are trying to manipulate towards your own strategy to win the culture war.

Christians should not see people as “political pawns” for their culture war. Christians can ally with like-minded people on politics even if they are spiritually and morally far from God, and I think Klavan would agree. But the moment one of us decides to evangelize those in the conservative coalition, Klavan will be the first to push back on our efforts to help them find eternal life. Additionally, Mormons who took this as an “attack” are openly attacking Catholicism and Protestantism all the time. They should be willing to take the criticism as an opportunity to respond. For example, if Klavan responded to this article and said I was wrong, I would be thrilled! It would allow me to engage with a person and company I respect, but also think gets some things wrong.

Christians take issue with Klavan, not because he’s a fire-starter or that he has profound takes on Christianity that they can’t handle, but because he has double standards. His positions on evangelism and homosexuality are insulting to the sacrifices Christians made for the last 2,000 years. It’s precisely because people chose not to remain silent about their faith that someone like Klavan is even aware of the faith, let alone converted by it.

There are many Christians who will say that our differences don’t matter. That by and large, everyone is doing the best they can, so we don’t really need to worry about which church we go to. But if this was the way any Christians lived throughout history, then Christianity would have fizzled out a long time ago.

Regardless of one’s religious traditions, all religions make exclusivist claims because all religions make truth claims. This includes Protestant denominations as well. There is no such thing as the “Protestant teaching on Baptism” or the “Protestant teaching on salvation.” Each Protestant community has exclusivist claims that are risks to one’s salvation if they reject them. For a good example of this, see Trent Horn’s video in the footnotes below.1

Conclusion

The rub for Klavan appears to be that he hates the idea that he’s as much of a fundamentalist as the Christians who view Christianity as knowable and objectively true. This is because the objectivity of truth is behind every truth claim.

Later on, Klavan argues that Catholics are crazy for getting worked up over Protestants attacking the belief that Mary was a virgin. According to Klavan, Catholics are supposed to just keep quiet about their beliefs and let the relativists and modernists determine what is or is not an essential issue of the faith because Catholics are just legalistic Romans who are “LARPing” their faith — Live Action Role Playing.

In the end, Klavan’s view is what many Protestants have today, either implicitly or explicitly: an agnostic view of Christianity. We can’t really know what Christianity teaches because no one is smart enough to “figure it out,” which is true. That’s why the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church.

For Christian’s like Klavan, revelation and doctrine are ultimately up to the individual. Which is to say that Christianity and its teachings are really more like the Pirate’s Code; they are really more “…what you would call, ‘guidelines.’”

— DR

I’m Daniel Roberts, a Catholic convert from Protestantism with a Master’s in Philosophy in Religion from an evangelical seminary. My writing explores the intersection of faith, culture, and technology.

Pope John I was cast into prison at Ravenna. He died there in 526.

This meant that today’s readings came from the section in the Liturgy of the Hours dedicated to martyrs. The reading stuck out to me as the Church and various other Christian communities are being faced with major ethical dilemmas surrounding rapidly improving AI and robotic technologies.

Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. ⁸ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ⁹ Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching. It is good to have our hearts strengthened by grace and not by foods, which do not benefit those who live by them.

Heb. 13:7-9

Two Stories

On my news feed this morning, I saw two stories. One was from Elon Musk advocating for the development of technology that would allow human brains to interface with applications and Artificial Intelligence directly. The next story that appeared in my timeline was that Pope Leo XIV had signed his first encyclical, MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS (MH), on the anniversary of Pope Leo XII’s encyclical RERUM NOVARUM (RN). Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical is dedicated to the dignity of humanity in an era of AI.

Today, Christians of all kinds are faced with major ethical challenges:

• Abortion

• Contraception

• Surrogacy

• IVF

• Transhumanism

• Human Augmentation

• Robotic Warfighters

• Massive Layoffs due to AI

This list reveals that we are facing major ethical challenges that no other body of Christians has universally or institutionally spoken on or against — unless you count those institutions that have already institutionally affirmed many of these practices.

Now you might look at this list and say, “Well, I mean, this is wrong. Not sure about that one. I think this one is really bad.”

But in terms of the teachings of Christianity, there is a sense in which what you think or I think doesn’t really matter. That is, our opinions may be true, but just because we’re right doesn’t mean that people have to listen to us. It’s only when an institution, whether academic, political, or religious, affirms our position that something now has authority behind it. That’s why our opinions matter, because institutions can take them up and put their authority behind the opinion and make it authoritative.

The Brilliant Philosopher Problem

Take someone like William L. Craig. He’s a brilliant philosopher and theologian, but he’s also a bit heretical. Many Christians, including Catholics, love his work on the existence of God, but when Craig gets into his pet theories around the theology of the Incarnation, Trinity, or Christian practices like baptism and the eucharist, everyone gets a little nervous.

In seminary, friends and I would often watch Craig’s debates with atheists, and love to see him prove the theistic position so clearly. But then we would read some of his takes on theology, and we would write papers and engage with his ideas and errors, but none of our papers ever amounted to an authoritative declaration or standard that Craig was in the wrong.

Most Christian apologists and philosophers know that Craig could demolish us in a debate on a topic where he holds the affirmative position and we hold the negative one. But at the same time, despite his ability to obliterate us in a debate, we refuse to bend our position to his. We might modify our arguments a bit based on his attacks, but very few people, regardless of the debate topic, will change their minds on the issue, even if they lose.

Instead, they go into it the way that most people go to a football game: they want to see if their team wins. But the fact that their team was defeated does not lead them to don the jersey of their opposing team at the next championship.

So how do we deal with the ethical and theological dilemmas of our day? How do we live out Hebrews 13:9, when most of the ethical dilemmas we are facing are not mentioned explicitly in the bible?

Subscribe now

What are our options?

We have a few options here.

We could base the truth entirely on pragmatism. Maybe Elon is right, and we should plug ourselves into the Matrix and get super-brained augmented by AI. If it leads to a better outcome, then it’s what God wants us to do.

But this approach completely undermines the whole point of revealed truth. The reason we have revealed dogmas and doctrines is precisely to protect us from the consequences of a decision that is obscured from our finite human understanding. We can’t have a theology where we say “Test the spirits…oops, we killed society…guess that wasn’t what God wanted.”

Second, we could turn to force. Suppose that we adopt a docile posture to whoever has the most power, and we just choose to submit to their “sword.” Similar to what happened with the way Romans 13 was wielded against Christians during COVID. Maybe that would work?

Except that this undermines the idea of martyrdom for the faith. If Christians were merely going to say, “Well, might makes right, and Paul said to submit to the sword, so…” then we would implicitly insult the sacrifices of those who have gone before us who refused to comply with the immoral political and ethical ideologies of their day. We would never have the honor of being persecuted for our faith because our faith would give us a conforming posture, rather than a courageous one.

The only option, if we are to actually be able to know the truth, is that God has revealed himself through his Church, and that these dogmas and morals will be proven to be true by the protection they provide individuals and societies against moral atrocities.

In order for William L. Craig, Elon Musk, or you and me to be considered “off the reservation,” there actually has to be a reservation. St. Paul says that the pillar and foundation of the truth is the Church, and scripture is fitting to equip us for every good work. We can’t have one without the other; we need both.

The fact that, except for the Catholic Church, all other denominations have caved institutionally to the transhumanist agenda in some shape or form to abortion, contraception, IVF, surrogacy, etc demonstrate that these denominations should be viewed with suspicion. These are moral failures that are on the same level as Communism and Nazism, yet we believe that these same institutions that affirmed these moral evils are the same ones that are right on baptism, the Eucharist, Mary, and the Church?

Many Christians see these things and say, “Maybe the Catholic Church is the safest place for a Christian to discern how they ought to live.” But for others, they reject all institutional authority, begin spouting novelities that are based entirely on their own private interpretations of scripture, and if you don’t agree with them, then you don’t really want to follow Jesus.

There were major ethical challenges for the early Church, and there are major ethical challenges for us in the Church today. But if the road to eternal life is truly narrow and there are few that find it, then wouldn’t it make sense for God to give us a “city on a hill” to light the way to it?

More on Robotics, AI, and the theological and societal consequences later this week.

— DR

Daniel Roberts is a Catholic convert from Protestantism with a Master’s in Philosophy in Religion from an evangelical seminary. My writing explores the intersection of faith, culture, and technology.

Why are some Protestants promoting golden statues of a guy who, only a few weeks ago, had posted an image of himself as Jesus? Are statues always bad? If statues are a way to honor a person’s life and virtues, then why don’t more non-Catholics set up statues in honor of the saints?

Statues Rise, and Statues Fall

In case you missed it, a group of pastors and political donors, approximately 6,000 in total, decided that they were going to erect a gold-leafed 22-foot bronze statue of President Trump. Draped across his shoulders are white and blue sashes. The optics, not to be conveyed with the intent, are not great. The statue evokes images of Nebuchadnezzar and his golden statue, while also potentially offending Catholics who notice that he seems to have Marian sashes draped over him. To be clear, none of this seems like it was what they intended, but it still garnered a significant amount of condemnation from Christians.

There is nothing wrong per se about statues. We have them all over the country. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Mount Rushmore, and the monuments to fallen soldiers are all examples of the ways that Americans venerate their political leaders. This is a good and healthy thing to do. Statues are a sign of who is in charge, and that is one of the reasons why political and religious revolutionaries, after taking power, frequently tear down the previous regime’s icons and statues.

In her book Mao’s America, Chinese Communist survivor Xi Van Fleet talks about how revolutionaries tend to destroy the statues of the previous culture in order to give the impression that the old has passed away and the new ideology has taken the reins of history. Her book was released in 2023 after the Black Lives Matter riots.

One of [the] most public and visible cancel culture actions in America is the toppling of monuments and statues…In Western countries, monuments and statues are usually found in public spaces and the heart of a city or town. The action of tearing down these structures created fear-driven spectacles that have the effect of demonstrating the progressives’ power that they are in control of our culture and our history.

Mao’s America: A Survivor’s Warning (175)

Tearing down statues is a way to “bend the arc of history” towards your own vision, has always been the sign of conquering your enemy. It’s not just communists who recognize this idea, but it’s throughout the Old Testament scriptures. In Deuteronomy, God commands Israel to do this as a sign that Israel’s God is the only God.

When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land which you are about to enter to possess, and removes many nations before you…This is how you must deal with them: Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, chop down their asherahs, and destroy their idols by fire.

— Deut. 7:1, 5-6.

This concept is not limited to the Biblical Israelites.

Communists, Muslims, Jews, and Protestants have all taken the opportunity to destroy the statues and images of Catholics. For the Communists, they saw this as purging God from their nation. Solzhenitsyn speaks about this in his novels and his account of the Gulag Archipelago.

For the Muslims, they saw this as a demonstration that Allah had conquered the Infidel. Growing up in the era of social media, I can remember having a conversation with a friend after hearing that some Middle Eastern Christians, most likely Catholic or Coptic, had decided to stay and defend a Christian historical site and its relics. The Muslim extremists were going through the villages and destroying all the Churches. English Historian, Tom Holland, recounts walking through destroyed Catholic churches where the altars and statues had been destroyed with power tools.

Most recently, images circulated of Israeli soldiers desecrating crucifixes with sledge hammers, an offense that soldier was imprisoned and which Netanyahu personally addressed on his social media channels. Another video was circulating of an Israeli soldier mocking the Blessed Virgin outside of a damaged church.

Protestants, throughout the world, often accompanied by significant shifts in political power, deployed their government and church members to destroy Catholic art and sculptures. This movement was known as “Iconoclasm.” Key figures of this movement were Calvin and Zwingli, as well as King Henry VIII, who not only purged the country of Catholic art but also brutally persecuted Catholic priests and parishioners. Most recently, Christian Nationalist, pastor, and influencer, Doug Wilson, made comments that under his brand of Christian Nationalism, he would ban Eucharistic and Marian processions.

[Doug Wilson] begins the segment by explaining how Muslims will be treated, saying that whilst they can live and worship as a community, the call to prayer would not be permitted. He explains that Catholic church bells would be permitted, “but a parade in honour of the Virgin Mary, carrying an image of the Virgin Mary down [Main Street], no”.

— From the Catholic Herald, Thomas Edwards. 1

Doug is a nice guy, but he’s also anti-Catholic in a lot of ways. Some have praised him for his consistency on his views, but this also highlights that our ecumenical veneer is fairly thin. As we tear down statues and set up new ones, it’s clear that we are in a cultural civil war. If it were to escalate, it would be a serious test of the ecumenical relations we have built up thus far.

Where the tearing down of statues occurs, new regimes rise up and elevate their own image in the form of monuments, statues, and art. Art is the incarnation of the abstract identity known as a nation. We imitate God in this act. We take dirt, clay, mud, steel, or words, and we inform that material with the ideas we have; we breathe our life into them.

God does this more profoundly in the Garden when he takes dirt, forms man, and then breathes into his nostrils. Analagously, we are doing something similar, but similar in the way a child might build a house out of Lego bricks in order to imitate his father, who builds houses with hammers, nails, power tools, wood, and concrete.

These works of art are the incarnation of abstract ideas of nation, religion, and family, the three building blocks of any community. Writings, pictures, structures, statues, etc., are all indications of the identity of a particular group.

If you saw the Ark of the Covenant, you would immediately think of Israel. If you see Marian statues, you immediately think of the Catholic Church. At one point, if you saw a pulpit in the center of a stage, you would expect the Word of God to rest on the wood just as the Word made flesh rested on the wood of the Cross. When you see a golden statue of Trump, you immediately think of…well, only time will tell.

Leave a comment

It’s Not a Golden Calf…

That’s what was said by Pastor Mark Burns on social media when he posted the images of the Trump statue. According to the Christian Post, Burns is a televangelist and “ally of President Donald Trump.”

I’ve never thought that Trump looked like a cow, but I guess this is a lesson for all of us. Don’t go with gold leafing, or else people will think you do look like a cow!

It’s obvious that it is not a golden calf, but what exactly were pastors and donors trying to communicate when they decided to bring this idea to life?

According to Burns, as quoted in the CP article,

“This statue is not about worship. It is about honor,” Burns wrote. “It is a celebration of life and a powerful symbol of resilience, freedom, patriotism, courage, and the will to keep fighting for America.”

— Christian Post, Anugrah Kumar2

There is nothing wrong with those sentiments, but apparently, many were still offended.

Other prominent Protestants took to the X platform to offer a harsh defense of the statue. Eric Metaxes accused those scandalized by the statue of having “TDS”— Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Metaxas’s charge here is a bit too harsh. Maybe people are just turned off by the Babylonian artistic choices…people can dislike something and still support the President.

Protestants are known for being scandalized by statues or images of holy things, and this statue of Trump clearly evokes idolatrous images from the Old Testament. For example, Protestants who object to statues often direct their attacks at Catholic and Orthodox churches for their statues honoring the saints. This is often from an anti-Catholic bias or a misunderstanding of the Second Commandment, which says,

You shall not make for yourself an idol or a likeness of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; you shall not bow down before them or serve them.

Deut. 20:4-5

So, it’s not “Trump Derangement Syndrome” for Christians to be scandalized by a golden statue of a political figure that resembles the statue in the story where three young Jewish men are thrown into the fiery furnace.

Pastor Mark Burns continued to describe the meaning and intent of the statue.

It also stands as a reminder of the hand of God and His protection over President Trump’s life. Time and time again, when his life was threatened, God’s mercy prevailed.

This is religious language. So, it is understandable that Protestants who are scandalized by any kind of religious art would be scandalized by a 22-foot golden statue of a guy who, a few weeks ago, posted a picture of himself as a “Red Cross Doctor.”

Given the divine fingerprints on our nature, it makes sense that citizens would desire to erect statues of men who have, in their eyes, done great things for God, their families, and their country. Whether or not Trump has successfully done these things to warrant a golden image of himself is debatable.

But from the spiritual side, this statue and the responses from Metaxas and Pastor Burns reveal a deeper spiritual problem.

Leave a comment

Does Doctrine Matter?

Erecting a statue of Trump is not a sin per se. Statues are legitimate expressions of commemorating events, people, places, or things. But how we do that matters. The way that these Protestants have done this does create a theological problem for them.

On the one hand, Protestants will claim that they agree on the essentials, but do they? One group of Protestants says that this is idolatry, another group says that it’s honoring a man trying to save America. The disagreement provokes the question, “Is idolatry a salvation issue?”

Most Christians would say “yes,” but where they would disagree is on what constitutes idolatry. Which is a serious question if your soul depends on it. Furthermore, are any Protestants certain about what is and is not an idolatrous action? If they can’t agree, then how do they know who is committing idolatry and who isn’t?

Protestantism doesn’t exist, but Protestants do. Individual Protestants can claim they have unity in the essentials, but their disagreement over the Trump statue demonstrates this is merely a claim and not a reality.

Protestantism continues to say that freedom to disagree on such issues is a feature, not a bug. But then faith leads to uncertainty, and doctrine becomes an exercise in rationalism, not in faith. This leads one to believe that there is no reason to “work out their salvation” in fear and trembling, because after all, doctrine is a secondary issue.

Some will charge Catholics with the same divisiveness as Protestants because individual Catholics don’t agree on things, or they get things wrong. But the difference is that where Catholics may disagree in thought or word, they are united in deed because of their universal submission to what the Church teaches authoritatively are the essentials, not what any one of their peers says are the essentials.

Leave a comment

Do Protestants Honor Mary?

The fact that these Protestants are willing to sacrifice time and money to erect a statue of Trump, while Mary, the Mother of God, is seen as just another woman in the Bible, is one of the clear evidences that Protestantism has systemic problems within it.

God loved Mary; He honored her more than any other creature, and yet, Protestants are quicker to set up a statue in honor of Trump than they are to honor Mary at all.

The fact that the Trump statue was draped in white and blue sashes might have been a nod to Catholics.

Most Protestants don’t know this, but white and blue tend to be the colors that Mary is wearing when she appears to Christians, and when she is depicted in art. At Fatima, Mary was clothed entirely in white. When Mary appeared at Lourdes, France, she was depicted as wearing all white and having a blue sash around her waist. Throughout Christian art, she is typically seen wearing blue to signify that she is the new Ark of the Covenant.

When the camp is to set out, Aaron and his sons shall go in and take down the veil of the screen, and cover the ark of the testimony with it; ⁶ then they shall put on it a covering of goatskin, and spread over that a cloth all of blue, and shall put in its poles.

Num. 4:5-6

Mary is seen as the New Ark of the Covenant, and she has been since the earliest years of the Church. The same man who defended Christ’s incarnation and the Trinity also affirmed Mary as the New Covenant’s Ark of the Covenant.

“O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides.”

— (St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 AD), Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Arguing against this typology reveals more about a man’s character than his intelligence. If you don’t honor what God honors, then your spiritual priorities are perverted.

Mary is recorded in scripture as saying, “All generations will call me blessed.” Do Protestants bless Mary? Certainly, some revere her and honor her. But many Protestants, if they were even given a Rosary, would throw it in the trash because they would believe that they had been given a demonic amulet. But we should pity them, not judge them, especially for those of us who were once Protestant and are now Catholic. We must always remember that it wasn’t by our own merit that we came into the Church, but by God’s grace and the prayers of the Saints.

Catholics will frequently say that when you honor Mary, you will begin to realize just how incredible Jesus is and what he has done for us. I didn’t understand this when I came into the Church. Then I did a Marian consecration, which is basically a devotional around the life of Mary and Jesus.

The one I did was by St. Louis de Montfort. After going through the consecration, I realized that Mary was infinitely a better human being than I was, not by her own merit, but by God’s grace.

The only other thing that contained the presence of God was the Ark of the Covenant. She is the one creature that Christ united with in a way that no other human being will experience. Her “Yes” is the beginning of all the great things Christianity has to offer, including Salvation in Christ. Whether you are Protestant or Catholic, you are indebted to the Mother of God.

So, if we truly desire to be like Christ, then we must honor His Mother as He honored Her. We must listen to Her, the way Christ listened to Her. And we must submit to Her, the way that Christ submitted to Her. For in doing so, we are not only imitators of Christ, but we truly become His brother and sister, and she becomes our Mother.

— DR

Daniel Roberts is a Catholic convert from Protestantism with a Master’s in Philosophy in Religion from an evangelical seminary. My writing explores the intersection of faith, culture, and technology.

Today, we’re answering the following questions:

• What are mortal sins?

• Who can commit them?

• Why are they misunderstood?

As always, my goal is not to condemn anyone, but merely to communicate the faith with clarity and love. If you feel judged or condemned, know that is not my intent. You may not believe that mortal sins are real, but try to see it from the Catholic’s perspective.

It is always more prudent, in a situation where extreme consequences are uncertain, to live as if they are. If you live as if mortal sins exist, and after your death you discover that mortal sins were just a “manmade tradition,” then you’ve lost nothing. But if you live your life in rejection of the teachings on mortal sin, only to find out after your death that the teaching was true, then you’ve potentially lost everything.

Clearly, depending on what you believe about the severity of sin, there are theological consequences. Some of that will be evident in the subsequent paragraphs. However, the main goal of this, and pretty much every other article, is simply to clearly state the teaching, not necessarily give the most rock-solid apologetic for it.

Mortal sin and its consequences…

As with all theological concepts, there are terms and definitions that need to be defined. For a sin to be mortal, there are three requirements (CCC, 1857).

1. The sin must be a grave matter (e.g., adultery, blasphemy, fornication, murder, etc.).

2. The person must have full knowledge that the action is grave.

3. The decision to sin was completely free.

When all three of these qualities are present in a sinful act, the sin is no longer venial or grave, but mortal. Venial are minor sins, while grave sins are sins that could be mortal. The primary difference between mortal and grave sin is a question of culpability, not a question of severity. In other words, all mortal sins are grave sins, but not all grave sins are mortal sins.

This is because it is possible for you to commit grave sins against your will or without a full understanding of what you’re doing.

Here is a small graphic to help visualize it. The outer ring is the objective part, Grave matter. The inner rings, Knowledge and Freedom, are the subjective parts of the act. Only God and the individual know with certainty the degree of knowledge and freedom they had when they committed to sin. When we say “committed a mortal sin,” we just mean that they committed a grave sin knowingly and willingly.

The consequences of mortal sin are damnation. This is clearly taught in scripture and by the Church. The Lord Jesus and his disciples all indicate that Christians can commit egregious sins and that these actions exclude someone from the Kingdom of God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says it this way,

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” — (CCC, 1033).

Some people might be saying to themselves, “But where does the Bible talk about mortal sins?”

It’s clear from St. Paul’s writings in multiple letters that particular sins can cut off a baptized Christian from the grace of God. Consider the fact that St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians is written, not to non-Christians, but to Christians. In it, he lists out sins that can lead to a person not inheriting the Kingdom of God,

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, ²¹ occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

— Gal. 5:19-21

This is not the only list, either. St. Paul has lists in other letters as well. But the passage that is most often cited by Catholic apologists and Protestants who deny the evangelical teaching of “once saved, always saved” is actually the first epistle of John.

If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

1 Jn. 5:15-17

Additionally, Jesus infamously talked about the “unforgivable sin,” which is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which is another example of the brutal nature of sin. It also debunks the idea that Christians can figure out “everything” they need for salvation simply by reading the Bible.

Finally, the book of Hebrews gives many examples of sin excluding former Christians from their heavenly inheritance. The author writes,

For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit ⁵ and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,⁶ and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt. ⁷ Ground that has absorbed the rain falling upon it repeatedly and brings forth crops useful to those for whom it is cultivated receives a blessing from God. ⁸ But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is rejected; it will soon be cursed and finally burned.

— Heb. 6:4-8.

These are only a few of the many passages that indicate that our actions play a role in salvation. This is not to say that works save us, because it is only grace that saves us (Eph. 2:8-9). Rather, it is to show that egregiously evil actions are not merely incompatible with the Christian life; they are destructive for it. Some Christians will say that those who commit these sins were “never saved to begin with,” but no such verse supports this claim.

Leave a comment

Who can commit mortal sins?

The short answer is everyone. There is a common misunderstanding that both Catholics and Protestants share. One of them is that only Catholics can commit mortal sins. This false perception can cause a Catholic to resent his Catholic upbringing, and it can also lead a Protestant to believe his salvation is more secure outside the Church than within her.

This is understandable because there are some sins that only a Catholic could commit. For example, if a Catholic skipped Holy Mass on a Sunday to go to the bar and watch his favorite football team, he would most likely be committing a mortal sin.

But what about Protestants or non-Catholics? How could they commit a mortal sin?

It’s important to remember that the Church is universal. The Church is calling everyone to live according to her teaching because it is the truth, and by living in the truth, we are saved. It is the ordinary means of salvation for all men and women. This means that her teaching is promulgated throughout the entire world. Those who reject her teaching do so at their own risk.

The grace found in the Church and the sacraments are the ordinary means to obtain this grace. But that doesn’t mean that God does not have extraordinary ways of conferring saving grace to those who do not have access to the sacraments. That Catechism says it this way, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments” (CCC, 1257).

However, on the topic of mortal sins, we might ask how the following groups find themselves guilty of mortal sin:

• Catholics

• Protestants

• Non-Christians

We have already considered the Catholic. Theoretically, he has more knowledge about God’s plan, the wickedness of sin, and the remedy for mortal sins than either of the other two groups. Contrary to popular misconceptions, this gives the Catholic more grace to endure, not less. A soul that has more access to the truth and is more receptive to it is significantly more likely to persevere to the end. Not to mention, Catholics have access to God’s plan for healing us from mortal sin, which is the sacrament of confession.

On the topic of Protestants and Non-Christians, both of these could still commit grave sins against their neighbor. For example, both could still commit murder, for example, say through IVF, contraception, or abortion, and this would constitute a mortal sin. IVF is a good example because it’s highly unlikely that anyone would commit this grave sin. In this scenario, all parties involved are made aware of the details of the procedure, which necessarily involves the loss of embryonic life, aka children.

Even if you didn’t agree with the Church on her teaching, the fact remains that if her teaching is true, then it’s completely possible that a Christian or non-Christian outside her protection could violate her commandments and incur judgment.

Some might claim that this is not fair because they are unaware of everything the Church teaches. This objection does not stand up to scrutiny for several reasons:

Firstly, if you are truly ignorant. Meaning, you are completely ignorant of the morality of an action, then the sin is grave and not mortal. It should be clearly stated that no one accidentally ends up in hell. They choose to go there by refusing to obey Christ (Jn. 3:36; Mk. 16:16).

Secondly, even if people disagree that the Church’s teaching is for the whole of humanity, that doesn’t really matter because the Church believes her teaching is for the whole of humanity. In Pope Paul VI’s famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, he addressed it to “ALL MEN OF GOOD WILL.”

In one of the Vatican II documents titled Gaudium et Spes, the document explicitly states that the Church’s teaching is for the “whole of humanity.”

Hence this Second Vatican Council, having probed more profoundly into the mystery of the Church, now addresses itself without hesitation, not only to the sons of the Church and to all who invoke the name of Christ, but to the whole of humanity.

— Gaudium et Spes, 2.

So, even if someone does not believe that the Church's teaching applies to them. The fact remains that the Church believes her teachings apply to the “whole of humanity.”

Thirdly, most non-Catholics do know the teachings of the Church. Consider this video from a woman talking about the Catholic Church during the advent of contraception. In the video, she acknowledges that it was only the Catholics who were the “naysayers” on contraception, and then proceeds to list all the evils that the Catholic Church predicted would come about if the world embraced contraception.

Furthermore, when you talk to non-Catholics, especially Protestants, about the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, most Protestants know what the Catholic Church teaches on a particular subject more than many Catholics. For example, I’ve spoken with several Protestants who are intimately aware of the Church’s teaching on contraception and IVF, and they openly reject those teachings precisely because of the specifics of the teachings. In fact, most Protestants are pro IVF, even though it murders ~4x the number of babies killed in abortions per year.

The only denomination that condemns IVF and surrogacy outright is the Catholic Church. The rest of them, and this includes the most conservative denominations, encourage it, at best, “with caution.”

To be clear, we are not saying that to disagree with a Church teaching automatically damns someone to hell. Disagreeing with a Church teaching could lead someone to commit mortal sins, but you cannot commit a mortal sin simply by disagreeing. One would have to commit the action before any question of salvation would arise.

Finally, it is true that there are those who might be unaware of some of the Church’s teaching on an issue, per se. But this does not mean that they could arrive at a conclusion shared by the Catholic Church through natural reason. For example, it’s possible that a non-Catholic couple is considering IVF and they are completely ignorant of the Church’s teaching on the matter. But they are not completely ignorant of the moral laws that God has written on their hearts.

When that couple enters the doctor’s office, they are made aware of the procedure (knowledge). This procedure will necessarily require them to make a decision (freedom). This decision will involve deciding the fate of the leftover embryos. They can abort the embryos or freeze them indefinitely (grave matter). To abort a child is to murder that child. These couples will have to then sign a document acknowledging their understanding and the decided fate of the human lives. From our perspective, this would appear to be a mortal sin, but the final judgement is left to God, not to us.

The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest…Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

— CCC, 1860-61.

For the scriptural understanding of this concept, we can look at St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. He reminds us that the law of God is written on the heart of every man, and that it is by this standard that those outside of God’s law will be judged,

Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; ²¹ for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened…Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them…

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. ¹⁴ For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them ¹⁶ on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.

Rom. 1:20-21,32; 2:13-16

Why is this teaching misunderstood?

The reason why Mortal Sins are misunderstood is that there is an objective part, which is grave matters of sin. This part is knowable with certainty. But the part that is murky is the freedom and knowledge the individual had during the act. To be clear, it is murky to the observer; it is not murky to the sinner. This is because the willful act of a sinner and their understanding of the sin are known only to them and God.

In reality, the only thing that we can identify objectively when another person sins is whether the sin was a grave matter or not. We cannot know the heart of a man. But it’s important to note that this does not give us license to say, “Well, they probably didn’t commit a mortal sin. After all, there is a chance they were ignorant!” If someone is committing a grave sin, it is all the more important that you warn them precisely because the stakes are so high.

For example, Abortion is a grave sin. When we look at our diagram at the beginning, we see that both the sinner and the observer have the ability to know with certainty that the sin in question is an exceptional evil or grave matter.

The reason that mortal sin is misunderstood is that one group emphasizes the objective nature of mortal sin to the exclusion of the subjective. They make every sin a mortal sin. The other group emphasizes the subjective elements, what they can’t know, over the objective ones. Whenever a discussion about a celebrity or non-Catholics committing mortal sins, it’s always presumed that these individuals are doing so from a place of invincible ignorance. But this is dangerous, since they could be presuming that someone is innocent when they are actually guilty.

We should not presume judgment of any soul, since to do so would ultimately lead us to apathy in our prayers for these individuals. Furthermore, if we presume that everyone outside the Church is ignorant and therefore off the hook, so to speak, then we are failing in our evangelism. I always tell my wife, when we see the statistics of Christians, especially Catholics, who believe that mortal sins like gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc., are actually good, people need to remember that someone is dropping the ball in that relationship. Either the priests and bishops are teaching false doctrine, in which case they are likely falling into mortal sins, or it’s the people rejecting the teaching of the Church in favor of the teachings of the world. Either way, someone is risking their salvation, either the teachers, the sheep, or both.

In the end, Catholics must recognize that they are accountable for living out the teachings of the Church. That includes evangelizing those around us and warning people about the dangers of sin, whether they are Catholic or not. We must do so with love and wisdom, of course, but we should avoid presuming that the majority of the world will be saved by their ignorance. Only the truth saves, and we come to this saving grace by the “knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.”

The Church and Holy Scripture are clear that salvation is only found in the truth. Invincible ignorance, which is a technical term for those who have zero knowledge about a moral or spiritual obligation, is rare for most people in the world. If we are Christians, one of our primary tasks is to warn the world about the dangers of sin, while simultaneously preaching about the means of grace found within the Church and the sacraments.

Conclusion

When it comes to mortal sin, we can always look at the technical definition. But rarely do we enter into an analytic frame of mind prior to committing a damnable offense. That’s not typically how sin works. It’s more like tooth decay.

A person feeds on food that they should not consume. It leads to the weakening of the enamel. Then one day, they take a bite like they always have, and “crack!” Their tooth is cracked, and now they need to see the dentist.

This is similar to mortal sin. It comes on slowly, usually through a bad habit, but then its consequences are manifested suddenly and aggressively. Fortunately, there is the mercy of God. Even in sin, there is the opportunity to encounter great good through the sacrament of confession.

One of the greatest things about being Catholic, is is the confessional. For many converts, it is the most unique aspect of converting because it is the one sacrament that most denominations rejected. But there is nothing like it. Many times I have walked out of the confessional and felt a bittersweet sensation. Sweetness of heaven that I could utter the sins I’ve committed, and have them forgiven. But bitterness knowing that there are so many of my friends and family who have yet to taste this grace.

When we sin, we can relate to Eve, our first mother, in the garden, “Did God really say?” says the serpent. We succumb, sin enters, shame erupts, and we are tempted to hide ourselves from God and man.

But when we enter the confessional, and we kneel in front of that screen, we are kneeling beside heaven’s gate. We are like the sick man waiting by the city gates for the savior to pass us by and speak his words of power over our sickly bodies. As we kneel, we realize we did not just “make this up in our heads,” we were drawn by the Holy Spirit to the Great Physician. As we confess, we hear those words of absolution, and we echo a revelation that Peter had in the Gospels, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

— DR

Daniel J. Roberts writes on faith, reason, and culture from a Thomistic perspective. A Catholic layman passionate about applying St. Thomas Aquinas to modern questions, he explores theology, ethics, and the pursuit of truth in everyday life. You can find him on X at @ThomisticDan

Awkward Conversations

We’ve all been there. You’re at a normal family function. Maybe it’s an event for your kid’s school, something with your church, or a family reunion, when suddenly, a casual conversation takes a turn towards the conspiratorial.

It rarely enters the conversation head-on. It’s typically more like an ambush.

You walk up to the cooler to grab a beer or soda. Another man walks up next to you. You're already in the cooler, so you offer to grab him a beverage. He appreciatively tells you his beverage of choice, and you begin talking.

“So, you’re into WWII movies?”

Ah, a fellow WWII junkie, you think to yourself. This is gonna be great.

“Yeah, I really enjoy them. Have you ever seen Band of Brothers?”

Your new “friend” raises his eyes, smiles, and says, “Have I seen Band of Brothers? Yeah, most of my friends have never seen it! I love it. Great series.”

You don’t realize it yet, but your conversation is about to teach you the practical consequences of living a nominalist philosophy.

You begin to tell him about your favorite episode of the HBO series, but he cuts you off, apologetically, of course, and proceeds to hijack the conversation.

“Don’t mean to interrupt, it’s just a crazy documentary, isn’t it?”

Documentary? It’s an HBO miniseries. What’s he talking about? As your mind races, you realize your body is entering “fight or flight” mode. It knows something you don’t.

“I always believed that the Holocaust was a closed case. But man, the evidence in that series was crazy! And the way they hijacked the HBO title was brilliant: ‘Band of Brothers: How Five Jewish Brothers Changed Our Views of History.’ How did they get away with the copyright?”

You’re not in Kansas anymore. You realize that this man has mistaken you for a fellow Holocaust denier. Your mind begins to seek a socially acceptable escape.

But before you’re able to implement your escape plan, he asks you another question, “So, what do you think of aliens? You think they exist?”

UFO Disclosure & Government Trust

For the record, there is no Holocaust denier mini-series put out by the same name as the WWII epic, Band of Brothers. But 30 years ago, while this hypothetical situation might have happened, it would have been a significant social risk for the man engaging with it. Additionally, the man who believed that the Holocaust didn’t happen would not have believed his denialist perspective might one day rival the mainstream narrative.

But the hypothetical man demonstrates how our government impacts the way we view what is considered “normal.” If we had changed the name of the movie from the hypothetical Band of Brothers title to a very much real movie title about aliens, called The Age of Disclosure, and shifted the topic from Holocaust denial to the existence of aliens, the conversation would now be considered acceptable and normative. That is because more and more government officials are talking about the UFO or UAP phenomenon.

This includes Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who appeared in the film and discussed the phenomenon of extraterrestrial evidence. The film came out last November. You can watch the trailer below, but clearly, the narrative has changed regarding the social acceptability of aliens.

The government has now “disclosed” footage and photos of aerial phenomena that, frankly, are nothing substantially different from what the internet has been sharing for the last 30 years. This appears to be something that the government is doing either to build trust with or to distract the American people. In either case, I suspect trust in the government will go down.

This is because the release of documents has a more important implicit narrative: the crazies were not actually crazy; the ones who said, “If the government had something like this, someone would say something about it,” turned out to be the crazy ones. That’s because people did say something, and the government destroyed their lives and reputations. A factor that those overly trusting of the morality of our own government fail to consider. The people who said no one can keep a secret in the government, according to that same government, were the ones duped.

To be clear, I’m not saying the evidence proves that aliens exist, but that the narrative is implying more skepticism of the government from both parties, not less. The implicit meaning of that narrative is that the crazy people were right, and the good ole boy citizen who said that the government couldn’t conspire if it wanted to because people would snitch on the projects, was duped.

This means you have a very weird profile of the types of voters you will have in the country. On the issue of the moon landing and the existence of aliens, you now have two groups of people who are supposedly vindicated by the same government on subjects that they, historically speaking, tended to disagree about.

The first group says that the moon landing was a fake, but then they would conclude that aliens did exist and the government was covering it up. Just like the government covered up the fake moon landing, the government was using its powers of deception to prevent people from knowing that aliens were real.

The second group says we have definitive proof that we went to the moon, but that we don’t have definitive proof that we have made contact with aliens. They, too, would say things like, “Well, if the government really was hiding aliens, they wouldn’t be able to keep it a secret.” They would then deploy the same logic to the moon landing: “Well, I think we went to the moon because there is no way the government could cover up something like that.”

Clearly, the disclosure is going to leave both of these parties scratching their head. Which is it? Is the government too incompetent to conspire against its own people and the world, or is it far more capable of deception and conspiring than the average American would care to admit?

We have gone from a time when you were considered an insane person for believing in aliens to our own government essentially admitting that these individuals were not crazy. People lost their jobs and careers. For example, fighter pilots who saw these things were disciplined and considered unfit for flight. Many other examples could be cited.

In fact, a few years ago, I was in a book club, and the topic of aliens came up. One of our members, brilliant guy. Solid career, wife, kids, and great guy, said he was convinced that he and his mom had an encounter with a UFO. He then talked about how he had been investigating and reading about the evidence for the existence of aliens for years. I was shocked.

A similar pattern of government disruption of citizen trust happened during COVID, when companies and governments were violating the ethical conclusions of the Nuremberg Trials.

These were the ethical codes for biological experimentation and medicines that Dr. Alexander submitted to the United States Counsel for War Crimes. According to the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s website,

On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes. The memo outlined six points that defined legitimate medical research. The trial's verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments." It also revised the original six points into ten, and these ten points became known as the "Nuremberg Code."

One does not need to read far into the ten points of the Nuremberg Code to know that the solutions proposed by governments around the world, especially as it related to experimental vaccines, violated these codes. This too was affirmed by the fact that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth just announced that the government admitted that it mistreated military personnel and they are offering these former military members the ability to return to duty with back pay and all benefits reinstated.

Many people will complain about the rampant conspiratorial thinking happening today, but the “intellectuals” who deny this stuff always fail to understand that the only thing that will prevent more conspiratorial thinking is morally motivated people governed by a morally motivated government. Between COVID, the Epstein Files, and now alien evidence dumps, it’s clear that our government has a long way to go before it regains the trust of the people, and we need it to be trustworthy in order for the citizenry to remain united and sane.

Sure, they have released the “evidence” for aliens. I don’t find it convincing, but one has to give credit to the fact that releasing is part of the “healing process.” The same goes for the Department of War announcement about COVID abuses and vaccine coercion.

But given their track record and the fact that our political situation changes every four years, it’s more likely that the government has more important conspiracies to hide than aliens. Like, maybe the fact that AI + Robotics is creating the potential for a police state about which Stalin and Lenin could not even dream. This means the government is getting more powerful, not less. Robotic military units will completely change the politics of war and the way the government feels about the citizenry. More on this next week.

If the government wants to build trust, it should respond to the journalists and citizens who are doing their job for them. For example, while the aliens thing is great for Steven Spielberg’s new movie coming out this summer, Disclosure Day, it’s not going to do much for the American people. Instead, I would be far more interested in how America intends to bring justice to the taxpayers who have had billions of dollars stolen from them by immigration fraudsters, or how America intends to compete with China on AI and Robotics, while ensuring that American freedom is maintained.

In short, the government will not be able to build trust by making Instagram reels and X posts about aliens and other abuses of its power. They are going to have to take action against individuals who break the law, incite violence, and commit fraud, especially those entrusted with the power and authority of the greatest nation on earth.

— DR

Something is missing in the world. Have you noticed? Kids.

The most recent data puts our birth rate at approximately 1.53 children per woman in the United States. I’m no mathematician, but that’s not a good sign. Why is this happening, and what can we do to reverse it?

There are several factors that people think are the reason for the lower birthrate. Some say it’s because we’ve stopped having sex, and others say it’s because of smartphones. But there are problems with these conclusions.

We are in a dire situation. In approximately 40-50 years, America will not be America unless something changes. Some individuals believe that they have identified the problem. Let’s take a look at what they think are the primary factors affecting our Western world.

We’re just not having enough sex…

On its face, if we have fewer babies, one might conclude that it’s because of fewer sexual encounters. This is basically common knowledge now that younger generations are turning from alcohol and sex. Some are celebrating this as a sign that the next generation is more virtuous, but that would be jumping to moral conclusions that are contradicted by other factors.

Enter Ben Sasse, a former Republican Senator who is in a battle for his life with cancer.

Sasse is an inspiring Christian man who is demonstrating the value of our faith in times of trouble. In one of his interviews, his face was bleeding excessively from the cancer treatments. He is an inspiration for what it means to suffer well. Pray that God heals him and elevates him for his astounding faith. Regardless of your Christian background, you should learn more about Ben Sasse.

Regarding our subject today, Sasse was asked for his opinion about the birthrate during an interview with 60 Minutes. Below is a transcript from his interview,

“All across the industrialized rich world, people have just stopped having babies in the last couple of decades. We’re at replacement rate birth rates nowhere in the industrialized world except Mormons and Jewish populations — Israel and some parts of the US. Except for those two categories, every other industrialized nation has stopped having babies. That is super weird! We’ve stopped having sex…”

On the face of it, this makes sense. But Sasse is only identifying the symptom. He’s not identifying the cause. For example, well before we were addicted to cell phones, people had been, and still are, aborting their children at a rate of 1-1.5 million babies a year. 30% of Generation Z never made it out of the womb alive. That reduces the mating pool significantly, without anyone having to pick up a cellphone to play Candy Crush or doomscroll on the internet.

I’m about to push back on this, not because I want to critique a cancer warrior, but because we need to address something modern Christians have neglected, and that is this: “Ideas have consequences.”

If you believe that abortion eliminates a parasite rather than a baby, then this idea will be the actuating belief that leads you to abort your child. Similarly, people don’t just stop having sex and having babies. They do this because they have adopted some ideas about sex, marriage, and family.

Even if people were having sex, the majority of them would do so using contraception to prevent pregnancy anyway. They would only do this if they presumed two things: that children are not a gift worth sacrificing for, and second, that contraception is a morally permissible practice to prevent the burden of children.

The idea that “we’ve just stopped having sex” is only part of the problem. Given the rate of contraception use among virtually all sectors of society, it would not matter if people were having sex frequently anyway. According to a National Health and Statistics Report from 2013,

“Current contraceptive use was higher among women aged 25–34 (67.4%) and 35–44 (70.0%) compared with women aged 15–24 (47.4%).”

So, even if someone thinks a few summers of love would do the trick, most likely the fruit of that “love” is being contracepted.

Additionally, if the child is conceived at an inopportune time, there is a good chance that the child is going to be aborted, even, in some cases, by “conservatives” who claim to advocate for prolife policies.

Sasse might be correct that the frequency of sex is lower, but after years of “family planning” propaganda rooted in materialism and individualism, even if we increased the rate of sexual encounters, it would not matter because contraception and abortion would continue to negatively affect the birthrate.

No one is dancing, and it’s technology’s fault!

Sasse continues his thoughts on the fertility crisis and associates it with us being distracted by our dopamine addictions. He continues,

“…How weird that we’ve stopped having sex, stopped making babies, and decided being distracted by dopamine hits around Candy Crush might be a good way to spend our time.”

Rod Dreher, an Orthodox Christian and conservative author with great works on Communism and Christianity, recently shared a video on his socials that also shares the sentiment that technology is ultimately the reason for our declining society.

In this clip, the speaker is Connor Leahy, an AI researcher, speaking about the reality that none of his friends have kids. His theory is that kids don’t want to take romantic risks because they are being recorded constantly. He says at one point, “Kids don’t dance because they know they are being recorded.”

Watch:

As a homeschooling father, I can assure you that kids dance, but I’m sure Connor would disagree with homeschooling being the solution. But I disagree with Connor’s assessment here. There are a plethora of issues that are symptoms of a deeper issue that contribute to a lack of sex drive and lower birth rates:

• Pornography

• Abortion

• Contraception

• Double Income No Kids (DINK)

But these are symptoms or effects of a deeper issue. They are not properly speaking, the cause of our declining birthrate. Yes, our phones are contributing to a lower birthrate, but it is only a symptom of a terminal cancer that has been metastasizing for decades.

The rate is so bad now that politicians and businesses are trying to figure out how to reverse it. Many prominent Christian writers and influencers jumped on the clip and said the man was absolutely correct. These included thinkers and writers like from , and (already mentioned), both men I respect and enjoy reading. So, gents, if you read this, don’t take this as a dig; I just respectfully disagree with some of the implications of your posts.

While yes, it is true that technology is exacerbating the atomization of people, and this will necessarily reduce the mating pool, the fact is that we have been on this road for a long time. So, what are we supposed to do about it? How do we reverse the existential threat to the decline of the West?

We must recognize that we were wrong in our theology and philosophy about sex, marriage, and children, and now we are paying the price. That’s the first step. The second step is to turn to those who warned us about the dangers of adopting contraception and tried to warn us that doing so would lead to immorality and cultural decay that we had not yet seen.

We are living through what Pope Paul VI presciently taught in Humanae Vitae, and the only way out is going to be if we adhere to his teaching. This is because, as the videos above point out, technology is dehumanizing, but the teachings of the Church are intended to humanize you.

Therefore, the only way to get out of this mess is to become more human, and the only way to become more human is to become more Catholic.

Children, from gift to burden…

Ben Sasse made another comment that I think is the most important line of his interview. This is perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church on the truth that children are a gift, but that they are a gift that requires sacrifice. Sasse continues,

Having a baby is a bet on the future…Babies have always been an inconvenience and the most glorious thing you can do to enrich your family and make a bet on the future.

Sasse is right that children have always required sacrifice. But anything of great worth requires sacrifice. If you want to have a great country, someone is going to have to sacrifice. If you want your religion to flourish, someone is going to have to sacrifice. If you want to have a society, someone is going to have to sacrifice for the next generation, rather than living the life of a glutton.

We are suffering as a society because we have been told to sacrifice for our own comfort, rather than for the good of our neighbor or our future generations. We have adopted a kind of political and theological solipsism.

One of the major shifts that impacted people’s perceptions of having kids was that it shifted our understanding of sex from a physical-spiritual act that produced a spiritual and physical being, a child, to an economic decision that was largely a private one made by the couple around their finances and their personal desires. If children fit into that, great; if not, no couple is immoral for choosing to do what they feel like doing.

Children became viewed as an economic burden, rather than a spiritual and political legacy of the future. In other words, somewhere along the line, the “Christian Nations” that were founded on God, family, and country became rooted in the ego and the appetite.

In 2013, Time Magazine ran a cover story about the phenomenon of young married couples wilfully choosing not to have children.

But where did this idea come from? How did people get the idea that it was morally permissible to be married without kids so that you can have lots of money and travel the world together?

No one could have predicted it. Really?

There is a video circulating on the internet. It is a woman describing the cultural and philosophical climate that led to the rapid adoption of contraception. What she says is very telling of the older generations’ refusal to acknowledge that they had been morally compromised at a systematic level.

Watch:

[From the video]

“There were a few naysayers, like the Catholic Church…So it was said, and we can’t blame the people back then for not understanding what would happen.”

Really?

If a parent sees his kids adopt a bad ideology, which to the kid appears beneficial, but is in fact dangerous, the parent is going to warn the child and encourage them to reject it. Suppose the child ignores his parent’s warnings and is now suffering the consequences. Realizing now that he has made the wrong decision, the child voices his excuse, “Well, you know, there is no way I could have known that was going to happen.”

Now, on one level, we would expect an arrogant kid to say something like this. But we would also recognize that the kid experienced the consequences because he ignored the warnings. He may not have seen the wisdom of his parents’ words at the time, but that doesn’t mean he is without culpability. He was warned, he rejected that warning, and now he is to blame for that decision.

Americans have a problem with taking responsibility for the reality that they freely chose. In this case, it was to ignore what the Catholic Church was teaching at a time when the moral climate was extremely difficult to navigate.

In many ways, the Protestant Americans decided that they were going to argue against the Church and favor their own understanding and hubris. All of us can be guilty of this. Pride is the chief sin.

But what is particularly ugly is not that people fell by their own pride, but that they brush off the consequences of this fall as if it has led to a minor offense, rather than acknowledging that these choices and the ideas that motivated them led to atrocities that are, to put it mildly, competing with the evils of Nazism and the Soviet Union.

Today, our country faces the threat of extinction. We now know what the ideas were that led to it, the theology, philosophy, and leaders who permitted and/or promulgated it, as well as the ones who defended truth and preached against the dangers of contraception and the effects it would bring upon the world. Babies are being murdered by their own mothers to the tune of 1.5-4.5 million babies per year, when you include children lost to both abortion and IVF.

The Warnings of the Catholic Church and the Protestant Response.

In July of 1968, Pope Paul IV published his famous encyclical, Humanae Vitae. I gave an AI the following prompt:

“What are the most prescient quotes from the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae?”

Here are the major themes of that document as summarized by AI. I’ll discuss the actual quotes in a little bit:

1. Marital Infidelity and Lowering of Moral Standards

2. Loss of Reverence for Women and Objectification

3. Risk of Government Coercion and Abuse of Power

These are the same themes that the woman in the video listed off, but then said, “No one is to blame, because they could not have known.”

Imagine if the Israelites said something like what this woman had said in the video: “Well, God, we know that you sent prophets and stuff, but I mean, we couldn’t have really known what they were talking about because it hadn’t happened yet!”

The following are quotes from Pope Paul VI, and the prescient quotes that so many in the Western world rejected. It is clear that God was guiding Pope Paul VI on these issues, and that those outside the walls of the Church desired to lean on their own understanding, rather than submit to sacred tradition and teaching that has been guided by the Spirit of Truth for 2000 years.

Marital Infidelity and Lowering of Moral Standards

Recall that in our video above, the woman said the following,

When the birth control pill was invented, most people thought it would be a good thing. There were few naysayers like the Catholic Church, but most people who are outside of the church thought that this [would] help people and give them control over their fertility. It’ll make marriage stronger. These kinds of arguments advanced…

Instead, divorce rates skyrocketed. Cohabitation took off. Families became broken on a scale not seen before in history. And abortion also skyrocketed. So there are complex explanations for why these counterintuitive things [that took] place. But they did. That left families in a more fractured situation than we have ever seen.

Now, let’s read the encyclical from Pope Paul VI on contraception, and see if there were any warnings that did in fact predict the negatives of contraception.

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

Humanae Vitae, 17.

Clearly, there was some understanding among many on the other side of the Tiber that the Western Protestants were playing with fire.

Loss of Reverence for Women and Objectification

Objectification of women has been a major problem in our culture. Technology is increasingly dehumanizing us, but it can only do that if we lack an authoritative teacher who seeks to humanize us. Today, you will either submit to the technologists or the Church.

Contraception is one of the major reasons for that. Why? Because it was the first step to seeing pleasure as the primary purpose of sex, rather than the proximate one. Instead of seeing a woman as a potential mother or mate, contraception made it possible for us to sever that connection psychologically and societally. Something that Pope Paul VI said in his encyclical,

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

Ibid.

Risk of Government Coercion and Abuse of Power

This is the final quote from Pope Paul VI that I want to cover. In it, he predicts that most of us would have probably thought, “Hmmm…possible, but I doubt that would happen.” But then it did. Read on.

Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government that, in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country, resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods that they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.

Ibid.

Paul VI is essentially saying that the marital act is so foundational to society that if we make it subject to technology, it will become mutable and shapable in the eyes of government leaders. Hannah Arendt, philosopher on the Holocaust and the psychology behind it, said that the new priesthood was the Scientist. Pope Paul VI is essentially echoing this sentiment. If the scientists become the moral arbiters, then the government will have no qualms about enforcing its opinion on the people on matters that should largely be left up to husband, wife, and the Church.

Today, we have the government trying to force Christian companies to pay for insurance packages that cover abortions, IVF procedures, contraceptives, and even force bakers to bake cakes and counselors to affirm delusions rather than help clients come back to reality. This is because technology fundamentally warps reality and our understanding of it.

Contraception is the start of a cancer that spreads first technologically, then philosophically, and then theologically, and now we have new technology that is exacerbating the tumors that were growing many years ago.

The issue is that, if America is going to turn from her wicked ways, they will have to turn to Rome. For she is the only expression of Christianity that has maintained her doctrines and authority during an era where technology is destroying the soul of mankind.

How Protestants Responded

How did Protestants respond to these ideas over the years? Over the years, Protestants came to realize that Catholics were right, but not because of the magisterium or because of scripture, but because of reality looking them in the face from behind a jar of formaldehyde.

In an article from 2015, the Baptist Press interviewed former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Dr. Richard Land, on the topic of abortion, and why protestants were so slow to respond. In that interview, he said,

They pretty much bought into the idea that life begins when breath begins, and they just thought of [abortion] as a Catholic issue…

In this same article, the journalist describes the scene that “drove the point home” for the former leader, Dr. Richard Land,

For Land, a high school science class drove home the reality that unborn babies were humans worthy of protection. A classmate whose father was an obstetrician brought a fetus to school in a jar of formaldehyde as a prop for a presentation and stored it beside Land’s desk. When Land told the teacher he was disturbed by the fetus, he was sent to the principal’s office, where a school administrator asked, “You’re not Catholic, are you?”1

In his book Defenders of the Unborn, Daniel K. Williams points out that a major reason for the accelerated acceptance of contraceptives was that Margaret Sanger intentionally targeted Protestant ministers to help her challenge the “taboo” of contraceptives.

In the early 1920s, Margaret Sanger and her American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood) challenged this taboo and quickly won widespread acceptance among middle-class Protestants for the use of contraceptive devices… By the late 1930s, national committees of the American Episcopal, United Methodist, United Presbyterian, and Congregational Christian Churches had officially endorsed birth control….By 1946, 3,200 ministers were members of Planned Parenthood’s Clergyman’s Council. The nation’s physicians—especially those who were not Catholic—also joined the cause. In 1947, 98 percent of American doctors approved of contraception for health reasons and 79 percent approved of it in cases when a family’s economic situation required it…In less than a generation, a once-taboo (and often illegal) practice had become a positive good that was now used by most middle-class Protestant couples, prescribed by their doctors, and endorsed by their pastors.

Williams, Daniel K.. Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade (pp. 13-14). Kindle Edition.

This is not to say that no one in the Protestant world was standing against contraception and abortion, especially later. Dr. Land and others became prominent voices in the fight for life. But before the 80s and 90s, these voices were a minority. This is evident by the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention ended up exhorting its members to pursue legislation in their elections that would make abortion legal.

Additionally, the first President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Norman Geisler, wrote extensively on how he believed that abortion, contraception, eugenics, IVF, and Surrogacy were all permitted biblically in his text Ethic: Alternatives and Issues. To his credit, he later recanted the position and told the publisher to pull the book from print, but that was after his writings on the subject were circulating for nearly 20 years.

Daniel K. Williams continues,

A few heavily Catholic states in the Northeast, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, continued to restrict the sale of birth control devices until the 1960s, but those states were in the minority. After the 1930s, the overwhelming body of Protestant opinion in the United States was in favor of birth control use, with 85 percent of Americans in 1943 believing that married women should have access to contraceptives, according to a Fortune magazine survey.

Ibid.

Conclusion

We saw many theories proposed as to why our birthrate is falling into the grave. Some believe it is smartphones, others believe it was the technological innovations in biology that had unpredictable effects. Yet, we can see that the Church has been the “city on the hill,” shining the light on the moral and ethical challenges of our day.

The Protestants do not have an authoritative teaching, and it’s clear because their teaching led to the entire Western world, including Catholics, being led astray by the promise of sex without kids and double-income households with no inflation. The era of prosperity was here, and if you wanted kids, you could have them, but if you didn’t, that’s cool too.

Well, now our society is facing a collapse that no one can really imagine. Those who adopted these ideas and promulgated them, many of them are long gone.

But there is still hope. The only way out is if we, as many Protestant ministers are fond of saying,

“If My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

— 2 Chron. 7:14 (KJ21)

The only challenge for America right now is whether we will be humble enough to acknowledge that the teachings of the Church are what mankind actually needs. These teachings are not merely intended for Catholic Christians, but they are for all men and women of good will.

We can see this in those addressed by Pope Paul VI at the top of his encyclical:

So, the question now is, will Americans humble themselves and recognize that they need not just their Bibles, but the Catholic Church?

Time will tell. The only problem is, we don’t have much time left.

— DR

¹² “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. ¹³ But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

John 16:12-13

This means that one of the marks of the true Church would be that it has “all the truth” necessary to identify all that Christianity teaches. If our protestant friend is correct, that all denominations have an error somewhere in their doctrinal commitments, then this would leave us with three possible interpretations of this passage:

1. That the Holy Spirit would only lead the apostles into all truth, and after they died, the promise ceased.

2. That the Holy Spirit would lead individuals into all truth, since denominations are in error.

3. That the Holy Spirit failed to fulfill its nature as the “Spirit of Truth,” and allowed the Church to err.

Either that, or the Holy Spirit has never failed, and he continues to guide the Church, which St. Paul calls the “foundation and the pillar of the truth.”

Does this passage only apply to the apostles?

This fails for a major reason, and that is, you have to pinpoint when the Church stopped following the Holy Spirit’s guidance. In other words, at what point did they stop listening to the Holy Spirit, or at what point did the Holy Spirit stop guiding them?

For example, all Christians agree that the Old and New Testament writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But not all Christians agree on what books are or are not inspired. Protestants have 66, Catholics have 73, and depending on how you define it, the Orthodox have 76-78.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a definitive declaration from one of the apostles that these are the books you should have in the Old or New Testament, and these are the books you should not. There are plenty of Catholic/Protestant debates on this topic. A good debate on this is Trent Horn vs Gavin Ortlund on Sola Scriptura.

But what about doctrines like the Trinity and the Incarnation?

Are these doctrines and their formulation optional? Meaning, can we say two churches teach sound doctrine if one says that the Trinity is defined as three persons, one God, while another says that it’s defined as God operating in three different modes? What about a Church that says the Trinity has three parts, but one essence? If they all use the word Trinity, is that enough to say they have the truth?

Another question is baptism. If you get sprinkled with water, have you been baptized? Does baptism have any spiritual effect? Some denominations say that baptism cleanses us from original sin; others say you’re only getting wet. Which of these doctrines has the Holy Spirit as its guide?

Some will say, “But we can derive it from scripture.” Which is true, but this is highly unlikely even with our modern Biblical study methods and tools. Furthermore, it’s not enough for someone who knows the doctrine of the Trinity to go back through and derive the teaching. There was a point in history when the doctrine had not been defined, and competing theological theories were being put forward.

This is really the important question. It’s not merely a question of “can you derive this from scripture,” but can you successfully define, define, and establish it as a doctrine for all Christians for the next 1600 years? That is a much bigger task. One that you could not accomplish without the Holy Spirit.

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation were established and developed, not by the apostles, but by Church fathers like Athanasius. The doctrine of the Trinity was not solidified until 325 A.D., and the development of the Incarnation, Christ having a human and a divine nature, would not be established until the year 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon.

Is this the beginning of the error? It’s unlikely, since even many Anti-Catholic apologists will condemn liberal and relativistic Protestants who claim that these doctrines are optional. Furthermore, if you think that these doctrines are not essential to the Christian faith, then even groups like Mormons must be considered to be legitimate Christians in some sense.

So it seems unlikely that the Holy Spirit was only promised to guide the apostles, and not necessarily to guide the Church.

Does the Holy Spirit only lead individuals?

Maybe it’s the case that the Holy Spirit continues to lead a few elect individuals into all truth. This seems extremely unlikely. If true, two questions immediately arise:

1. Who are these people?

2. How do we know they actually have the truth?

Obviously, God leads people into truth. Protestants that are “Catholic-friendly” but theologically relativistic, will tend to emphasize that the Holy Spirit is leading the individuals, not any single institution. They want to presume that “God is leading all the churches into truth” because they “see God moving in those communities.”

This is more of a bottom-up approach. Since God is leading the individual or individuals within a group, especially those Christians who are laymen and not public representatives of the denomination, this means that God is “leading that church” into all truth.

In one sense, we can say that God is leading the individuals into all truth since that is the individual is the origin of submission to any institution. As a former Protestant, I can assure you that God is moving outside the walls of the Church. However, one does not have to accept that just because God is working in the midst of these communities, it does not mean they are all equally valid in their teachings.

There is an Old Testament story that highlights this idea.

Naaman’s story is found in the second Book of Kings. His story demonstrates that God will even do miracles and blessings for those outside the Israelite covenant. Naaman is described as a Syrian commander in the Old Testament who is “Highly esteemed and respected by his master…”

Naaman, the army commander of the king of Aram, was highly esteemed and respected by his master, for through him the Lord had brought victory to Aram. But valiant as he was, the man was a leper.

2 Kgs. 5:1 (NABRE)

But notice that the reason for this high esteem is that the “Lord had brought victory to Aram…” These victories include victories over Israel. We know this because in the next few verses, we learn that Naaman has captured a young Israelite girl and made her his wife’s servant.

Now the Arameans had captured from the land of Israel in a raid a little girl, who became the servant of Naaman’s wife. ³ She said to her mistress, “If only my master would present himself to the prophet in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”

2 Kgs. 5:2-3

Are we supposed to presume that Israel and the pagans of Aram/Syria are both valid religions because God is blessing individuals in both of them? Or should we presume that even though the Syrians are further away from the truth than the Israelites, they are still, “basically” on the same page? No.

Even Naaman recognizes that his own people’s religion is no longer an option when he acknowledges that he must go back to Syria and live as a believer in the God of Israel, but do so among his pagan people and their practices.

The text tells us that Naaman promises no longer to make burnt offerings to his false gods, but he tells Elisha that he, Naaman, will be required to accompany the King in their nation’s pagan religious practices.

“Now I know that there is no God in all the earth, except in Israel. Please accept a gift from your servant…your servant will no longer make burnt offerings or sacrifices to any other god except the Lord. ¹⁸ But may the Lord forgive your servant this: when my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down there, as he leans upon my arm, I too must bow down in the temple of Rimmon. When I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord please forgive your servant this.” Elisha said to him, “Go in peace.”

2 Kgs. 5:15, 17-19

Naaman comes to realize, through Elisha, that Israel’s God is the one true God, but we must recognize that Naaman was already being blessed prior to ever meeting Elisha. Does this mean that, in some sense, the Syrian religion has some validity to it, even if it is not as valid as Israel’s religion? No.

God’s blessing falls on both the godly and the ungodly. This means that God’s blessing is not sufficient by itself to determine how valid or invalid a religion is. It also doesn’t mean that there are no Godly people in other religions. How much better would the world look if modern American Christians, regardless of tradition, took the scriptures as seriously as Muslims take the call to prayer?

While it’s true that we can learn from each other in terms of virtue or piety, this fact does not mean that we can learn from each other in terms of dogmas and morals. These must come from the Holy Spirit.

The fact that God is working in both Protestant and Catholic communities is irrelevant to the question of who the Holy Spirit is leading into all truth.

If a community has all the truth about Christianity, then it simply follows that other groups could have some of the truth, but not all of the truth. But if we act like everyone gets a slice of the “doctrinal pie”, some get big slices, others small ones, but in the end, no one has the whole pie, then Christianity will become sterile. As one Cardinal said, “People die for the truth, not for ambiguity.”

Did the Holy Spirit fail to lead the Church into all truth?

Since the Holy Spirit is God, and God cannot fail, then it follows that this last statement is obviously false. That leaves us with the question, “Who or what is God leading into all truth?”

When Jesus was walking around the earth, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah foretold that the Messiah would be a normal-looking man.

He had no majestic bearing to catch our eye,
no beauty to draw us to him.
He was spurned and avoided by men,
a man of suffering, knowing pain,
Like one from whom you turn your face,
spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

Isa. 53:2-3

Sometimes Christians read the Gospels with a bit of “chronological snobbery” — the idea that you’re smarter than previous generations by virtue of the time in which you live. We take for granted that we probably would not have been followers of Christ during those 33 years of his life on earth.

“How did these guys not accept Jesus as the Messiah? I mean, look at all that he was doing!”, we say. “I mean, he healed a blind man, dude!”

Who needs humility when you have pride like that!

In fact, Jesus was often selective about whom he revealed himself to. Yes, sometimes this would happen in the form of miracles. After his resurrection, he made some appearances to people in extraordinary ways. For example, after His Resurrection, he appears to a few hundred people.

This is hardly an undeniable display of divinity when you consider 99% of the world was going to come to believe in Christ through his disciples’ witness and teachings, not Christ’s appearances.

When you compare Christ’s appearances to post-apostolic Marian apparitions and many Protestants still refuse to be Catholic, it becomes very clear that most of us would have downplayed Jesus’ miracles the same way Protestants downplay the miraculous uniqueness of Catholic teachings. You might say, “Daniel, what are you talking about?”

Consider the fact that some Marian Apparitions have over 70,000 witnesses to Mary’s miracles and miraculous appearances. In the Apparition of Fatima, there were many non-Catholics and non-Christians present who later converted. Even the Newspapers covered the story. Its evidence is so extraordinary that atheist scholars like Bart Ehrman will deploy the evidence for apparitions to reveal the bias of Protestants who claim to “follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

One prominent scholar received this tactic in a debate on the Resurrection of Jesus, and when the evidence for Marian Apparitions was deployed, the Protestant said something to the effect of, “My Protestant theological framework does not permit me to accept such things.”

The reality is that most of us would probably have looked at Jesus the same way many of us look at the founders of Islam and Mormonism, or the way Protestants look at Eucharistic miracles or Marian Apparitions.

We would be skeptical, even with the miracles. Then, the moment Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood, we would exclaim, “See, he is crazy! Did you hear what he said? He told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood!”

For others, we might see a miracle, and it still might not be enough to convince us. We might echo the prayer of the unbeliever, “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.” The reality is that reason alone can’t get you the doctrines of Christianity. As we have seen, the Holy Spirit is a necessary factor in determining what is or is not doctrine. This is most starkly seen in Jesus exhortation to Peter in the Gospel of Matthew,

[Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

Mt. 16:16-17

It is clear that, while God may move within our various denominations, it does not mean that he is moving within our doctrines. Case in point, God frequently blesses pagans precisely because he wants them to leave their communities in order that they might be united to the true community (e.g., Rahab). This is why the Church that is being guided into all truth must be visible.

If we say, “Well, the invisible church is really what we are all a part of,” we run into the question, “How do I know that I’m a part of the invisible Church?”

Presume for a moment that it is no longer debatable that Jesus really meant what he said in John 6:53, “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.” Grant, for the sake of argument, that this means it is undeniably true that you must receive the body and blood of Jesus sacramentally in the Eucharist to be raised on the last day.

What would this mean for churches that deny this teaching? What would it mean for churches that not only deny the teaching but preach actively against it and claim that those practicing such things are committing grave sins? Can one say that such institutions are still united to the invisible Church in the way that the members of the Trinity are united to each other? Can we even say that these churches are part of the invisible church, or would we have to admit that they are actually opposed to the invisible Church by virtue of their opposition to the teachings of the visible one?

Recap

The leading of the Holy Spirit into all truth does not only apply to the apostles. If it did, then we would have to grant that our post-apostolic doctrines, like the Trinity and Incarnation, should always be questioned. Instead of following the Church, we would just follow the smartest theologian. In fact, this is precisely what the prominent Protestant philosopher and theologian, William L. Craig, has done on the issue of whether Christ had one will or two. He suggests that we must reject the councils on this matter because he thinks his interpretation is more sound than the last 1400 years of Christian councils and theologians.

The issue is that scripture says the church is the foundation of the truth, not individual academics. Just as Israel had been the medium through which God would save the world, so the Church is the New Israel that will bring men to the fullness of truth. If the Church is going to accomplish its mission as the foundation of truth, especially with fallible men, it will be necessary for it to have the Holy Spirit as its guide into all truth.

We also addressed the idea that the Holy Spirit leads individuals. This is true, but it doesn’t mean that individuals are “led into all truth” while the institutions are left to flounder in error. If this were the case, then only the most brilliant would have confidence in the truth. But just as Christ is an advocate to the Father for our salvation, so the Church is an advocate to Christ on behalf of our understanding. There were plenty of people in Israel who were not part of the priestly class, and definitely didn’t understand everything about the Covenant. But by virtue of their obedience to the covenant, they were beneficiaries of it.

Finally, we addressed the question: Did the Holy Spirit fail to lead any of the churches into all truth? This is wrong philosophically because God cannot fail something that he sets out to do, especially when that “something” is to make the truth known. But it’s also just wrong theologically.

If no church has “all the truth,” then it would follow that the Holy Spirit failed, and the gates of hell would have prevailed against the church. This would also implicate Jesus’ promise that the church would not fail. But no serious Christian is willing to accept this conclusion.

But if one remains in their belief that there is no single church that has the fullness of Christianity, or the authority to teach as Christ taught, then it would follow that Christianity is nothing more than a kind of theistic agnosticism. We feel pretty confident about some of the things we believe, but the only thing we’re really sure about is that we can’t know what is and is not Christianity. Again, John 6:53 is a great example of this.

In short, someone has to have the Keys to the Kingdom. Those keys were either lost in the early years of the church, those keys were duplicated among a very select few individuals, or God actually entrusted those keys to fallible men, and when their grip began to slip, the Holy Spirit would reinforce their grip upon them.

Furthermore, Christians can’t even agree on the way something becomes a doctrine. At what point does a debate over a theological issue go from a reasonable answer to a declared dogma that all Christians everywhere must submit to?

After all, if a Christian speaker says, “This is an essential doctrine of the faith,” and the hearer says, “I don’t agree,” then one of them is certainly wrong.

Some Approaches to the Problem

What or who decides what the essentials of the faith actually are, not just what they think they are? If someone says, “The Holy Spirit,” they are only reframing the question as: “Who decides what the Holy Spirit has declared an essential doctrine?” This is also problematic because the Holy Spirit never gave the apostles an inspired list of doctrines.

I guess we have a few options:

1. We get the smartest living Christians, lock them in a room, and tell them to debate each other until one of them concedes the debate. This has some obvious drawbacks…

2. We get the strongest living Christians, experts in hand-to-hand combat, and lock them in a room and have them fight to the death. Whoever wins is the Christian with the inspired list of doctrines. Unless, of course, the opponent who died in a duel comes back from the dead. In which case, we declare the essentials listed by the one who came back from the dead, the list all Christians are supposed to live by.

3. We decide that everyone is right because they are giving the good old college try. Figure out ways to create word salads in which no one knows what the other one is talking about. Then we smile, nod, and pray that none of us goes to hell for our complicity in purveying a culture of relativism and heresy. This seems to be the most popular approach today.

We will opt for a different way.

In Essentials, Unity…

There is a popular phrase that many Protestants say when they encounter a doctrinal difference between them and another Christian group, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity?” While this phrase is useful for fostering tolerance among various Christian sects, it does not do anything to foster unity.

This is because the phrase, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity?” makes two major presumptions:

1. That we agree on the essentials.

2. That we agree on the non-essentials.

This means that the phrase is only accepted among individuals who already agree on the essentials. But the whole point of the phrase is to have unity among individuals who disagree with each other. If they agreed on the essentials, then they wouldn’t have different denominations.

The phrase invites us to ask several questions:

• What are the essentials?

• Who decides the essentials?

• Where does one go to find them?

• Who enforces the requirement to believe the essentials?

• What are the risks of getting the essentials wrong?

We are not going to answer all of these questions today. Instead, I think we can bypass them completely by first defining what an essential is, and then looking at which teachings of Jesus apply this definition. Let’s assume that the definition of an essential of the faith is:

An essential of the Christian faith is defined as teaching or practice that is a requirement for salvation.

Put another way, these are “salvation issues.” With our definition out of the way, all we have to do is look at Jesus’ teachings on salvation and see what conditions he puts on them. In other words, where did Jesus say, “Only if you [fill in the blank], can you inherit the Kingdom of heaven.”

We have plenty of scriptural backing for this definition, but note that we don’t have an explicit scriptural backing of what scripture is, what its table of contents are, or which passages should be read in church. If you think all passages of scripture are suitable for the Church, I invite you to look at read Ezekiel Chapter 23, a chapter titled “The Two Adulterous Sisters.”

Doctrine Matters

Doctrine is clearly important from a scriptural perspective. One might say, “Doctrine is an essential issue.” There are plenty of warnings about getting the teachings of Christ wrong. As Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew,

“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…“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock…

Mt. 7:21-24

It’s passages like this that inspire one of my closest Protestant friends to say, “I’m not worried about what I think we have correct. I’m worried about where I’m wrong, but I think I’m right.” And who doesn’t, if they are honest, share this sentiment?

When we move into the epistles, we see more emphasis on the importance of sound doctrine. As 1 Timothy 4:16 says,

Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Clearly, sound teaching has a salvific effect, not just for us, but for those who receive the doctrines. Whether we like it or not, based on this definition, the doctrinal unity is far more narrow than we might want to admit.

False doctrines can even destroy. One of the marks of false doctrine is its destructive nature. According to St. Peter,

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

— 2 Pt. 2:1–2

From this, we can gather that erring on what is essential is a dangerous thing to do. Furthermore, even if we correctly identify those essentials, we could get their meaning and application wrong.

We also can’t say that denominations agree on the essentials; if they did, there would be far fewer denominations. Furthermore, doctrine is what unites us, and false doctrine is what divides us. One essential we will discuss later is unity, something that St. Paul says in his letter to the Galatians is a damnable offense:

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

— Gal. 5:19-21 (NIV)

From these verses, we can conclude that doctrine matters. That denominational schisms have salvific implications. This is not an appeal to the Catholic Church being the true Church, though I believe it to be, but rather to point out that none of the founders of their respective denominations believed that the list of essential doctrines in one denomination was just as good as the list of essential doctrines in another.

So, where do we even start?

WWJT - What Would Jesus Teach?

All my life, I have enjoyed talking about theology. Coming from a family of six kids, all of whom now attend different denominational churches, there is always a potential opportunity to discuss our differences, especially now that there is a Catholic in the mix.

In all our conversations, everyone attempts to maintain a spirit of “In essentials unity, non-essentials liberty…” There is just one problem that inevitably leads us to an impasse, and that is the question, “What did Jesus consider a salvific issue?”

There are at least five essentials that Jesus explicitly linked to our salvation. They are:

• ☑️ Belief

• ☑️ Obedience

• ☑️ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

1# Jesus & Belief

When we ask, “What are the essentials?” we are asking the question, “When did Jesus say that the topic of his teachings was a requirement for salvation?” This does not mean we do a deep dive on the meaning of the word belief. This is simply to identify what is or is not an essential issue. We are simply attempting to identify those categories of Christian theology that have salvific conditions attached to them. Meaning that if we fail to meet these conditions, we void our salvation.

For example, in John 3:16, Jesus says, “…Whoever believes in Him, shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Clearly, from this passage, whatever it means to “believe in Jesus” has eternal consequences. Does this mean that someone who simply believes that Jesus existed on earth at some point in history has eternal life, or does belief here mean something deeper and more concrete? For our purposes, it doesn’t really matter. What’s clear from the Gospels is that belief is an essential requirement for salvation.

…Whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Mk. 16:16

Regardless of how you answer the question, “What does belief mean?” is irrelevant to whether or not belief is an essential issue. Again, we must first identify the essentials before we can start unpacking them. The fact that Jesus associates belief in Him as a necessary condition for eternal life is precisely what makes theological discussions around what is or is not belief an essential issue.

Therefore, the first essential of the Christian faith is:

• ✅ Belief

• ☑️ Obedience

• ☑️ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

#2 Jesus & Obedience

Many Christians will stop at belief. They will say that as long as you believe in Jesus, you’re saved, and there is nothing that you can do to forfeit that. But if one were to keep reading the Bible, it would become clear that there are more essentials to the Christian faith in Jesus’ teachings.

First, recall that Jesus condemned the idea of “mere intellectual ascent.”

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

Mt. 7:21

Clearly, merely praying a prayer or saying a few contrite words does not meet the requirement for salvation. We are not permitted to simply think that our belief in Christ’s existence or merely that He was God is sufficient for salvation. As St. James says, “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble” (Jm. 2:19).

Now, some Christians will immediately be thinking of the verse in John 6:40,

“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day.”

We will address this later, but this does not imply that the only essential of the faith is belief in Christ or acknowledgement that He is God. We must take the whole of Christ’s teaching, not just the parts we like.

If we return to Jesus’ words in the Gospel of Matthew, we find Jesus emphasizing that we must not only hear his words, but do them.

Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock…And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand…

Mt. 7:24-27

Notice that people who hear, but do not act, are the ones who are the fools. This means that belief is not merely intellectual ascent, but active. That activating element of belief is obedience. As St. James says, “Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.”

In John 3:36, we see that Jesus finishes his discourse on baptism and belief by affirming that one must believe and obey. But here is a wrinkle on the essentials discussion. Our denominations do not translate our Bibles in the same way, and this can lead to confusion.

Here is the passage in question, first as the Protestant New International Version (NIV) translates it,

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

— Jn. 3:36 (NIV)

Here is the translation from the New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE), a Catholic translation.

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.

— Jn. 3:36 (NABRE)

It’s not that there is nefarious work here on either part of the Catholics or the Protestants. Translation work is hard and presumes a theological framework before there is ever a translation decision made. It would take too long to dive into this, and it’s not my area. But as we investigate the tension around the essentials, it’s worth noting that sometimes our translations mislead us. This is particularly important for the Protestants who argue that scripture is perspicuous or clear in its teachings on salvation, such that anyone can just read it and know what is required of them for salvation.

Regardless, it’s clear from Jesus’ own teaching that obedience is an essential category for salvation. This implies that there are specific and essential teachings that we must be obedient to.

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ☑️ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

#3 Jesus & Baptism

It was alluded to in the previous section, but the previous two essentials that we discussed are pretty obvious for anyone who takes the words of Jesus seriously. But as we go deeper, we will discover why Jesus describes salvation as a “narrow way.” Christ’s teachings about salvation were not limited to belief and obedience. When we see what it means to obey him, we find ourselves echoing the confusion of the religious leaders, like Nicodemus, who said, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”

Many Protestants will say, “I can read the Bible all on my own, and that will be enough to get me to heaven.” Not only is this not taught in scripture, but it’s explicitly condemned.

Jesus said to the religious leaders,

You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life.

— Jn. 5:39-40

Obviously, scripture testifies to Jesus, but the scriptures alone are not enough for salvation; you need scripture and Jesus, and not Jesus merely in the “intellectual” or “emotional” sense, but in the objective sense.

Jesus tells us the answer to this in his conversation with Nicodemus,

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

— Jn. 3:5

Jesus is speaking authoritatively here about needing to be born again. The condition is clear: if you’re not born of water and the Spirit, you will not inherit the kingdom of God. This has always been historically understood to mean baptism.

Regardless of your view on the meaning of baptism or its modes (sprinkle vs dunking), those who think it’s optional and therefore not a “salvation issue” are rejecting what Christ and his apostles taught.

If we need a more explicit teaching from Christ, we can go to Mark 16:16

He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul explicitly links Baptism to eternal life as well.

“Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.”

Rom. 6:3-4

Regardless of your beliefs about the meaning of Baptism, whether it is merely a symbolic or sacramental, is not the question we are answering today. What is extremely clear from scripture is that Baptism is intimately linked with eternal life. Those who reject the idea that a theology of baptism is not essential for salvation are in error.

This means that Baptism is also an essential of the faith.

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ✅ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

#4 Jesus & His Flesh

So far, we have identified that Belief, Obedience, and Baptism are all essentials, or “salvific” issues that Christians must get correct, lest they be considered false teachers. It’s clear from Jesus that he undeniably links all of these to salvation.

We are now coming to what is probably the most dangerous passage in all of scripture because most people interpret Jesus’ words in the same way that those in John 6:66 did.

In John 6, Jesus famously tells his followers that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood.

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

— Jn. 6:53-54

Whatever you think this passage is teaching, two things are undeniable:

1. The meaning of these passages is not immediately clear.

2. Misinterpreting Jesus’ words here has eternal risks.

As we saw earlier, belief is necessary. But then we saw that belief without obedience is not true belief. Now, we see that obedience means being baptized and eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

Jesus’ words here are essential to the Gospel. That means that if we get our interpretation wrong on what His words mean here, we are committing an error that could lead to loss of eternal life. Furthermore, if we didn’t share the perspective of the apostles on these issues, baptism and communion, we would be considered false teachers and would have been excommunicated from the early Church.

St. Paul tells us this in 1 Corinthians,

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

1 Cor. 10:16-17

Again, regardless of what you think about communion, whether it should be grape juice or wine, whether it’s supposed to be an open table or not, these are not the questions we are trying to answer. All that is being demonstrated here is that if Jesus said “unless you do this…you do not have eternal life” or “unless you do this…you will not inherit the Kingdom of heaven,” then it is undeniable that the issue in question is a salvific one.

The reason why so many people debate the subject of the Eucharist being Christ’s actual body and blood is that they recognize the stakes are extremely high. When one comes to realize that this teaching is not merely symbolic, they are obligated by obedience to leave their churches and find one that teaches rightly on this subject.

Anyone who says that a church’s theology of communion is a “non-essential” is not reading their Bible, or they are trying to ignore an uncomfortable truth, that they might be wrong about something Jesus takes more seriously than they do.

At this point, we have four essentials:

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ✅ Baptism

• ✅ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

That leaves us with one more. Unity.

#5 Jesus & Unity

Many Christians today have become numb to the idea of “Christian Divisions.” Nowhere in scripture are Christians encouraged to break off from the Church; in fact, we are told by St. Paul to,

…Live in a manner worthy of the call you have received…striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

— Eph. 4:1-6

This does not mean that you can’t be kicked out of the Church, but abandoning the Church is not an option. It is clear from St. Paul’s perspective that there are not multiple versions of Christianity in terms of its essential teachings. There is “One Lord, one faith, one baptism…” That leaves us with very limited options on how we are to understand the significance of unity:

1. There is one form of Christianity that is doctrinally correct.

2. There is one form of Christianity that is the most doctrinally correct.

3. No one form of Christianity is correct; all of them have heresy in them.

Clearly, the third version is not biblical. It’s clear from Paul’s writings that he doesn’t see “denominations.” He sees Christianity having distinctive teachings, practices, and visibility.

But what about Jesus? What did he have to say about Unity?

At the end of his life, Jesus prays for something counter to our current experience with Christianity. The main subject of His prayer is that Christians would be one. This takes place before he dies, and is presumably during the Last Supper accounts where Christ says the bread is His body and the chalice is His blood.

Before Jesus speaks about the importance of unity and its role in salvation, He reminds His disciples, and us, that eternal life is knowing the only true God, and that we come to know this truth through Jesus Christ, the one God sent.

Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ…

— Jn 17:3

This sounds like we are talking about our first essential, Belief. But how do we come to this knowledge and put our belief in it? How can you believe in something that you don’t know?

Jesus is recognizing that we need to have a means of coming to the knowledge that He was truly sent by God. Jesus is not referring to His miracles as the primary mode to know this, but to unity.

Jesus is looking ahead to a time when He will not be on the earth in human form. He is praying not just for his current disciples, but “for those who will believe…through [the disciples’ word]”. He explicitly acknowledges that the primary means of coming to know Christ, the Son of God, will be through the visible unity of the Christians on earth. Unity is the “capstone” that makes us listen to Christ on all other essentials of the faith.

Here is Jesus’ prayer for unity, found in John’s Gospel,

Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are… (11)

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.

Jn. 17:11; 20-23

If we come to know that Jesus was sent by God, then it follows that we must listen to him on all other essentials: Belief, Obedience, Baptism, and the Eucharist. But we come to know that Jesus is sent by the Father through something Jesus calls unity. It is clear that knowledge of Christ is essential for salvation, but if the believers do not have unity, then it will make it harder for those outside the fold to know God.

Also, keep in mind, Jesus does not frame Christian unity as the basis for having a “generic” knowledge of God. The unity he is praying for among believers is the same unity that Jesus shares with the Father.

Without this unity, salvation becomes psychologically impossible, unless God divinely intervenes.

For many Christians, they will say, “Well, the unity is invisible. We have our differences, but we all love Jesus.” Is that the kind of unity that Jesus is talkinga bout here? Are there “differences” about theological truth claims held by different members of the trinity within the Godhead? No.

Furthermore, an invisible unity makes Christianity a kind of gnostic religion, where you require a secret knowledge of the invisible unity so that you can be a part of it. So the topic of unity must not be a secret unity or an invisible one; it must be a unity that even the world recognizes.

That also means that whatever the Church claims to have this unity, will necessarily have to claim to be exclusive, since you can’t have multiple doctrines and still have unity. They will also make the claim that their visible institution, whether that be Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, or Orthodox, has fulfilled, better than any of the others, Christ’s priestly prayer.

While I believe the Catholic Church to be the best representative of Christian Unity on earth, I’m not arguing for the veracity of the Catholic Church here; Unity being a salvific issue has implications that undermine Protestantism.

Unity is considered by Christ to be the epistemological — fancy word for “how we know” things — tool by which we come to know, not merely think, that Christ was sent by God. Protestantism, per se, is not united. In fact, many Protestants consider its divisions to be a feature, not a bug. Given what Christ says about the importance of unity and it being the means by which people come to know Christ, I find the divisions in Protestantism to be a threat to the salvation of souls.

One might be curious how I could say this.

Let’s take one of our essentials: belief in Jesus. Do you think that God the Son and God the Father have disagreements about whether baptism is salvific or not? Obviously, they don’t.

If baptism is not required for salvation, the Father and the Son agree on this 100%.

If baptism is required for salvation, they agree on this 100%.

This is not to say that I think Jesus and God the Father are unsure of baptism; they are certain of its role in salvation. It’s merely to point out that Trinity is not trying to play a shell game with us about what is or is not important for salvation. What is clear is that our unity on the essentials of the faith is expected by Christ to mirror the unity of the Trinity. That’s a high bar.

As Paul says in Romans,

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent.

Rom. 16:17-18

Recap

We have identified five doctrinal issues that Jesus introduced the world to in his ministry and which He considered to be necessary for eternal life.

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ✅ Baptism

• ✅ Body & Blood

• ✅ Unity

If these were essential to Jesus, then that means they should be essential to you. For example, we can’t get belief right and baptism wrong if Jesus considered both of those essential for salvation. Furthermore, we can’t get unity right and say that the topics of Christ’s body and blood and baptism are non-essentials for the Christian life.

There is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. If there is one faith, then that means that there can only be one group of Christians that is teaching correctly on these issues. There can only be one institution that has these doctrines properly defined and taught, despite the failings of its members. Otherwise, the phrase “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” is meaningless. Additionally, what would it mean for two distinct Christian sects to get unity right, but not be united with each other?

“In essentials, unity…” I agree with that statement, but as we have seen, unity necessarily leads to a “narrow way.” The reason we have so many denominations is precisely that Christians believe different things about what is essential and how those essentials are to be taught.

There are other essentials we did not discuss that do appear in Jesus’ teaching (i.e., Peter’s role and care for the poor), but these five are a good start for anyone, Protestant or Catholic, wanting to take their faith seriously and be obedient to Christ’s teachings.

If you liked what you read here, consider becoming a subscriber!

In my previous article, “Are Ignorant Protestants Going to Hell?”, we discussed how the moral law applies to Christians outside the Church. Naturally, some people thought it was great, and others were offended. So, a few housekeeping things are in order before we continue with the series. The next article in the series is “Are Protestant Blasphemers Going to Hell?”, and I’m confident it will resonate in a similar way with readers.

So, before I publish the piece on blasphemy, I want to reiterate some principles of online etiquette, because there was some behavior by some subscribers that was not professional, and I had to remove their comments. Second, I want to reiterate the purpose and mission of Pious Reflections.

Guidelines

Basic courtesy for Pious Reflections subscribers

1. Leave comments, not sermons.

2. Seek clarity.

3. Don’t be afraid to offer criticism

1. Leave comments, not sermons

First, the comments section is not a place for you to preach sermons. Think of the comments section like a speaking event with Q&A afterwards. If the questioner at the mic goes too long, the organizers of the event will mute their mic. There is a similar principle here. If your comment is getting longer than a single-spaced page, then I would recommend you write your own article in response to mine. Then we will at least benefit from the internet traffic our “back-and-forth” will generate.😇

2. Seek clarity

Second, if I write something that offends you or makes you confused, have the courage to leave a comment engaging with the content or email a clarifying question. The beauty of the internet is that we can always ask the question, “What did you mean by that?” How many of us would like to ask St. Paul or Jesus the same question?

If a comment is not your style, feel free to contact me privately through the medium of your choice. All I ask is that you not presume the most offensive interpretation is the most likely interpretation. If you find yourself bitter or angry about something I’ve written or produced, then use these buttons 👇 to leave your thoughts so we can get on the same page.

Leave a comment

3. Criticisms are welcomed

Long posts are not great, again, if you’re approaching a page-long response, use your own Substack to respond, but that doesn’t mean criticisms that are to the point are not welcomed. For example, saying, “I disagree with your argument on Ignorant Protestants, because in Romans, Paul says, everyone who confesses with their mouth that Jesus is Lord will be saved. What would you say to that?” Is fair game. Comments help creators get more engagement, so while you’re more than welcome to send emails and texts asking questions, if you want to help the publication, comments are the best way to do that. It essentially tells the algorithm, “Hey, this guy has a piece that people are engaging with, give it to more people.” So, insult me in the comments. Here, give it a shot!

Leave a comment

The Mission

In a nutshell, my mission in life is to see more people become Catholic, while at the same time becoming the oldest StarCraft II player to win a world championship. Ok, that last part isn’t real, but if you’re into SCII, leave a comment.

Leave a comment

I’m a Catholic. That means that I believe most protestant beliefs are heretical. That doesn’t mean that Protestants have nothing to offer, that they don’t do some things better than Catholics (e.g., study the Bible), or that God does not give them grace and unique encounters with Him that cannot be replicated anywhere else.

I’ve said repeatedly that I am a better Catholic because of my Protestant mentors and discipleship. Protestants have done great things for “Mere Christianity,” but their foundational premises have led to some significant moral failures in the name of anti-Catholic Christianity. Catholics have done great sins too, but their teachings have not endorsed these things. For example, the Catholic Church has never institutionally exhorted its members to fight for a woman’s right to abortion as the SBC did in the 1970s. See my article “How Sola Scriptura Blinds the Faithful” for more historical facts on this matter.

Entering into the fullness of the Church and receiving the sacraments has radically changed my life. Many friends have said, “You’ve changed for the better since becoming Catholic.” But some would like to believe that this was merely a psychological change, not a spiritual one.

Sometimes I feel like I should stop writing and producing content and just keep my faith to myself, but then I experience God’s love so profoundly in the sacraments, I end up finding myself back at my laptop researching and writing another piece. I feel like Jeremiah, when he said,

I want to share the Faith with anyone willing to read or listen to my content. I want my readers and listeners to experience God the way He intended them to, which is through the sacraments, Baptism, Confession, Confirmation, and the Eucharist through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This is evangelism, and the Church exhorts all the faithful to do this,

“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has an obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

— Ad Gentes (AG), 7.

Sometimes I get questions that make me wonder if people believe that I’m really Catholic. One of these questions was something along the lines of, “Why are you writing this series on Protestants and Hell? What are you hoping to accomplish?”

The short answer is because I believe that the Church is required for salvation, and that it is my Christian duty to evangelize people into His Church. What I hope to accomplish is that more people would recognize the errors of Protestantism and become Catholic, not because I want to win an argument, but because of the profound experience of encountering Christ in the Eucharist. For a Protestant to encounter Christ in the Eucharist, especially one well versed in the scriptures, is like Ezekiel when he ate the scroll.

The Eucharist is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, but it is also the fulfillment of a Protestant’s desire to be united to the Word. God’s Word never fails, and we can be united to it intellectually and spiritually through study, but you cannot experience it physically the way that God intended you to without the Mass. It is here that man finds his salvation resting on the altar and presented to his lips like the hot coal that was pressed to the unclean lips of Isaiah. Jesus’ words in John six are the fulfillment of Ezekiel and Isaiah when He said,

Of course, God can make exceptions, as we see with the thief on the cross, but exceptions are not rules for life. If the thief on the Cross was the primary way that one was supposed to enter paradise, then part of the conversion experience in the early Church would have been a prayer to be remembered before they died, followed by a liturgically assisted suicide.

Finally, I hope that you will continue to enjoy the content that I write and produce. My goal with each piece of content is for you…

• To be more faithful.

• To be more hopeful.

• To be more loving.

I have often prayed since starting this content, “Lord, give me the adventure, but only if you go with me.” I believe God’s taking me somewhere with this whole endeavor, and I hope you’ll come along for the ride.

— DR

I’m very excited about this because the parish is run by Dominicans, and one of the most famous Dominicans is St. Thomas Aquinas. He was the first Catholic writer I knowingly encountered as a Protestant, and talking with the Dominicans after Mass about the faith, what’s going on in the world, and cracking jokes, is one of my favorite parts about Sunday.

I hope you enjoy the episode. Also, don’t forget to leave a comment on their channel telling them what you think of the episode, or topics you would like us to cover.

Leave a comment

The main problem is that we don’t know with certainty whether an Atheist, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or Muslim is truly damned because God is the one who makes the judgment of persons. Being the finite creatures that we are, we can only judge the trajectory of a soul, not their final destination. If you’re pulling your hair out by that statement, then I would encourage you to read my previous article linked below.

With that, let’s discuss the first scenario by answering the question, “How would an ignorant Protestant risk their salvation?”

But before I attempt to answer this, let me know how you deal with this question. What does your church teach, or what do you personally believe about individuals who die in ignorance of the means of salvation? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

The Ignorant Protestant

The Ignorant Protestant is the one who knows nothing about the Catholic Church. They attend their local community church regularly, but they literally have no idea what the words “Catholic Church” would mean. As far as they are concerned, it’s just another denomination they pass on their way to their home church on Sundays.

The Ignorant Protestant: one who knows of the Catholic Church by name, but is completely ignorant of her teachings.

This type of Protestant could be in virtually all the Protestant communities. Their ignorance is not due to their intelligence level. This individual could be a brilliant person about many things, but due to a lack of exposure to the Church, is completely ignorant of the Church’s teachings on salvation. In other words, the Catholic Church is just another building he passes on his way to work.

Meet Jake

The first time Jake heard the Gospel, his heart was pierced. The evangelist who led Jake to the Lord Jesus was Max. He taught Jake that to be saved, all Jake had to do was place his faith in Jesus Christ. So, Jake said a prayer confessing to Jesus that he was a sinner. Then Jake got baptized, committed his life to Jesus, and began a personal relationship with Jesus that lasted for many years, something both Catholics and Protestants would celebrate.

But then things got a little messy. Jake was what many preachers describe as “The seed that fell on rocky soil.” He sprang up fast, went to church every Sunday, joined Max’s men’s group, but when the heat of temptation entered his life, he had no roots to anchor him.

After about a year of going to church, volunteering, and attending Bible studies, Jake got busy with life and began to drift spiritually. Church was no longer a priority to him. Shortly after this, Jake met a girl named Alyssa through a dating app. She said she was a Christian, but she had stopped attending Church regularly, just like Jake.

But this didn’t stop them from having a connection. In fact, it only made their chemistry stronger. They found that they had a lot of things in common, books, movies, restaurants, and their shared excuses for why they couldn’t make it to church. It was under these circumstances that their love began to bloom.

After a few weeks of getting to know each other, they decided to watch a movie at Alyssa’s apartment. After one too many drinks, they found themselves in Alyssa’s bedroom. Jake felt guilty. His conscience was screaming at him to stop. Alyssa’s heart was captured in the moment. She felt that things were moving too fast as well, but the passion was too strong for either of them to overcome. In the heat of the moment, they ignored their consciences, landed on her bed, and committed the grave sin of sex before marriage.

The next morning, Jake left Alyssa’s apartment, but he couldn’t shake the guilt. He got into the car, and before he drove off, he said a prayer, “I’m sorry, God. I shouldn’t have done that. Forgive me. Amen.” After he said these words, he felt a peace come over him. Then he remembered his friend, Max. “How is he doing?” thought Jake, but once he got on the road, he started one of his favorite podcasts for the commute to work.

The repentance was short-lived. After a few more weeks, Alyssa and Jake ended up sleeping together again. This time it was easier to give in than it was the first time. This is how sin works. The enemy tries to get a foothold in your life, and if you give it to him, he will become increasingly difficult to overcome.

After a year of this lifestyle, both Jake’s and Alyssa’s consciences were darkened. The bliss of intimacy had seared their consciences, and what was something that should have been reserved for marriage was now a regular part of their relationship. So, they decided to move in together.

They didn’t do this because they hated God. They still would listen to Christian preachers online, or when a Christian song came up in their Spotify playlists, they would turn up the volume. Oftentimes, it was after a Christian song that one of them would say, “We haven’t been to Church in a while, we should go this weekend.”

Sometimes they would go to Jake’s old church, but Jake was always sure to make sure they showed up late so that he wouldn’t bump into Max. If you had asked him why he was avoiding his old friend, Jake would have just shrugged, looked you in the eye, and said, “I don’t know, it just seems like it would be awkward to talk to them. It’s been a minute.” But then one Sunday morning, everything got messy.

Sunday

Jake and Alyssa pulled into the church parking lot. As they walked up to the main entrance, Alyssa said, “Babe, I gotta go to the bathroom. Will you grab me a coffee from the coffee bar?” Jake gladly agreed, and the two of them separated — Alyssa to the restroom and Jake to the coffee bar.

As he was standing in line, Jake heard a familiar voice. “Jake Peterson, is that you?” Jake turned around to see a familiar face. It was Max. In that moment, Jake realized that Max was the only reason he ever wandered into a church. Jake’s stomach dropped. Alyssa was going to be out of the bathroom any minute.

But the conversation was short. Max was on the audio and visuals team, so he couldn’t talk long. Before he went back to the sound booth, Max asked Jake to come back to the Bible study. Jake was reluctant, but he agreed so that he could minimize the risk that he might have to introduce Alyssa to Max. He didn’t want to risk her letting it slip that she and Jake were living together. The next time Jake would see Max was going to be at the men’s Bible Study. Jake took the coffee, saw Alyssa walking up with a beautiful smile, and the two locked arms and walked into the auditorium.

The Slip

“Jake, you made it!” said an enthusiastic Max. “It’s been a minute. How you been?”

Jake gave Max the traditional “bro hug,” clasping each other’s hands, pulling each other in, and completing the act with a firm pat on the other’s back.

Before Jake could answer, the waitress walked up and asked for their orders.

While they waited for the food to arrive, Max started peppering Jake with questions. “Who was that cute girl you were with on Sunday, Jake? You have a girlfriend now?”

Jake was about to answer, but instead of a thoughtful response, he let out a huge yawn. Max patted him on the back, “You tired, man? Have some coffee!”

“Thanks…Yeah, I am…” Jake let out another yawn. “Last night, Alyssa and I were up late watching a movie. To get here on time, I had to leave her apartment at 5:00 in the morning! You guys sure know how to pick a niche place for breakfast!”

Some of the guys exchanged subtle glances, while others played it cool and moved on like nothing had been said. But Max noticed and made a mental note to follow up with Jake about it. For now, Max was just happy that Jake was with some godly men.

The Battle for Jake’s Soul

Over the next couple of months, Max kept in touch with Jake and tried to persuade him that sex was something for marriage. Jake pushed back, saying that thinking was outdated and a childish way to expect a man in his thirties to live.

“You’re saying it’s Christian teaching to save yourself for marriage?” said Jake, “I just thought that was for teens because parents didn’t want their daughters to get pregnant. I mean, I’m 32 years old, Max…come on.”

“Jake, this is different. Marriage is a covenant. The Bible is clear about this. Being a Christian isn’t just about saying a prayer and going to Church, it’s also about living life according to God’s commands.”

Jake’s rebuttal was quick and poignant, “Isn’t that outdated, Max? I mean, I know that the Bible has some pretty outdated ideas in it. Think about it! If you were born back when the Bible was being written, you wouldn’t be able to eat bacon! You love bacon!”

Max laughed. Neither of them was easily offended, and both wanted to keep the conversation light, even though the subject was heavy. Jake continued his thought.

“Max, aren’t you the same guy who said you don’t care about what gay guys do in the bedroom as long as they keep it to themselves?”

“Jake, that’s totally different…” said Max.

This was how many of their conversations went about the faith. Max had responses with scripture to each of Jake’s objections. But Jake refused to repent. Jake just didn’t think it was that big of a deal to have sex before marriage, and despite Max’s best efforts, Jake never changed his mind. He and Alyssa would never be married either.

Before Jake tragically died in a car accident, Max asked Jake to at least consider getting married to Alyssa. “You guys have been dating now and sleeping together for nearly 2 years, Jake. Don’t you think you should at least get married? I mean, what if she gets pregnant?”

That struck a nerve. “Shut up, Max! Listen, I go to church, I love God, and I even show up to the Bible studies you lead. But sometimes I just think you need to mind your own business.”

Max was unnerved. Jake had never snapped like that. Has she already gotten pregnant? thought Max. There was a long silence while the two men waited to see who would speak first. Jake was the first to speak.

“Max, I’ve told you. I just don’t think it’s a big deal. Besides, where in the Bible does it say I have to get married anyway? That’s a rhetorical question; I know what you’re going to say.” Jake continued, “I just don’t think it’s a big deal. It might have been back in the days of Moses, but it’s not a big deal today.”

“So I guess that’s a ‘no’” replied Max.

Jake let out a deep breath and said, “Listen, I gotta go. We’ll talk more about it later.”

That was the last conversation Max had with Jake. That weekend, Jake would be declared dead after his car was t-boned by a truck when he ran a red traffic light.

The Judgment

This story is fictional. It is merely meant to show you how a Protestant could refuse the teaching of the Church even though they never knew about the Church. Protestants may disagree on morality among themselves, but many of them would at least agree and teach what the Catholic Church teaches, which is that it is a mortal sin to have sex before marriage.

Unless Jake was redeemed through his repentance and God's forgiveness, his soul is in jeopardy. This is because Jake is freely committing a grave sin, sex before marriage. If you read my first article, you know that the Catechism of the Church says that we judge the actions, but that God is the one who passes judgment on persons.

Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God. — CCC, 1861; emphasis mine.

Now, some Catholics will try to say things like “Jake’s eternal destiny is a nuanced discussion” or “it’s hard to say where Jake ended up,” But we do know that his chances of entering heaven by exception are slim. We must remember that Scripture and the Church do not permit us to be ambiguous about the dangers of engaging in grave sin.

The author of Hebrews is explicit that those who reject the truth,

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins ²⁷ but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. (Heb. 10:26-27)

In our example, Jake received knowledge of the truth that sleeping with Alyssa was a serious sin and that he should stop doing it and repent. Jake rejected Max’s truth claims and decided that Max and his Protestant religion were “old-fashioned.”

Notice also that Max is not even Catholic, but he was still unwittingly being used by God to warn Jake about the dangers of sin, a warning that the Church proclaims to all human beings in the world. Her teaching is for everyone, not just Christians. This can happen the other direction, too.

When my wife and I were getting married, we were considering contraceptives for when we got married. One person that God used was a Catholic who let us know about Natural Family Planning (NFP), but another person God used was an atheist who knew that some contraceptives were abortive.

Returning to the topic at hand. Some Catholics will seek to emphasize other factors as if it were nearly impossible for someone to commit mortal sin. This is a problem because it paints the picture that one is more at risk for hell if they become Catholic, which is blatantly false. The truth is how one is saved, and it is the truth that ultimately conquers sin. Furthermore, many Catholics will try to cite the way someone was raised or the social pressures that we face as a justification that someone did not commit a grave sin. But this thinking is condemned by the Church:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances ( environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. — Ibid; emphasis mine.

Not only do we know what sins are gravely sinful, but we Christians must be willing to warn people, in love, wisdom, and respect, when they are committing actions that will likely lead their souls to hell. Again, we may not know the final destination of one’s soul, but we most certainly can know, with certainty, the trajectory certain actions will place on a soul.

Catholics must remember that we are held to a higher standard. If we pretend that those outside the Church are saved by their ignorance, then we will always have an excuse not to warn people about the dangerous sins they are committing. In doing so, we risk our own salvation!

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Lumen Gentium, 14.

To evangelize the world, we must cooperate with God’s grace. Part of that evangelization is necessarily the call to repentance. Today, people prefer to say, “Come have a relationship with God,” and avoid discussing the need for repentance altogether. But you can’t have a relationship with God if there is no repentance. And anyone preaching a Gospel without repentance is just giving you a TED Talk.

The final verdict ultimately lies with God, as the book of Sirach says,

If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you;
if you trust in God, you too shall live…
Before man are life and death, good and evil,
whichever he chooses shall be given him…
The eyes of God are on those who fear him;
he understands man’s every deed.
No one does he command to act unjustly,
to none does he give license to sin.

— Sir. 15:15-20

Conclusion

Jake was ignorant of the Church, but God, through his providence, tried to use a Protestant to warn Jake about the truth God had revealed in His Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

Jake, though he was ignorant of the Church, still had access to the truth that God was giving him through Max. In the end, Jake died in a state of grave sin, and by all appearances, he died with mortal sin on his soul.

1. The sin he was committing was a grave sin: Fornication.

2. Jake had full knowledge that he was committing a serious sin due to Max’s witness.

3. Jake consented and habitually sinned, despite Max’s warnings.

But even still, Christians do presume the salvation of an individual soul. God’s judgment of individual souls is a mystery, but the laws by which he will judge are not. If you are a Protestant who is in mortal sin, repent. Tell God you're sorry, and stop the sin immediately. Then go and talk to a Catholic priest about how you can learn more about what the Church teaches.

God bless.

— DR

The reality is, if you’re a former Protestant, you’re probably going to get hit with this question by a close friend or family member who is still wondering why you became Catholic in the first place: “If I don’t become Catholic, do you think I’m going to Hell?”

Some people will address the question to you directly, and others will discuss it without you in the room. All of this is completely normal, since it’s a sensitive topic.

At the same time, it’s also not good for Protestants to consume anti-Catholic content and avoid a proper understanding of the facts. They often presume they know more than they do about the Church and Scripture; I say this speaking from experience. So it seemed to me that an online essay would be a good way to allow people to engage with these questions at their own pace in their own time.

My intent is not to poke the Protestant bears or Catholic tigers in my life. But to demonstrate my current understanding of the issues, so that those who are currently wrestling with the same topic can share their thoughts on the issues as well. Whether you're Catholic or Protestant, I welcome your comments.

Leave a comment

I make no claim that what I’m about to present is free of error in its content or its presentation. I’m very much open to criticism from those more knowledgeable about the topic than me.

That’s why I decided to write this essay. It was to give those people who are curious about my current understanding a window into my thinking, without the awkwardness of having to say those infamous words, “Hey, can we talk?” But also for me to put my thoughts out there so that they could be critiqued and refined.

With that massive qualification out of the way, let’s talk about “The Question.”

Are Protestants Going to Hell?: A Different Approach

As I was reading books and consuming podcasts on the doctrine, “No salvation outside the Church,” much of the content focused on showing the viewer/reader that it was possible that Protestants and non-Christians could still enter heaven even if they remained outside the Church. This article is not a contradiction to their answers, but rather it aims to show the other side of the preverbial coin, so to speak.

Their responses typically had two principles: First, God wants all people to be Catholic, and second, that it was possible to be saved even if you never became Catholic. This is true. But since Catholics can’t be presumptuous about their own salvation, they certainly should not be presumptuous about another’s, let alone a Protestant or an atheist who rejects the Church, even if they can be saved in ways known only to God.

To be clear, I’m not the smartest or most qualified person to answer this question, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to answer the question. After all, if you’re Catholic, especially if you’re a former Protestant turned Catholic, you’re guaranteed to be asked this question in one of two forms:

1. “If I don’t become Catholic, am I going to hell?”

2. “If a Protestant does not become Catholic, are they going to hell?”

Obviously, the first question is much harder to answer because the questioner has made their inquiry at a far deeper and more personal level. In these situations, it always seems to me that the person is asking you to give your opinion, which isn’t worth much in the grand scheme of things. These individuals always strike me as being more interested in what I think, not what the Church teaches.

That does not mean you compromise the truth to accommodate the relationship. But it does mean that you need to be prudent in how you engage the question and the person. This is much harder to do in a written format, and so we will not seek to answer this form of the question here. After all, who the “I” is in that question is very important in considering our answer.

For that reason, we will address the easier form of the question: “If a Protestant does not become Catholic, are they going to hell?”

Salvation by Affiliation?

First, Protestants, especially older ones, need to understand that Catholics do not believe you are saved by virtue of your membership in the Catholic Church. This is a common Protestant misunderstanding. Some Protestants believe that Catholics think that instead of praying a prayer to be saved, you just need the Catholic VIP card to get to heaven. The Church teaches the exact opposite,

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Lumen Gentium, 14.

When Protestants say that Catholics are proposing a “salvation by association” theology, they are revealing that they have been reading too many anti-Catholic authors and not engaging with the actual teachings of the Church. We are not saved by “affiliation” with the Catholic Church. We are saved by faith in and obedience to Christ. That is why it’s important to be in the one Church, because it is only within the true Church that one can fully follow Christ.

The Assumption

Returning to the actual question, “Will Protestants be saved if they remain outside the Church?”, there is an implicit assumption in it. The questioner doesn’t realize it, but the assumption their question makes is that the Church’s teachings are true.

If the Church is automatically false, then her teachings have no bearing on their salvation, and they do not need an answer. But on the other hand, if there is a possibility that the Church’s teachings and claims are true, then obviously there is an eternal risk for rejecting those teachings.

This is why the question is clearer when it’s rephrased: “If the Catholic Church is true, are Protestants going to Hell?”

Now, as we have already covered and will see in future articles, our answer varies significantly from person to person. There is a big difference between an unrepentant abortion doctor who hates the Church asking this question, a 21st-century Protestant who follows Jesus sincerely, even if sincerely in error, asking this question, and Martin Luther asking this question.

When a Protestant asks about their salvation from a Catholic perspective, we have to presume the teachings of the Church are true. Where it gets complicated is in the specific examples and scenarios that people bring up in these conversations. We can’t possibly account for every single human experience out there, let alone the internal spiritual state of every person in a given scenario, which is one of the reasons Catholics often speak in terms of “risk” to one’s soul.

We use this language, not because Catholics don’t know how to go to heaven, or that they have no assurance of their own salvation. Instead, they use this language to highlight that they are not your judge; they are sinners just like you. They can only judge an action as moral or immoral; they cannot judge the heart. That is reserved for God. Humans can know and judge whether an action is eternally risky, but God is the one who judges the person.

Judging vs Judgment

When a Catholic or Protestant is baptized, they have “entered the Church as though through a door.” Scripture and Church teaching are clear that belief, baptism, Christ’s body and blood, obedience, and perseverance are all required for eternal life.

According to the Church, when a person is baptized, whether Catholic or not, “…All sins are forgiven, original sin and personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” In this sense, the Catholic and the Protestant can say, “We are saved.” But neither has entered into heaven yet, so there is still sanctification and perseverance that must be accomplished.

Therefore, the only way that a Protestant or a Catholic would be in danger of hell is if they committed a mortal sin and they never repented of it. According to the Catechism,

If [mortal sin] is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and eternal death of hell… — CCC, 1861

A sin is mortal if the following criteria are met.

1. The sin is a “grave matter” (e.g., taking an innocent life, adultery, blasphemy, etc).

2. The sinner had “full knowledge” of the sin.

3. The sinner deliberately consented to the sin.

Knowing whether a sinful action is a grave matter is not difficult. It is also not the case that someone can just say, “Well, I don’t think that’s a grave sin, so it doesn’t apply to me.” Feigning ignorance about a moral truth is also considered a mortal sin,

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. — CCC, 1859; emphasis mine.

This is actually a shared point between Catholics and many Protestants. They would agree that certain sins either remove a person from grace or, as some Protestants say, “The sin reveals that the person was never saved to begin with.”

Being Catholic is not a prerequisite for knowing whether a sin is gravely sinful. Some sins are actually intrinsically evil. Meaning, they are never morally permissible. This means that whether an action is a grave matter or not is knowable by both Protestants and Catholics. But knowing whether a person is guilty of mortal sin with certainty is only known to God and the individual committing the sin.

The Catechism states,

Although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God. — CCC, 1861; emphasis mine.

As we proceed on this topic, Catholics must understand that our role is merely to know our faith and to make it known to others. What they decide to do with that information is between them and God. But, again, presuming that a Protestant has been warned that they are committing mortal sin, either by a Catholic, by study of the Church, or the scriptures, they are risking mortal culpability for their actions if they continue to commit them.

Over the next couple of weeks, there will be articles posted here discussing various scenarios and examples that apply these principles. So make sure to subscribe. Moving on.

Misconceptions about Truth and Ignorance

It should be clear now that the Church is not teaching that a Protestant is just as likely to be saved as a Catholic, nor do they believe in “once saved always saved” for Catholics, but not for Protestants.

The Church is merely saying that it is possible for those outside the Church to be saved. It also should be stated that the Church is not saying that “ignorance” is just as good as the truth.

The Catechism and scripture both affirm that “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), and that “Salvation is found in the truth,” not in ignorance.1 If the Catholic Church is, as Scripture teaches, “the pillar and foundation of all truth…” (1 Tim. 3:15), then it simply follows that rejecting the Church is a decision of eternal consequence.

When the Church speaks about exceptions to God’s plan of salvation, she is merely telling the world that God is perfectly capable of making exceptions and remaining merciful, just, loving, and true. She is not teaching that there are many roads to God, but instead that God has the power and knowledge to know who will be exempt and who will not. Recall what Jesus said to his disciples,

“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.” — Jn. 10:16

While the thief on the cross is a beautiful and hopeful picture of God’s mercy, we must also account for Judas Iscariot in our discussions about salvation. Remember, there is one thief on the cross that was saved, but there were many disciples who, “from that time on…went back, and walked no more with [Jesus]” (Jn. 6:66).

To be clear, the number of those entering heaven by exceptional ignorance (a.k.a, “invincible ignorance”) cannot be greater than those who enter by way of the knowledge of the truth; otherwise, ignorance would be superior to faith, and Jesus would have come, not to save the world, but to “condemn the world.” For the record, this would also completely contradict Jesus’ own words in scripture,

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him will not be condemned…¹⁹ And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil…But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God. — Jn. 3:17-21

To Be Continued

With all of these qualifications out of the way, we are now in a position to apply them to specific scenarios where a person might ask, “Are Protestants going to Hell if they don’t become Catholic?”

I plan to have four articles, each addressing the question as it pertains to the “type” of Protestants below:

1. The Ignorant: Protestants who know of the Catholic Church by name, but are completely ignorant of her actual teachings.

2. The Blasphemous: Protestants who know the teachings of the Church, reject them, and blaspheme them.

3. The Indifferent: Protestants who know the teachings of the Church but are indifferent to them.

4. The Resistant: Protestants who know the teachings of the Church and love them, but refuse to submit to them.

Since the non-Catholic’s salvific status is only certainly uncertain, then it follows that an equally valid answer, in some cases, is “Some Protestants won’t be saved.” In the upcoming article series titled “Are They Going to Hell?” I want to focus on the actions these Protestants are taking that increase their chances of eternal damnation. This is not to be judgmental, but will hopefully help educate Catholics and Protestants so that we can ensure that we avoid sin and help others do the same.

After all, if the Church is what she claims to be, and some refuse, for whatever reason, to remain outside of her protection, they are, logically speaking, taking a risk. A risk that we Catholics are obligated to, with love and truth, inform them of,

“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has an obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

— Ad Gentes (AG), 7.

If you’re interested in joining this conversation, feel free to subscribe so you get notified when the next essay in the series drops. I’ll also be doing some podcasts on this and addressing any questions or comments in the comments section below.

If you want to watch some great content addressing how a Protestant could be saved despite being outside the Church, check out these great resources in the following footnote.2

— DR —

Some worlds are big, and others are small, but the road to any of them begins in the soul. This is a small world with a big lesson.

The City of Mortal

The world in which our story takes place is called Ethos. Our heroes and villains reside in and around one of the few cities in Ethos called the City of Mortal. It was guarded by three dragons, each varying in size, abilities, and magic. This was because the citizens of Mortal had made a deal with the dragons. In exchange for sacrifices from the people, the dragons would avail the people of their power and protection.

You may be wondering why the people would do such a thing, but you only need to look in your own heart to know why people abandon God. Why do you hit your brother? Mock your sister? Disobey your mother? Ignore your father? As it is with us, so it is with the people of Mortal. They exchanged the light for darkness, the angelic for the demonic, the eagles for serpents, because they preferred to live in the dust rather than in the air; in short, they wanted to do it their way — they even wrote a song about it!

The City of Mortal used to be the Garden of Life. But when they made the deal with the dragons, they exchanged the Garden for a city of luxury and comfort.

Initially, the dragons exacted a cost from the people that was very easy to accommodate. But if you know anything about dragons, then you know they pervert all virtue. They use their virtues, like patience and wisdom, for evil rather than for good. For example, their patience is unmatched by any human. They can wait for centuries to get what they want and are willing to endure exceptional discomfort if they know in the end, their bellies will be filled with that which they desire most, human souls.

Making Deals with Dragons

When the citizens of Mortal met with the dragons, the dragons drew up a contract — because who's gonna argue with the dragons? The contract stated that the dragons would offer the humans some of their wisdom, magic, and gold in exchange for the humans’ first fruits, that is, vegetables and, of course, fruit.

Now, of course, dragons despise fruits and vegetables. They desired something far more valuable, but they were willing to wait, even eat things they didn’t particularly like, if it meant they would eventually be satisfied. In return for first fruits, the people asked the dragons how to run the city, called on the dragons to use their magic to protect the city, and even received a little bit of gold in exchange for the meager sacrifice of fruits and vegetables. The trap had been laid, and the dragons could already see their plan coming together.

After one year of fruits and vegetables, the dragons rewrote the contract. The dragons, those cunning devils, did not merely change the meaning of the words “first fruits”; they expanded the meaning to include more than fruits and vegetables. Now, “first fruit” would require the people to give them animals to eat. The firstborn of every tree and every animal was to be given to the dragons once a year.

The first year of animal sacrifices would forever scar the memories of the people. Even if you were deep within the City of Mortal, you would have heard the cries of the animals mixed with the songs of dragons as the sacrifices were consumed. It was the stuff of nightmares.

But it gets worse.

The dragons, though they were diabolically evil, were surprisingly mindful of fairness. But this was not in the best interest of the people. No, the dragons needed it to be a fair contract to deceive the people. This ensured that what was unfair for the dragons now would eventually be unfair for the people in the future. After all, who is going to turn down a deal where they trade an apple for some gold and magic? It is for this reason, after the dragons were defeated, that the people developed a saying, “All devils come with pen and paper, but a deal with an angel is always safer.” Who you’re signing a contract with is just as important as what the contract says.

As the contract demanded more “first fruits” from the citizens, the citizens received more wisdom, magic, and gold from the dragons in return — dragons always keep up their end of the deal.

The people were able to consult the dragon’s dark wisdom more frequently, request their dark magic for basic necessities, and even received more gold than the year before. But, just as the dragons had foreseen, the people were now dependent on the power of the dragons for the City of Mortal, not just to thrive, but to survive.

The dragons began to salivate at the thought of what would happen next year.

The year passed, and the Dragons redrew the contract. This time, they announced, “We now require the first fruits of the trees, of the animals, and of the womb. In exchange, the citizens of Mortal will receive even more wisdom, more power, and more gold.”

The men and women looked at each other. To the surprise of many men, the first person to agree was a young woman who was not yet a mother. The woman walked up, signed the contract, and turned and faced the people,

“My friends, I have talked with the dragons. Their wisdom is beyond anything we could think of on our own. Think of all that we could do for our future generations with the magic and gold they will give us. They also have, in their great wisdom, shown me the truth about us.” She paused, took a deep breath, and continued.

“How many of you remember when you were just a seed in your mother’s womb? None of you can! You were more like a parasite than a baby! Are we truly going to say our babies, who have yet to stop nursing from a breast, even have a “soul”? If they cannot even know their names, who their mother or father is, nor even the very City of Mortal, then what use are they? The dragons have assured us that this sacrifice will cost us a little now, but it will bring us great prosperity and comfort in the years to come.”

The men were too afraid to argue with such an intimidating woman, and the women had been deceived into believing they would use their gold and wisdom to have bigger families. “One child dead will lead to houses with 7 heads.” But this never happened. As their comfort grew, their families became smaller and smaller. They began to live like the dragons. They were wise, they were powerful, they had gold, and they were childless.

That woman’s speech was all it took...

The following year, the women of the city walked the path to the top of the mountain to sacrifice their children, and the men stayed home with the others.

After raising the child for a year, the firstborns were fed a magic berry — courtesy of the dragons — that put the child to sleep. The mothers then veiled their faces, put their children in their baskets, and carried them up the path to the dragons’ mountain.

Initially, the women were saddened, but the dragons continued to remind them that a few babies, who couldn’t even speak yet, were not truly human…yet…and so they shouldn’t feel bad about such things; “It is no different than giving us vegetables or fruit,” the dragons would say.

Legion, the head dragon, assuaged one mother by asking her to call her dog by name. The dog came running. Then Legion said, “Now call your baby boy. The baby burst into tears and tried to crawl away. “See,” said Legion, “They are no better than dogs.”

Each year, the people gave more and more babies to the dragons, and the people received knowledge of how to prosper without children. The dragons inspired the people to invent new technologies that no one thought possible. Clothing was also improved by the scales the dragons shed and returned to the people, something Legion said was a demonstration of “dragonic charity” for the people.” Finally, the people received the finest gold, not too much, of course. The dragons were greedy creatures. The only thing they loved more than gold was a human soul.

After several years, the people’s needs were completely satisfied. Everything was comfortable. The people of Mortal had all their needs met. There was no question they could not answer, no object they could not build, no thing they could not buy. The people were trapped.

The Dragons

You now know how the City of Mortal found itself in need of saving. Now it is time for you to learn about the dragons.

The first dragon was named Green. She was a small dragon, no bigger than a large dog. Her demeanor was kind, but that was only to deceive ignorant children. Her bite was painful for adults, but deadly for children.

Despite mothers fulfilling their sacrificial requirement, Green continued to hunt foolish children in her spare time. Many mothers in the City of Mortal had lost their older children to the bite of this devilish dragon after she had lured them away from their homes.

Green was also the fastest of the three dragons. One moment she was on the ground, and in the blink of an eye, she was in the trees, singing sweet melodies about envy and greed that attracted the children with weaker souls! A perfect imitator and deceiver, as all dragons are, she would imitate the voice of a mother, telling them that she had their favorite candy with her in the woods.

The only children that were spared were the children whose parents taught them about who the Logos was, how to recognize His voice, and to heed His teachings. These children learned that it was not the “kindness” of one’s words that indicated safety, but whether they were true — “love without truth is only a lie,” the Logos-fearing mothers would say. Those children who were neglected in such teachings were lured into the woods at dusk, just before dinner time, where they met their fate.

The second dragon was Blood. She was named this because of the blood-red scales that covered her body, but what was more intimidating were the sharp spikes that lined her back and arms. They were all over her body and razor-sharp. At their base were faint stains of blood. Within their cracks and crevices of the spikes were bits of dried flesh from the prey she had recently hunted.

Blood was more shrewd than Green. She would entice men to anger or bloodlust. She was a manipulator, a dragon who feeds on the rage of men and young boys; the more rage a man had, the tougher and juicier his soul would be.

When a man approached, Blood would simply sit and stare into his eyes. With her piercing gaze, she could see within their eye all their triumphs and failures. It was this ability to see a man’s past through his eyes that enabled her words to pierce their unguarded hearts, make their blood boil, and eventually cause them to make a fatal error in battle.

Blood was the protector of the final dragon, who ruled Mortal from the top of his mountain. This final dragon’s name was Legion.

Legion was the dragon with more heads than you could count. His scales were black and shiny like obsidian rocks but stronger than diamonds. He had the speed of Green and the wit and shrewdness of Blood. He was the King of the Dragons, and the rest of the dragons were his queens.

Legion’s power was unmatched, and the more souls he ate, the stronger he became.

Those are the dragons, and after nearly a 100 years, the City of Mortal had begun to stop having children altogether. The dragons were becoming more insatiable, and the townsfolk were living on borrowed gold and ideas. There was no longer any the people would be able to satisfy the dragons in the next year. It was time to kill the dragons.

The Knights

Now, what would a story be without its knights? Our story has two: Sir Courage and Sir Perseverance. These men were the last knights remaining in Mortal.

Read more

Given that it is still Christmas, my family and I decided to watch the classic Christmas film, It’s a Wonderful Life. Earlier this weekend, we also saw the new animated film put out by Angel Studios, David. The latter was a decently made film with beautiful animation, some fun characters, but very unlikely to be a “classic” in the sense of Christian movies like Prince of Egypt or movies like It’s a Wonderful Life. David is having success, not because it was an incredible movie, but because our standards for quality entertainment are in the dumpster. We have been conditioned to applaud a “good ole college try,” which has its place, rather than to appreciate a quality production.

Today, we get movies that may have great action through the magic of green screens and computers, but now the actors appear lifeless and “soap opera” like. We may get a movie that has a great score in terms of the music, but the story may be rushed and lacking the character development that leads to scenes like when Jimmy Stewart is praying in a bar for dear life. In a movie like David, we see a film that can be carried by the divine inspiration of the Bible, but is bogged down by our modern evangelical feminization of male heroes. The movie was fun, but it will not be memorable. After watching It’s a Wonderful Life and seeing George Bailey battle his Goliath, you realize that Jimmy Stewart’s character is not just larger than Goliath, but larger than life. Why is this?

It’s a Catholic Thing

Whether the directors of It’s a Wonderful Life were Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or some myriad of Protestantism is something on which no comment will be made. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The movie is Catholic, whether the creators intended it to be or not.

This is not to say that the movie is preaching the Catholic faith either, but rather that the story is more meaningful when viewed the way a Catholic views the world, that is, to view it sacramentally. That is, the idea that the visible, what we can see with our eyes, reveals an invisible truth that is needed by our souls. Secondly, the Catholic views the world through typologies, patterns of things that overlap with other things, not only literally but also analogically.

This can be person to person, as in Adam being the man through which sin entered the world, and Jesus, the man through whom sin was eradicated, or it can be object to object, as in the Kingdom of Israel in the Old Covenant and its foreshadowing of the New Kingdom of God in the new Covenant, the Church. It can even connect objects to persons. This is seen in the manna from Heaven, which Jesus reveals is a foreshadowing of the flesh he will give to us for salvation. The Tree of Life is also a foreshadowing of Mary; the fruit of her womb gives eternal life. Mary is the Tree, and Jesus is the Fruit. Just as when God says, “Now, what if [man] also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?” (Gen. 3:22), so God-the-Man, Jesus Christ, says of his own flesh,

“‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

— Jn. 6:54

This way of looking at the world is not common among modern authors that I have read (if you know of some, drop them in the comments), unless they were practicing a Christianity that was sacramental. Is it any wonder that C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien are some of the greatest authors to have lived, and their theological view was not to view scripture or the world through a rigid literalism or fundamentalism, but rather to create worlds that had concrete heroes, villains, and weapons that pointed to spiritual truths. In other words, they wrote their stories sacramentally and typologically. With Lewis, we have the Lion of Judah represented by Aslan the Lion, and for Tolkien, we have Hobbits who are flawed and bumbling heroes (i.e., very much like Christians in God’s plans) deemed essential to the salvation of Middle-earth, and whose sustenance is Lembas bread, a food that is made by the angel-like elves and which possesses the properties of the Eucharist.

Thus, we should not be surprised that It’s a Wonderful Life is a classic, that is, it follows a similar “sacramental” or “typological” approach to its story.

The Catholic Lens

Some people will credit It’s a Wonderful Life’s success to its loss of copyright in the 70s. This allowed it to be aired on public television for many years, free of charge. Certainly, exposure is half the battle for a film’s success, but exposure does not guarantee its success. There are plenty of films that play every year around Christmas, Die Hard comes to mind, but while Die Hard may be a movie that happens around Christmas, it is not a Christmas movie per se. Besides, once Generation Z floods the movie queues with anime slop, the joke will have lost its steam, and some other movie will take the “It’s a Christmas movie. Prove me wrong” debate stage. But I don’t think It’s a Wonderful Life will fade from the Christmas classics collection anytime soon.

This is because It’s a Wonderful Life is a Christian story, in that it imitates the method of storytelling in the Bible. It is a uniquely Catholic story in this regard. It never names the theological principles, dogmas, or points explicitly. It leaves those truths to the reader to deduce. This is why the word “Trinity” is never found in the Bible, yet we all believe it as Christians because it’s clearly pointed to in the text. Similarly, theological things are “dimly” discussed, and even sometimes crudely dumbed down so as not to distract the viewer, but they are still there nevertheless.

The film’s opening scene is of friends and family praying for a man named George. One man says, “I owe everything to George Bailey. Help him, dear Father.” Another man, Italian and clearly Catholic, prays, “Joseph, Jesus, and Mary, help my friend, Mr. Bailey.” Finally, it closes in on a house, and we hear a woman’s voice, “I love him, dear Lord. Watch over him tonight,” followed by two girls praying for their daddy to come home.

The scene fades out, and a starry night fades in. A cratered moon moves crudely across the screen as the camera moves in on two “galaxies” talking to each other. One identifies himself as Joseph, the other never discloses his identity. According to the film credits, it is a “senior angel.” They send for the clockmaker. His name is Clarence. This world is not strictly speaking the world of the Bible any more than a Marvel Comic is the reality in which we live, but that is what gives the story its mythological quality and ensures the viewer learns the lesson presented, rather than overthinking specialized theological terms or verbatim quotes from the Bible.

For example, we know that the angel Joseph must be St. Joseph, despite the fact that he is called an angel. This is not accurate theology entirely because, in actuality, St. Joseph is greater than the angels, as are all the saints. St. Paul reminds us, “Do you not know that we will judge angels?” (1 Cor. 6:3). But this deviation from proper theology is an example of why Catholic storytellers are better than evangelical ones.

A Catholic with the conscience of an evangelical would feel the need to be theologically precise, which would bog the story down and make it exclusively accessible to the evangelicals with a biblical knowledge level high enough to make the connections. For the rest of the world, it would cause them to ask the question, “What’s the difference between an angel and a saint?”, distracting them from the main storyline.

That said, it’s clear that the angel Joseph is actually St. Joseph because of the opening prayers, the only prayer in which individuals are actually named comes from the Catholic man named Martini, who prays, “Joseph, Jesus, and Mary, help my friend Mr. Bailey.”

From these opening prayers, and from the rest of the development in the movie, it becomes clear that It’s a Wonderful Life is intended to be universal in an analogous way to the Church’s universality. All Christians, and many non-Christians, are going to be moved by this movie, and once a year, whether you're Catholic or Protestant, a movie with subtle Catholic theology makes its way into the hearts and minds of every Christian in America.

The Devil and the Saint

Moving ahead, we see that George is a “Christ figure” only so far as the disciples were “Christ figures,” that is, imitations of Christ. Many people who enjoy film will ask the question, “Who is the Christ figure?” They typically identify a “Christological” character based on how willingly and heroically the character sacrifices himself. George Bailey willfully sacrifices, but he does so in his own strength. This begins to naw and eat away at him till he nearly gives up, contemplating suicide. An example of a Christological figure from another story would be Aslan, the Lion who is the creator of Narnia and other worlds, and who dies for the sinner, Edmund, as the perfect sacrifice. This is not George Bailey; he is entirely too sinful to be a Christological figure. No, George is a sinner on his way to sainthood, but he’s got a long way to go. George is far more like Peter than he is like Jesus.

Jesus said to Peter, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22:31-32). What we witness in It’s a Wonderful Life is George Bailey being sifted by the Devil, Mr. Potter. When George has completed his trial, he will be sent back to “strengthen” his brothers. But first, George tries to fight the Devil on the Devil’s own terms.

Mr. Potter is clearly the Devil throughout the film. In this respect, the film takes on a Job-like theme. Potter is restrained to his wheelchair and confined to his bank, symbolizing the temple of the “root of all evil,” the love of money. Potter is not physically strong, but he is spiritually and demonically formidable. He does not come at George with weapons like the Nazis and Japanese did against George’s brother, Harry, but it is alluded that Potter is just as evil as the heels in “Germany and Japan” by Uncle Billy, the man who loses George’s 8,000 dollars.

Potter’s weapons of choice are the same weapons that ensnare souls to Hell: comfort, greed, and power. He is a tempter and an accuser. He is diabolical in his ruthless attacks on George’s soul, highlighting how George is unable to obtain his dreams and fortune. If he can’t break George’s spirit with spiritual attacks, then he will do it through the manipulation of law enforcement to persecute and throw George in jail. The moment George has “technically” broken the law, it is Potter who is ready to call the cops, have him arrested, thrown in jail, and put out of business, all in the name of “justice.”

But what symbols do we see onset that would indicate that Potter is a kind of demon sent to torment George? For one, we see prominently displayed on his desk a skull. The image below was the best I could find, but if you watch the movie, you will see several scenes where the skull is in the corner of the frame, looking directly at the camera.

Secondly, we see one of the main enemies of the Catholic Church, Napoleon Bonaparte, a major persecutor of the Catholic Church. Napoleon famously invaded the Papal States and imprisoned Pope Pius VII. Bonaparte’s statue, being visibly present and blackened, clearly symbolizes the totalitarian and demonic spirit with which Potter attempts to rule both George Bailey’s life and the community of Bedford Falls.

Finally, we know that Potter is representative of the Devil because he is the only character who prides himself, well, on himself. His office is adorned with pictures of himself. He has begun to call so many evil things good that he is actually willing to praise the evil within himself as good by elevating himself within his office. Another characteristic of divine restraint is that men must go to him; he is not permitted to go to them, not unless he commands one of his “minions” to move him there. Potter is powerful, and more powerful than George and his good works. This is precisely why George needs the grace of God to defeat him. The only problem is that George is not a praying man…yet.

From Sinner to Saint

In George’s most desperate moment, he goes to what man naturally thinks will be his salvation, Potter, the Devil. George has been sacrificing his entire life. Potter has made sure to point that out, as well as highlight that this lifestyle has only brought George poverty and failure. Potter is also the accuser, telling George that he is a failure in the eyes of the world, and Potter is right.

But in the eyes of Heaven, George is exactly what the world needs. George doesn’t realize it yet, but his suffering is precisely what God uses for the salvation of others. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

George realizes that he has lost his 8,000 dollars and is on his way to jail if he doesn’t find a remedy. Judgment day is coming — a very similar theme to Advent, by the way, but that would make our analysis far longer than it should be— and George naturally goes to the vice that is holding him back from becoming a saint; George believes that money will solve his problems.

George sits unnaturally low in a chair in Potter’s office, placing him a little lower than Potter. Man was made a little lower than the angels, says the scriptures, but when man seeks his salvation from money, he becomes a little lower than the demons. This is symbolized by the fact that throughout the film, George is always taller than Potter, except when George is begging Potter for help. This is also echoed by our Lord, Jesus Christ, when he says that “the root of all evil is the love of money. You cannot serve both money and God.” George is turning to money, and in doing so, it almost kills him.

George Bailey is a typical sinner. He thinks that if he does good things, that will be enough to make his life fulfilling. He doesn’t know why he’s sacrificing so much for everyone, but he knows it’s the right thing to do; he lacks revelation, something that suffering tends to bring about, whether we like it or not.

This is evident by the fact that George turns Potter down after Potter offered George a job. George is about to take the offer, but after shaking “the Devil’s hand,” George has a grace that illuminates his conscience. Don’t make a deal with the Devil, George.

George responds and turns down the offer. But it’s not enough to say no to the Devil; you still have to say, “Yes” to God, otherwise you will end up right back in Potter’s chair, lower and more helpless than before, which is precisely what happens to George.

Until George prays his famous “Dear Father in Heaven” prayer, he has believed that he can make it through life on good ole American hard work and pragmatic living. He’s helpful to his neighbors, loves his wife and kids, probably even goes to Church occasionally, but he still has not turned to God. He believes that if he just does enough good things, then, through his sheer will, tenacity, and pragmatism, he will beat ole Potter and save Bedford Falls. But self-sacrifice without grace, as the Devil knows, will only lead a man to a breaking point where he has to choose between God and the Devil.

Self-sacrifice is the way to sainthood, but without grace, it just destroys the sinner. George is missing something, mainly the grace that only God can give, a grace that will cure George of his trust in money by replacing it with a love of God and love of neighbor. We know George’s spiritual state is one of pragmatic humanism because of his prayer,

“Dear Father in Heaven, I'm not a praying man, but if you're up there and you can hear me, show me the way. I'm at the end of my rope. Show me the way, God.”

George’s cry for help rattles Hell, and he is immediately struck in the face by Mr. Welch, but it rings in Heaven as well, and Clarence, the second-class angel, is sent to George’s aid. Clarence later reminds George that he, Clarence, is the actual answer to George’s prayer, not Mr. Welch’s fist. But before this conversation, George nearly attempts suicide, a mortal sin that would have condemned George’s soul to the fires of Hell. This is one of the biggest indicators that Potter is the Devil. It is also one of the more Catholic moments of the film.

“Suicide, that’s against the law,” says one of the characters while Clarence and George dry off from the cold swim in the river. “It’s against the law where I come from, too,” says Clarence. This is a reference to the teaching in the Church that a man who commits suicide commits a mortal sin, presuming he was fully aware of the graveness of the evil, damning him to Hell. But Clarence comes in at just the right moment and demonstrates how God uses grace and man’s free will in coordination to save sinners.

Clarence famously jumps off the bridge first, and then begins the sequence of scenes that reveal to George what life would be like if George had never been born. The only thing worth pointing out here is that Potter is never seen during this part of the film. Potter’s name and fingerprints are everywhere in Pottersville, but he is nowhere to be found. It is as if George’s absence has released him from his confines, and now the demonic spirit of Potter has possessed both the town and the souls of the citizens. One key scene is when Violet, a tiny blond girl and flirt, is seen raging violently against four police officers who are trying to wrestle her into a police vehicle. One could read it as just a strong blonde or her having a demonic strength. After all, the only thing we can make out of her shrieks is, “I know Potter.”

George concludes this “never been born” scene with three prayers to God, very similar to Peter’s prayer on the beach to Jesus. When Peter is asked three times if he loves Jesus, Peter says, “Yes, of course I do,” three times in response.

George is given a similar question, but it is implied, not stated, “George, do you want to live again?” to which George replies three times, “I want to live again. I want to live again. I want to live again.” As if remembering who he should send these three prayers to, George concludes with, “Please God, let me live again.”

Embrace the Suffering

In the final scenes of the movie, George begins to see all his suffering through the eyes of Heaven. It is analogous to how a new Christian sees the suffering of Christ: what was once a bloody, gruesome, and violent murder now takes on a beauty and redemption that can only be seen by faith. Similarly, George has had his eyes opened to what was missing in his self-sacrifice, mainly the grace needed to offer it up to God.

He begins to express joy for all the suffering in his life. He’s excited about his mouth bleeding, he’s excited about Zuzu’s dead flower pedals, he’s excited about his broken-down car, the broken banister, and even the prospect of going to jail. But he’s also thankful for the gifts of his family and his wife, Mary.

As he comes down the stairs, his wife comes in wearing a veil, a hallmark sign of the Blessed Virgin in the Catholic Church. Mary, George’s wife, is not a 1-to-1 match of Mary in the teachings of the Church, but that doesn’t mean she does not point to Mary’s role in the lives of believers in any way at all.

There is a very important line that comes from Uncle Billy that will highlight why Mary is a type of Mary, our Heavenly Mother. First, is that her prayer at the beginning is merely described as a woman praying. All we hear is, “I love him, dear Lord. Watch over him tonight,” and it is this prayer, along with her children’s prayers, that storms the gates of Heaven to save their George.

After entering the home, she removes her veil. Mary brings George into the living room and clears a table, runs to the door, and yells, “Come in, Uncle Billy!” Uncle Billy, the man who lost the 8,000 dollars, comes into the home with a basket full of money. Mary helps him pour it on the table. While Uncle Billy dumps the money in front of George, Uncle Billy says, “Isn’t it wonderful. So many friends. Mary did it. Mary did it, George.”

We discover that while George was discovering what the world would be like without him, Mary was going throughout the town seeking those willing to help the man who had sacrificed so much for their town. She interceded for George in a way that he could not. More money piles on the table.

Finally, a man informs George that Sam Wainwright has wired him 25,000 dollars. Cheers erupt from the crowd in the house, and Mary, in a similar way to the Mary at the Wedding in Cana, says, “Mr. Martini, how about some wine?” At this point, George’s daughter starts to play, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, which highlights the fact that George, having been baptized in the cold waters of the river, having participated in death, is now alive. The last line we hear before Harry comes in is, “God and sinners reconciled.” George has been reconciled to God, but only by the prayers of the faithful and the grace that can turn a man from hating his life to realizing it’s a gift.

It’s a Wonderful Life is a beautiful movie, not because it is rigid in its theological storytelling, but because it is truthful in its theological imagery. George cannot become a saint if he keeps fighting Potter on his own, and we can’t do it either; we need Christ in the sacraments, which, if you pay attention, make frequent symbolic appearances in the film. George needs to keep loving his neighbor as himself, but the key deficiency with George is that he lacks the grace to endure the trials that self-sacrifice brings. In the end, life is worth living, but we will only be able to survive it if we have the bread and wine that the crowd feasted upon in the living room of George’s home. It is only then that our sacrifice, even if it kills us, will be used by God for our good and for the salvation of souls.

— DR