As we sat at the dinner table, my friend, a former Lutheran Priest, said, “These Marian doctrines are difficult for me to reconcile.” He and I had decided to go through the Catechism of the Catholic Church together and dialogue about its contents.

At this point, I had no issues with the Marian dogmas in Catholicism. In response to my friend, I said, “The Marian dogmas are not concerning to me because if Jesus is truly present on the altars in the Catholic Church, then even if they are wrong about something like the Marian dogmas, I would still want to be there!” For Catholics, this might be scandalous because the Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals, but for a Protestant, this is just how we think: everyone is wrong somewhere in their doctrines, so I should be where Christ is most present, not who has the most theologically accurate teaching. Obviously this is a non-sequitur because Christ is truth, but it wouldn’t be the first time people were guilty of unrealized inconsistency.

It was this Protestant logic that caused me to read the following passage from the Catechism and think, “I might be in the wrong church,”

In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist “the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”

“This presence is called ‘real’…because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.

— CCC 1374

As we continued our conversations about the faith, the Eucharist was the main thing that kept coming up for me and my wife. This became a regular part of our conversations with Protestants who were engaging with us as we investigated. For the record, my wife was very resistant to the doctrine of the Eucharist. Her realization was far more profound than mine, but I’ll write about that another time.

I grew up a devout Protestant, and many of my family and friends love Jesus dearly. As Protestants, we disagreed on a lot, but one thing we could all agree on was this: If we could be in the presence of Jesus right now, then we would take it in a heartbeat.

Once someone encounters the teaching of the Eucharist in the Church, the next question is: “Is the Eucharist a primary or secondary issue for Christians?”

Subscribe now

“Secondary Issues”

Read more

Protestant Pastor Smashes Christian Statues

If protestantism is true, then there is no difference between a pastor encouraging children to smash statues of Jesus, Mary, and the Angels, and the devout megachurch pastor who used ladders for an object lesson. This is the logical conclusion of protestantism even if these particular actions are offensive to Protestant individuals.

Below is a screenshot of a video that has gone viral of a pastor encouraging young kids to destroy statues of Angels and the Mother of God. The video is available to watch below, though I don’t recommend it as it is deeply unsettling, even if you’re not a Catholic.

Subscribe now

According to posts on the internet, the pastor’s name is Jonathan Shelley, and he is a pastor at Steadfast Baptist Church. Shelley is seen taking kids through an exercise known as “Bible drills” or “sword drills,” a familiar and good practice to help kids learn how to find important passages in the Bible.

The practice involves giving the kids a passage they need to look up in the Bible, and then seeing which of them can find it first. The first one to find the passage raises their Bible, and if they beat the rest of the kids, they receive a prize. In this case, it was an opportunity to commit sacrilege — the destruction of Christian statues. Be warned, even many Protestants found the video below disturbing.

Available for All Subscribers

The Catholic Church forbids the destruction of sacred statues and icons, but Reformation Protestants and the Church of England actually encouraged and required the destruction of Christian statues and art. The Church does not command this sort of behavior, but instead condemns it.

The Catechism describes the destruction of images and sacred things as “sacrilege,” and it is a damnable offense:

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.

—Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2120

Some may wonder why destroying an image of a sacred person or thing out of vindictiveness or anger is a grave sin. As a former Protestant, I wondered the same and even told my wife to destroy a rosary that had been gifted to her by our mutual Catholic friend.

The Church condemns this action not because the statue itself is holy, although that doesn’t mean it is insignificant, but because of what the statue signifies. Your wedding ring is, in an absolute sense, just a round band of metal. But what it signifies is what makes that ring special. The ring signifies your commitment to your relationship with your wife, and your relationship with your wife gives the ring value beyond the jeweler’s monetary valuation of the ring.

The Catechism says it this way:

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.”⁷⁰ The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:

It then goes on to quote St. Thomas Aquinas’ argumentation:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

So if veneration of an image or statue is not directed at the statue itself, but at the person or thing represented by it, then it follows the destruction of the statue is an offense directed at the person or thing as well. This is the same logic we apply to burning the American flag or throwing away Bibles.

In fact, in a conversation with one of my protestant friends a while back, we talked about the difficulty of having too many Bibles because once you receive one, you don’t know how to get rid of it in an honorable way when it has started to fall apart. So, we just kept them on our bookshelves, unsure of how to dispose of them because we didn’t want to disrespect God’s word.

Making Sense of Veneration for Protestants

History is incredible. When you are young, the threads of your past are disconnected and spread apart. But as we get older, they begin to come together and reveal the pattern that God used to bring us into being, and the older we get, the more our souls feel the next stitch in God’s design.

About a year or two ago, I received some WWII items from my parents that belonged to my Grandpa Roberts (may he rest in peace). He was part of the occupational force in Japan, and when he returned home from the war, he brought home a Japanese rifle and his army uniform. These were passed on to my dad, and my dad then passed them on to me.

I’ll never forget standing in the living room as my father said, “I want you to have it.” To which I responded, “Are you sure?” He hesitated. For a moment, I thought he was going to change his mind.

“Yes. He wants you to have it,” my mom yelled from the other room.

“I do want you to have it,” he said.

With that, I became the new owner of my grandfather’s WWII belongings.

Now his WWII image hangs on my wall, overlooking where I work and my desk. In some sense, I see him every morning. My grandfather and I did not have a particularly close connection when I was young, but since his death I’ve learned some things that have brought me closer to him and made me appreciate him more.

For example, I learned of a time when his business was not doing well. My dad tells the story that Grandpa called in all the kids and said, “We need to pray because if something doesn’t happen, we are going to be in big trouble.” The family knelt in their living room and began to pray. My imagination paints a beautiful picture of them all kneeling, some seated on the couches maybe, but I don’t know because I wasn’t there. But in my mind, the image is pure and holy and uncluttered from the sinfulness so often in the memory of our own experiences. I’m sure it didn’t happen exactly as I imagine, but if I was supposed to remember it exactly as it happened, I would be my dad and my dad would be me.

Another fact that brought me closer to my grandfather after his death was learning about how close he had come to death when he was young and deployed during WWII. His deployment was in the Pacific theater. The command had come down that the troops were going to go into Okinawa.

The cutoff date was announced, and my grandfather probably breathed a sigh of relief as he realized he was not going to be going. Had my grandfather been born a day later, he would have been deployed to one of the bloodiest battles in WWII, and most likely would not have made it out alive. If he had died, my father would have never existed, and by extension, neither would I.

Today, when I look at his image and rifle hanging over my desk, I know for a fact that God has a plan for my life. And while I may never have the courage my grandfather and dad had/have, looking at my grandfather’s photograph brings me a sense of purpose during those particularly monotonous and seemingly meaningless days.

But preserving something only makes sense if it has significance or value. Preserving someone else’s things, like their WWII uniform, rifle, and enlistment photograph, carries significance because I, in some sense, belong to them and they belong to me.

Now, picture this. Suppose the next time I call my mother and father, I inform them that after doing my Bible study that week, I decided to burn all my grandfather’s things because the Bible says not to have any “graven images.” They would rightly question my sanity and be gravely offended by my decision. Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time.

But the reason I wouldn’t do this is not that I really like WWII stuff. It would be because I would lose a connection to my dad, by virtue of him trusting me with something so special, but also a connection to my grandfather, who has gone on from this life to his reward.

We can see that there are analogies for respecting an image of a person or their things and the inspiration and consolation these objects can bring to a person. But let’s explore another example closer to home for both Protestants and Catholics.

A More Relevant Example

Suppose that I receive a gift from an archeologist friend. He says, “Daniel, you won’t believe what I found on my latest excursion.” As he says this, he hands me a small gift bag. Inside is a small felt box with what appears to be a jagged piece of wood that looks like it had been ripped off of something larger.

“Do you know what this is?” he says excitedly. “No, I don’t, but my guess is it’s not tree bark.”

As he chuckles at my response, he says, “It’s a piece of wood from a cross that our experts at the dig believe came from the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. One of them thought it could actually be the one that Jesus was crucified on.”

If I said, “Cooool…,” rolled my eyes, and then proceeded to throw the “tree-bark” looking object into the trash, my friend and every Christian in the world who wants to go to Heaven would rightly stop me and chastise me for being an idiot.

But suppose I didn’t throw it away.

Suppose I decided to display it in my study, where I read my Bible and pray. Occasionally, I might even open my eyes while I’m praying or meditating on a passage and look at the piece of wood, which looks like ordinary wood to the ignorant observer, but because I know what that piece of wood is and what it represents, it calls to my mind the great love God has for me and draws me closer into his heart. Is this idolatry?

No. It is merely the recognition of the significance a physical thing can have because of where it has been and where it is now. These objects are both material and spiritual because they have traversed time and space to be with us in our present.

Our touching of them is, in some sense, a touching of the untouchable, a straining for the unreachable. That is because when we touch them, we are touching the time and place in which they were brought into being. To destroy these kinds of things, whether they be ancient or more recent, would be to lock the proverbial door and throw away the key.

But the tragic thing about pastors that destroy sacred images is that, on protestantism’s view, they have done nothing immoral. But if catholicism is true, they risk their souls for all eternity.

The Battle for Souls

The only problem is that there are plenty of Protestant factions that would disagree with the destruction of Christian images and statues, including many in the evangelical space who are starting to wear Catholic medals around their neck.

Furthermore, destroying a picture or statue of Christian figures and art is an activity shared more with Muslims and Communists. The fact that history testifies to Christianity through cathedrals, altars, statues, paintings, icons, and relics is evidence enough that this “pastor” should have had second thoughts about what he was doing, unless, of course, he is historically ignorant. Not to mention, he’s in front of kids and telling them to destroy sacred images of Jesus’ Mom.

If this pastor does not repent, he’s most likely going to Hell. We ask God for mercy on his soul, but only God knows the full extent of this man’s knowledge and freedom in the act. We can and should judge actions on their eternal weight, but only God can judge a soul justly. So, we condemn the action, but we reserve judgment of his soul for God.

God does not give us certainty of another man’s soul. That’s why we must apply the teachings of the Church to his actions and make the judgment accordingly, not that we might be puffed up, but that we might be able to identify those souls who are most in danger of Hell. This provides us the basis for acting appropriately and interceding faithfully on their behalf so that they might be saved by the grace of God.

For those who might be saying, “Well, he only did this to statues of Mary and angels. What’s the big deal?” Adding to the pile of scandal, the pastor later posted a picture of Jesus pointing to his heart and said, “If someone gets me one of these blasphemous fake Jesus statues [sic], I will smash it into pieces too!” Even C. S. Lewis recognized that there was something sacred in the depictions of the Lord in crucifixes and statues.

Visible to Free/Paid Subscribers

In Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, one of the main characters is faced with the choice between worldly power and success or being ejected from society. He is a Christian, and he has been pining for a well-to-do career since you first met him at the beginning of the book. Before the elites of the world can allow him to enter into the demonic cult — which has invented an AI talking head…let the jaws drop in response to Lewis’s prescient writing — they must test him.

The Christian protagonist enters a room with a large crucifix on the floor. He’s asked to commit sacrilege so the elites of the corporation might know that the Christian’s dedication to the company’s goals is authentic. Spoiler alert: Lewis’s character would not commit the act.

The pastor in the videos above would presumably fail the test and join the demons. But if protestantism is true, then Lewis’s book loses all meaning ’and relevance, and the man in the video above need not be praised or reprimanded. Instead, we should focus on what he got right — like many Catholic apologists are fond of doing — he was teaching the kids how to use their Bibles! What a great act of service!

Obviously, Jesus would not be proud of this, but protestantism has no place for condemnation or affirmation of what this pastor did. All it can do is offer the possible ways of interpreting the situation, and leave it up to you and your conscience. That is not Christianity, because Christianity is not a relativistic religion, and any Christian who holds to a “relativistic” form of Christianity is likely to commit actions against both God’s holiness and his creation. These actions lead souls to destruction in this life and the next, which is why Christ has such harsh words for false teachers. But under protestantism, there is no such thing as a false teacher, just another pastor with another interpretation to consider.

Love Your Enemies

Bl. Fulton Sheen was the first televangelist in the United States, and he was very aware of the road American Christianity was on and the dangers that lay ahead for her future. He was adamant that Jews, Protestants, and Catholics must be united if we are to stand against the Communist revolution that was beginning to sweep through our country at his time, but has found renewed momentum during our own.

The Ben Shapiro Show recently reported that 50% of the Democratic Socialists for America (DSA) now identify openly as Communists. The pastor in the video and Protestants like him are far closer to Communists than they realize.

This is concerning because many Protestant leaders are adamantly opposed to communism as an ideology because it competes with their own, i.e., protestantism. But the one thing that both communism and protestantism require for their worldview to work is relativism. But catholicism condemns relativism explicitly and implicitly because its teachings are public and universally binding on all mankind.

But the one thing that sets catholicism apart from communism and protestantism is that, as the heavenly representative on earth of Christ’s body, Catholics are called to suffer for the individuals captured by these dangerous ideologies. Either physically, spiritually, or both.

As individuals, Protestants are nowhere near as dangerous as Communists. But if you think protestantism is not dangerous for Catholics, then I invite you to read an autobiographical work from a Jesuit priest titled The Hunted Priest. Fortunately, both Catholics and Protestants have found themselves more united in Christ today than they have been in the past.

In many respects, Protestants and Catholics can stand shoulder to shoulder against the mutual enemy, communism. Today, many Protestants and their leaders are stronger on abortion as a cohort than many Catholic groups, despite the Church’s authoritative teaching on the matter.

With that said, modern protestantism has contributed to many of our social ills, many of which appear to be beyond reversal and which have historically led to the end of nations via collapse or being conquered. I’m speaking mainly of the birthrate, which has decreased heavily as Protestants spread the idea that contraception was a “prudential” matter and that families had no moral requirement to have families. The original Christian DINK (Double Income, No Kids) were Protestants.

Catholics cannot unite with protestantism because it leads to a morally anemic and apathetic populace that now can brag about being the only Christian nation that has killed more babies in the womb than any other Christian nation in history. This is largely due to the fractured and divided nature of protestantism and its lack of unity on moral issues that makes it an influential body politically, but culturally and morally ineffective.

Protestantism today is not nearly as dangerous for Catholics as communism is. That said, many Protestant influencers like Doug Wilson have openly said that they think laws should be passed to prevent Catholics from being able to publicly express their faith (e.g., Eucharistic Processions, public Masses, etc.).

Similar things were done by Communists when they took over in European countries and the Soviet Union. As the polarization in America increases, birthrates stagnate, and capitalists continue to promote the idea that all we need is a little more money, Catholics will find themselves declared the enemy by the Anti-Christians (Communists) and the Un-Christians (Capitalists).

What are we Catholics to do in such a situation? Sheen wrote to two audiences: the audience of his time and the America in which we find ourselves today. His prescription is not easy to swallow, but I see no other option. We must be willing to suffer for those who hate us.

Writing specifically about communism, Sheen writes,

A distinction must be made between the ideology and the person, between communism and Communists…A Christian who starts with the assumption that they ought to be annihilated or sent to concentration camps — which indeed they would do to us — is not worthy of the name Christ. We are to seek not their extinction but their transfiguration. Does God hate us because we are sinners? Then shall we hate them for being a particular kind of sinner?

Protestants who destroy sacred images, blaspheme their blessed mother, and refuse to obey their Savior when he said, “eat my body” if you want eternal life, may not want us in concentration camps or Gulags, but should the Communist shadow ever be cast on the soul of our nation, they are unlikely to do much to stop it.

It might be the case that the pastor in the video above was motivated by his love of Christ, i.e., doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. If that is the case, and he ends up in a confessional later in life, his experience of God’s mercy will be as deep as the wounds of Christ.

Sheen’s wisdom continues to illuminate our understanding of the times in which we live, as well as the souls among which we walk:

Was not Paul in the early Church a greater persecutor of religion than Tito or Stalin or Hitler? There must have been thousands of Christians who in their thoughts hoped that God would send a coronary thrombosis to Paul, to take him out of this life…Would that Heaven would send someone to answer Paul! Well, God heard their prayers, and he sent Paul to answer Paul. God’s power is more manifested in the conversion than in destruction, for he knows that the bitterest enemies make the best saints…

Final Thoughts

For you Protestants out there, how confident are you in your beliefs? Would you be willing to suffer so that a Catholic would submit to what you believe is true? Unless you’re certain of the authority and accuracy of your beliefs, how could you say yes?

A Catholic may find themselves wondering the same thing. After all, doubt does not distinguish between Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, or even atheist. Doubt is often referred to as a shadow, but when it is permitted by God, it’s more akin to a blinding light.

As our eyes adjust, we see that our doubt is not a shadow but a light at our feet, leading us ever closer to the Heart of Jesus, which is wrapped in a crown of thorns. Those thorns are what we must pass through if we are to be close to His Heart.

For many Protestants, I know you think you have as much Jesus as you will ever have in this life, but put simply, you are sincere, but you are mistaken. If you’re a Protestant reading this, I pray you have the grace to push through the thorns.

For us Catholics, we are obligated by Christ and His Church to desire their salvation such that if we could suffer on their behalf, by God’s grace, we would. It is our duty to operate in grace and hope that one day any anti-Catholic Protestant or a deeply troubled Communist might one day find themselves kneeling in a confessional, experiencing the faith, hope, and love we experience in the sacraments.

It is a hard thing to accept, and I don’t claim to have “arrived” at the point of being able to accept such a cross. But that doesn’t change the fact that we must prepare our hearts and bodies for the task.

So, we ask God for the grace and faith that will enable us to suffer on behalf of others and their sins, and that God might have mercy on them and bring us all to Heaven’s finish line.

Christ, have mercy on us.

— DR

Today is the memorial of St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus (a.k.a. St. Thérèse of Lisieux). She is a saint and one of four female saints graced with the title Doctor of the Church.

I was in the adoration chapel reflecting on one of her writings on the importance of love for those who feel that they have nothing to offer the Body of Christ. I’ve posted the writing from the Liturgy of the Hours at the end of my reflection.1 Here is that reflection. May you be encouraged by it.

When one is aimless and does not know where he fits in the Body of Christ, the Church, he must not give up!

“But I am aimless,” you say. “What am I supposed to do, throw spaghetti at the wall?”

YES! But do so with love, great love. St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus became a saint for doing just this, and a Doctor of the Church!

We must, when our hearts are dry, and our souls are weak, recognize that love is the only path left. To give up is to bury love, to throw away the talents the Master has given. And when we throw away love, we also cast away mercy. When we cast off mercy, all that is left is judgment.

What wondrous love is this? It certainly does not promise bliss. Without love so wonderful, we become withered and sorrowful.

Love is a rose whose thorns pierce our minds and whose fragrance opens our hearts.

What wondrous love is this?

That makes the weak men strong and the strong men weak?

That makes cowards brave and brave men cower?

That makes the lame walk and leap, but makes the proud crippled and fallen?

This is the greatest of all virtues. This wondrous love is the Savior of the World!

Amen

— DR

Today is the beatification of Bishop Fulton Sheen. So I decided to pick 5 clips of Fulton Sheen’s preaching that are circulating on the internet and that have left a mark on spiritual life and perspective on what it means to be a Christian. If you care about the Gospel and Evangelization, you should become a consumer of Fulton Sheen’s preaching and writing. I’ve also provided more details below for the non-Catholics or lukewarm ones who are unaware of the significance or details surrounding the beatification/canonization process. You can find this information after the last clip.

#1 You Cannot Build Down!

If you take a look at Fulton Sheen’s writings, you will find that he was very concerned about the threat of communism and socialism. He fought against it in his day, and now he continues to inspire us to do the same. His words are very prescient in this clip from EWTN, as depicted by the b-roll they provided to show its relevance to our time.

Source: EWTN YouTube Channel

#2 The Christmas Message You Need to Hear

Christmas has taken on more significance. If you’re a devout Catholic, you reflect on it twice a week in the Joyful Mysteries, especially by meditating on the Mystery of the Nativity. In this clip, Sheen delivers one of the most moving messages about Christmas and the dignity of man.

#3 Why He Didn’t Come Down From the Cross

Sheen had a voice that was meant for radio, but when you watch him preach on the cross, you realize he had eyes for television. When you watch these clips, but especially this one, his words are elevated by his gaze.

#4 Communism vs. Every Single American

As I mentioned above, Sheen knew that communism was coming for American souls. We are now living in what, whether he realized it or not, are the prophetic words of this Blessed man. If we are to make it out of the virus that plagues the souls of Americans, we will have to take up our cross, and accept that whatever suffering may come, knowing that both our cross and communism produce suffering, but only one is used for good.

#5 Fulton Sheen: The Church Is For Imperfect People

Not much to say on this one, other than Fulton Sheen had a way of framing the Christian faith that revealed the viewer’s erroneous assumptions.

Why Is Fulton Sheen Being Beatified?

For the non-Catholics in the room, this is not the same as being canonized, declared a saint. To be declared a saint, one must meet three criteria:

1. Venerable — Demonstrated a life of heroic virtue.

2. Beatification — A first miracle is attributed to the intercession of the Venerable.

3. Canonization — A second miracle is attributed to the intercession of the blessed.

Each of these steps is investigated thoroughly by a committee at the Vatican. In the case of Fulton Sheen’s investigation into his heroic life, it took multiple years. Fr. Mike Schmitz interviewed one of the committee members. I’ll post a link in the footnotes. 1

There is an incredible miracle attributed to the intercession of Venerable Fulton Sheen, which is what has fulfilled the requirement for beatification. Here is a description of the miracle in which a baby was not breathing for 61 minutes, while the parents asked for Venerable Fulton Sheen’s intercession:

In their moment of crisis, after it was discovered that James Fulton had a true knot in his umbilical cord, it was the most natural thing in the world for Bonnie and her husband, Travis, to call on Archbishop Sheen for help. He had been the friend whose prayerful support she had sought throughout her pregnancy…

“I started asking, basically on a daily basis, for Fulton Sheen’s prayers, for his intercession in the life of my child and in our marriage — to walk with us and to walk with my son, that he would be a lifelong Catholic who would love God and love his faith, that he would be a man of integrity,” Bonnie said. “I was asking him to intercede every day while I was pregnant.”

The baby was given advanced medical treatment, but doctors determined he couldn’t be revived. After 61 minutes, however, his little heart started to beat.2

Here is an interview with the mother whose child was saved by the intercession of Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Thanks for reading/watching.

Blessed Fulton Sheen, pray for us!

My church has a Bourbon and Books group that is reading the Pope’s Encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas: On Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence. What follows are my off-the-cuff notes on the various chapters and sections. It’s more for me to solidify my understanding and open up that understanding to positive criticism and correction from the brilliant thinkers who read my posts. Here we go.

Intro: Setting the Stage

The intro and the chapter I read as a single chapter. Early on, the Pope is defending his right to speak into the concrete matters of human existence. As is often the case, the Church is a political entity and has a duty to preach the moral and eternal truths of the Gospel.

When some objected that the Church should not waste energy on worldly matters, but instead focus on communicating the message of eternal life, Leo XIII responded with realism and wisdom, saying that the proclamation of the Gospel cannot overlook the concrete lives of people.

MH, ¶3.

Pope Leo presents us with two Biblical examples that Ai presents us with, both individually and collectively. Are we going to build the Tower of Babel using AI, or will we follow Nehemiah’s example of fraternal labor, each of us using this tool to fortify our humanity on a personal level and a collective one in ways that were previously out of reach?

The risk of dehumanization — of building a future that excludes God and reduces the other to a means — is an ancient and ever-new temptation that today takes on a technical guise. Instead, let us choose the “way of Nehemiah,” which highlights the importance of working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles.

MH, ¶10

For those who know their Bibles, although it may be a surprise to those who think Catholics are biblically illiterate, it’s no surprise that the Pope’s solution is to exhort us to follow Nehemiah’s example, to build our own portion of the wall. Following the Nehemiah theme, it is also the case that some would use this technology for nefarious ends, augment the human body beyond natural recognition, expand government in ways that threaten liberty, especially the religious kind, or seek solutions that completely dehumanize men who find dignity in their vocation as “workers.”

This is important for Ai optimists to understand. They are in a war for the current tech, and they must fight with all their might to harness it and influence its use. There really are demons in this tech and the people who seek to wield it.

Technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity. On the contrary, it has formed part of our history since the beginning as “a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy and freedom of man.” Over the centuries, technological development has significantly improved the living conditions of humanity. At the same time, each phase of progress has also revealed the ambiguity of tools that can cause harm when not oriented toward the good.

MH, ¶4

Chapter 1: The Church

The Church is present in the world as a sign of unity for the entire human family.

MH, ¶19

What follows after this quote is Pope Leo’s examination of the history of Catholic Social teaching. This makes it a bit boring, but it’s helpful to know where Pope Leo XIV is coming from. My read of this chapter is that Pope Leo is going to set the stage for the precedent of popes building on Catholic Social Teaching, which was first promulgated by Pope Leo XIII, with his encyclical RERUM NOVARUM: On Capital and Labor.

He points out that other popes had various historical events that caused them to have to apply the Gospel to their historical context. I’m pulling this list from memory, so feel free to correct me if I’m off on some of the pontificates.

• Industrial Revolution — Pope Leo XIII

• World War II — Pope Pius XII

• Communism and Cold War — St. John Paul II

• Globalization — Pope Benedict XVI

• Environmental and Pandemic — Pope Francis

It’s this line of Popes and their teachings on the matter of Catholic Social Teaching that Pope Leo XIV is aiming to step into. Pope Leo XIV has taken up his pen, in the same spirit and age as his predecessor and namesake, Pope Leo XIII, to contribute to the historical moment that has been thrust upon humanity: AI.

The Catholic Church, as God’s witness and defender of humanity and its ultimate eternal end, is morally obligated to speak into matters that have the potential to render persons’ understanding of or experience with humanity unrecognizable.

The Catholic Church is the only Church that, when She speaks, every other Christian and secular institution in the world takes notice. They may reject what she says, but very few encyclicals from Catholic leaders go unnoticed by Protestant and Evangelical ones. This is good, because they are going to need the wisdom of the Church’s social teaching to ensure that they counsel their congregants and followers in the most humane way to live life in the era of AI.

Non-Catholic forms of Christianity are woefully unprepared for what is coming in the future. The three camps I see represented online are the optimists who think that Ai is a “miracle” technology, their words, not mine. Others believe that Ai is necessarily a destructive force that can only be trusted in the hands of the government. Finally, some are just asking the wrong questions, like “Should Christians use Ai?” This only highlights that they are not in the workforce, nor do they recognize that Ai is already deeply woven into society. Even typing a Google search is first going to an Ai response, not a list of websites.

The issue is not so much AI, but what AI will permit people to do. Without even touching a keyboard, users will be able to use this tech, and in many situations already are, to build and augment human experiences in ways we never thought we would have to judge. Here are a few off the top of my head:

• Robots replacing service workers at restaurants and cleaning companies.

• Augmenting the human body with limbs and organs that are superior to biological ones.

• Cloning services to harvest organs in your old age.

• Infrastructure vulnerabilities to AI hacking solutions.

• Government control over who can and cannot use these technologies, creating a tiered class system where those who have the tech are economically viable, and those who are banned from it are ghettoized.

• Robot warriors in the form of humanoid and non-humanoid forms. Should there be a human in the kill chain or not?

• Should pastors be disciplined for using AI to write their sermons, or digitally imitate them while they are on vacation — this technology is already out there. AI avatars are a real thing.

The point that Pope Leo is trying to make is not that we should have a naive optimism or a despairing view of the future, but that Christians must engage with this tech. However, there is no mention of how much this might cost Christians should they choose to be an ethical and humane voice in the AI discussion. I suspect that when Christians begin to challenge the progress of AI, it will be met with political, economic, and physical hostility.

AI makes everything easier, including avoiding “blockers” that are often caused by virtues like integrity and the dignity of the human.

In a world where everything is easy, souls will naturally gravitate to the lowest point, hell. It’s our duty as Christians to ensure that we utilize AI to soar, not to plummet. But right now, between the AI optimists who see zero responsibility for the moral decisions of others using AI, and the Luddites who are flirting with domestic terror, we see a narrow way, and it seems few are finding it.

— DR

I have more thoughts, but I want to hear from you. Did you read the Encyclical? Any criticisms or highlights you want to share? Let me know if the comments.

If you were in a Catholic Church recently, one of the readings you would have heard would have been Ezekiel 33:7-9:

You, son of man—I have appointed you as a sentinel for the house of Israel; when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them for me. When I say to the wicked, “You wicked, you must die,” and you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, but they do not, then they shall die in their sins, but you shall save your life.

Ezekiel 33:7-9 NABRE

Today, many Christians, especially Catholics, think that they should not evangelize. Since becoming Catholic, I’ve also noticed an apathy among my own Protestant friends and family saying things like, “It doesn’t matter what church you attend.”

This is a blatant expression of indifferentism and/or willful ignorance, both of which, if habitually practiced, can lead one to commit mortal sins. One of my favorite saints is St. Maximilian Kolbe. He loathed indifference and is on the record saying, “The most deadly poison of our times is indifference.”

This idea that all Christian denominations are equally true in their teaching on morality and theology is plainly false. Keep in mind that we are not talking about nuances in the Trinity when we refer to moral and doctrinal distinctives. What one Church calls good, another calls it evil. What one Church calls worship, another calls idolatry. In the words of George Bailey, passages like Ezekiel present us with a “very interesting situation,” to put it mildly.

Catholics Must Evangelize

The passage in Ezekiel demonstrates that not evangelizing can lead us to condemnation. Before I came into the Church, a Catholic told me, “One of the best parts of being Catholic is that we don’t try to convert people.” After being Catholic, another Catholic told me that many Catholics thought that it was safer not to evangelize non-Christians and non-Catholics because the Church taught it was safer for them to remain in their ignorance. The Church does not teach this. In fact, she condemns these attitudes.

In the Vatican II documents, in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium), after having discussed the salvation of those outside the Church, She turns to the “Catholic faithful.”

This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation…Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved…

The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” 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).

Later on in the document, the Church acknowledges that it is possible (this does not mean probable) that one outside the Church could be saved. But many Catholics stop reading at this point. After acknowledging the goods of those outside the Church — I’ve replaced “them” with “outsiders” in the following paragraph for clarity — the Church exhorts her members to evangelize because to be outside the Church is to be a lamb outside the fold, vulnerable to attacks from the World and the “Evil One”.

Whatever good or truth is found amongst [outsiders] is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

Ibid. (16).

There should be no question in the minds of the Catholic that they are exhorted to evangelize the world, precisely because those outside the Church are more vulnerable to sin and therefore more likely to die in the “final despair.” Recall the St. Michael Prayer,

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

Satan is really seeking souls to devour, and the Church provides human souls with the greatest spiritual weapons. Those deprived of them are unlikely to make it. Hence our Lord’s words, “Narrow be the way, and few there be that find it.”

The Wicked Ways

When we consider the challenge that Protestantism has, it is far greater than that of Catholics.

Catholics are known for saying everyone is wrong, except them. To reject their teachings is to be considered a heretic. To reject their authority is to be considered a schismatic. Therefore, all heretics are schismatics, but not all schismatics are heretics.

But Protestants have a significant dilemma because they endorse and permit what the Church considers grave moral evils like IVF, Surrogacy, and Contraception. This means that, if the Catholics are correct, these institutions are actively encouraging and permitting their congregants to commit potentially damnable sins.

On the other hand, if the Protestants are correct, then Catholics are just a bit too legalistic at worst, and at best, just a little stupid.

Here is the position of four mainline Protestant Denominations:

The United Methodists:

We support the use of a variety of reproductive strategies for those desiring to have children, including fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo or sperm donation, surrogacy, and others. We believe the decision whether to use reproductive alternatives is best left to those considering the use of these options, in consultation with their health care providers. In all instances, the use of reproductive alternatives should be in keeping with the highest ethical standards, prioritizing the health and well-being of both women and children.

UMC, Social Principles1

The Episcopal Church

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.

Lambeth 1930, Resolution 15.2

In the mid 1980s, the Episcopal Church affirmed outright the use of IVF, and by extension, Surrogacy.

Resolved, That this 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church gives approval to usage of so-called "in vitro" fertilization for the purpose of providing children in a marriage.

Episcopal Church, GC 1982-A0673

The PCUSA

In an official resolution, the PCUSA both affirmed the use of contraception, “No law should prohibit access to, nor the practice of contraceptive measures,” and condemned the prohibition of abortion:

• No law or administrative decision should provide for a complete ban on abortion.

• No law or administrative decision should

  • (i) limit access to abortions;

  • (ii) limit information and counseling concerning abortions;

  • or (iii) limit or prohibit public funding for necessary abortions for the socially and economically disadvantaged.

220th General Assembly (2012)4

Consider the Catholic Church’s position on IVF, Surrogacy, and Contraception. To participate in these “technologies” is to indulge in grave sin. To do so knowingly and freely is a mortal sin.

The Baptists and PCA

These denominations are more implicit than explicit. In 1971, they officially endorsed abortion, and it’s not pretty. It was phrased in the language of eugenics, and it’s a mark on the denomination to this day.

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.

SBC 1971 Resolution On Abortion5

Regarding PCA and Baptists on IVF, they have not officially condemned it. They acknowledge in their documents that life begins at conception. The SBC did take strides towards a more morally correct view of the practice, but continues to encourage the “limited” use of IVF so that parties involved consider the number of embryos produced in ART (Artificial Reproductive Technologies). But, as we will see later this week, this statement is going to be outdated as AI is ushering in the possibility of artificial gestation outside the womb entirely.

The Catholics

The Catholics, as the most prominent Christian authority on the planet, has set the bar for bioethics. There is no question on which denomination is the most philosophically rigorous and uncompromising institutionally on moral issues around life and marriage.

Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other.

Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children…

A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

CCC, 2376-78

The fact that all of these denominations disagree on this practice, that it clearly has severe moral consequences — over ~100 million babies killed over the last 50 years making the Nazis look like a badly run hospice — is saying something.

If you total the casualties of WWI and WWII, you get approximately 100 million dead soldiers, according to Grok Ai. The merely hand wave the fact that many mainline Protestant institutions not only were silent on the issue but endorsed it and encouraged its practice is no small theological error.

Our institutional loyalty is no trivial matter, and that is evidenced by the moral challenges that technology has brought to bear to Protestant and Catholic leaders alike. Its just that Catholics are the only ones who appear to have not wavered institutionally on the issue of abortion and Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART).

Watch this video of Bishop Fulton Sheen, knowing that at the time, many Protestants would have been critical of him since most of the Protestants had sided with the eugenicists and Planned Parenthood.

Conclusion

Venerable, soon-to-be Blessed, Bishop Fulton Sheen said, “People are turning away from Christianity today not because it is too hard but because it is too soft.” We lost a love for the truth. St. Paul said that if you preach without love, you’re a clanging gong. The obvious other side to that analogy is that if you preach with love but you lack truth, then you are a teacher of lies.

If there is not one authoritative teacher for the entire Christian faithful, then passages like Ezekiel 33:7-9 are not capable of being lived out in a Christian context. One would have to appeal to some vague form of Natural Law, but then accept that this passage has no bearing on theological obligations like “not forsaking the brethren.” Furthermore, passages on false teachers by both Jesus Christ himself and his apostles are also meaningless.

Consider this passage from St. Paul. It is from his 2nd Letter to the Corinthians. In it he points out that people are pretending to be apostles and spreading their own teaching. He says that their end will “correspond to their deeds.” This presumes that there is a “right way” to do Christianity and a “wrong way to do it” and that the apostleship of a man is greater than even an “angel of Light.”

For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Now, many people will object by pointing out that every church is “pursuing right doctrine, so who are you to say your Church is right?” But this reduces the pursuit to a rational one. As we pointed out in the article “No One Cares About Doctrine,” it is not enough to be smart or be a profound exegete. Both doctrine and heresies come formally through authorities (e.g., the Trinity was not developed by a man quietly learning Greek and Hebrew and exegeting the text very, very carefully).

The fact that many individuals break off because they “think they're right” is a standard the objector must apply to himself. Should we follow him? If not his doctrines, then whose?

Inevitably, such individuals will say “Jesus.” But this only leads us to the same place we started. Which Jesus should we follow? The Lutheran Jesus, the Baptist Jesus, the Presbyterian Jesus, or the Jesus who's made in the image of the non-denominational megachurch pastor?

Furthermore, this dodges the question of doctrine. When Jesus breathed on the apostles, it wasn’t that they were just supposed to get people to say “I believe in Jesus.” It was that they were to bring people into the Church, which St. Paul described as the “Pillar and bulwark of Truth.” The first missionaries were sent out to bring people under the Authority of Jesus by submitting themselves to the teachings of the apostles. The reason we have so many denominations is that we don’t agree on the “teachings of Jesus” as handed down.

This means that the teachings were lost, and we don’t really have any way of knowing what is or what isn’t the fullness of Christianity, or we can know the teachings, but we are too afraid to start pulling on that thread.

These objectors to the Catholic Church amount to, “Well, everyone says they are right, so why should I think your Church is right?” This only points out that finding the truth is difficult, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that it is impossible to find. This is why grace is necessary for us to discover the truth and submit to it.

That grace may be found in arguments from Church history.

It might be found in the moral wisdom of the Church as the only one that held its ground on moral issues like divorce, abortion, IVF, etc.

It might be the grace that comes through the miracles of saints and Our Lady’s apparitions (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc).

It might be the superior theological intellects of saints like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas, whose writings we would have lost were it not for the Church being preserved by the Holy Spirit.

God has made each individual unique. The grace that attracts them and calls them to the Church will be unique to all of them.

Some are attracted to the Church through Truth, others through Beauty, others through Goodness and her moral courage, still others may be attracted to her through the Unity of the Church exhibited in her liturgy. But when they embrace one, they receive all of them.

The fact remains, either Christianity can be known by its teachings, of which there is one that is primary among all other versions, or Christianity is a religion of relativism, and we have no objective assurance this side of heaven that we are secure in our faith. But it’s clear from Scripture, history, and the miraculous that God does intend for us to know the truth and, through submitting to it, set us free.

—DR

We touch on her mystical devotion, the letter to Fr. Raymond, and what her willingness to suffer in love still means for us.

This cut is also a proof of concept: I successfully used AI to handle post-production on a livestream — highlight, lower thirds, b-roll, music, end screen, and polish — then used AI to assemble it in DaVinci Resolve.

If you’re new here: I’m Daniel, and this is Pious Reflections.

#KeepThinking #StCatherineOfSiena #Catholic #AI #PiousReflections

youtube.com/@piousreflections

Ryan Burge is an account I follow on Substack and X. I recommend you do the same.

He does a really good job capturing the current social data around Christianity. He’s a great follow regardless of your denomination, but be prepared to be discouraged — this too is irrespective of your denomination.

He frequently goes viral for his infographics about trends in Christianity. Below is one about the trend of non-denominational church attendance being on the rise.

People are noticing the obvious jump in non-denominational church attendance. This is not good.

There is nothing that unites Non-Denominational (ND) churches doctrinally, which means we have no idea what these Christians actually believe. Take any two churches from the “non-denominational” category, and you will find wildly different doctrinal commitments. Here’s an example of two independent churches in California. I asked AI to find non-denominational churches that had doctrinal statements and thought it was important, and those that did not. Then I asked it to create a summary of the two churches.

The one on the right is Grace Community Church, founded by the late John MacArthur. They are very serious about their doctrinal commitments. The other is Mosaic (left), which is based in LA and has multiple campuses around the world.

Why are we seeing a massive spike in non-Denominational Christianity? I propose it is because modern Protestants have conceded the point, either explicitly or implicitly, that doctrine no longer matters. Christianity is all about Jesus, and his teachings are whatever we “feel” or “think” they are.

There are doctrinal convictions, but there is no doctrinal authority. Everyone is his own teacher, and this means that the individual, not the Church, is the ultimate authority within the psychology of the modern Christian. St. Paul has been warning Christians about this since the early Church.

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

2 Tim. 4:3-41

Many Christians believe that doctrine doesn’t matter; the chart above is enough to infer that. But if this is you, take a look at a couple of quotes from Scripture about the dangers of false teachers.

Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. ³ In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.

2 Pet. 3:2-32

Protestant Relativism

Talk to mainline Protestants, and you will find that for many of them the “doctrines” of the faith are clear. It’s those non-essential “doctrines” — but I contradict myself — that are ambiguous. The problem here is that no two groups of Christian denominations agree on what the doctrines of the faith are, that is, the teacchings/doctrines that require your submission to receive eternal life.

To highlight this, take a look at the various Christian teachings on Baptism. Notice the emphasis on whether or not it is for salvation.

Baptism is Not Salvific: Baptist & Presbyterian

For example, the Baptist churches and Presbyterian churches believe that baptism does nothing salvific. It is merely symbolic.

Baptists:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith…

BF&M 2000, Art VII3

The Westminster Confession advises baptism of infants, something not done in Baptist Churches. It also says that Baptism is not tied to salvation.

Presbyterians — at least those that hold to the Westminster Confession

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Westminster Conf., Art (XXVIII)4

These are two major Protestant traditions that reject the idea that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

That summary should be sufficient. For now, take a look at a few major Protestant Denominations that do believe baptism is essential for salvation.

Baptism is Salvific: Anglican & Lutheran

But the Anglican and Lutheran Churches believe, as St. Peter said in his epistle, that “…baptism now saves you.”

Anglicans/Episcopalians:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth…they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed…

Thirty-Nine Articles, Art 28.5

Lutherans teach something very similar.

Lutherans:

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

Augsburg Confession (1530), art. IX6

The Catholic position is that Baptism is salvific. This was the position held by virtually all Christians until the Reformation.

Catholics:

By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.

CCC (1263)

Other groups that would argue this way would be the Orthodox Churches, but we need to wrap this thing up, and no one enjoys reading lists of church doctrines. But hopefully you can see that there are major problems already.

If Baptists and Presbyterians are in error for rejecting the salvific nature of baptism, then they are definitionally heretical sects of Christianity and are risking their salvation by denying an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. But if Baptists and Presbyterians are correct, and the rest of the Christian world is in error, then the debate is irrelevant, and we should move on to some other disagreement about doctrine that does have salvific consequences. After all, every Christian should believe that their church’s teaching (i.e., doctrines) are essential for salvation. If you don’t, then you’re in the wrong church.

Hopefully from this simple example, you can see we have a problem. On the one hand, we know that the random guy in the mountains reading the Bible by himself and just “doing life with Jesus” is not an authority on what is binding on the consciences of all Christians. On the other hand, we know that not all the Non-Denominational churches are teaching the truths of Christianity. As we saw above, it’s not even clear that Mosaic church is even a Christian Church since their website offers no clear explanation of what they think Christianity teaches.

So we have to ask the question: if they can’t all be right, then who is?

Who’s Right?

The nature of truth is that it both unites and divides. If doctrine matters for salvation, then many of these Christians choosing to attend non-denominational churches are risking their salvation for two reasons:

1. Non-denominational Churches tend to downplay doctrinal distinctions and instead point to the number of people in the seats or emotional testimonies as the argument that God is blessing their teachings.

2. Truth is exclusive by its nature, and Jesus, the Teacher, said you would love him by obeying his commands.

There are plenty of Christians who claim that doctrine doesn’t matter. But I want to focus on the Christians who claim doctrine matters, but then disregard it when it does matter.

Since becoming Catholic, more and more of my friends and family have said things like,

• “It doesn’t matter where we go to church as long as we have a relationship with Jesus.”

• “We all have something wrong in our doctrinal statements.”

• “We might go to different Churches, but all agree on the essentials.”

Of course, God does care where we go to Church because it will determine whether our relationship with Jesus is based on truths or a lie.

If something is truly a doctrine, then it has to be devoid of error, since all Christian teaching must ultimately come from God’s Word, either written or spoken.

Finally, we don’t agree on the essentials. This is why Catholics and Protestants don’t do Bible studies together, unless one is trying to convert the other.

Examining baptism above, we see that Christians don’t agree on whether or not baptism is required for salvation. Baptism is a salvific sacrament, or it’s not, and the majority of Christians for all of time were completely and totally wrong. Regardless, someone is getting it wrong, and whoever is, taking a lot of people to hell with them.

Today, people are having an extremely concentrated experience with the fact that they can get a bird's-eye view of so many Christian groups in the world. This perspective allows observers to see that Christianity is fractured and that they don’t agree with each other on major doctrinal issues. Unless, of course, there is a Church that has held the line doctrinally. In which case, Christianity is not fractured. Sheep have merely wandered away from the fold, listening to whoever will tickle their ears.

Because people are experiencing this fact, it is leading people to conclude that they need to find the Church that Christ founded. Alternatively, people are overwhelmed and are falling prey to isolating themselves from any doctrinal commitments, which will only lead them to sin and insanity.

In the end, we are seeing that there are two types of Christians: those who recognize the role of the Church as the defender and teacher of sound doctrine and therefore the only one who can answer the question authoritatively and affirmatively, “What do Christians have to believe?” Those who think the Church has minimal authority over individuals and their beliefs are the ones most likely to find themselves at non-denominational, multi-campus, mega churches.

Those in the first group, the ones that care about doctrine and truth, are more likely to become Catholic. Those in the second group are more likely to church-hop based on the charisma of the preachers and the emotional highs they get from the music. Those left over are more likely to become agnostic, atheist, or Satanists and witches.

Authority & The Trinity

Most Protestants don’t even realize that their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity, that is the formulation of the doctrine as three persons and one divine essence, came from the Catholic Church. These Christians wrongly believe, most likely from the propaganda that comes from a sola scriptura worldview, that their pastors were trained on how to, only using the scriptures, derive the orthodox doctrines around the Trinity and the Incarnation. But this is not the case.

For example, many Protestant Christians will claim that they can deduce the doctrine of the Trinity from scripture alone. But when they say this, they take for granted that St. Athanasius, the early Church Councils, combined with the development of doctrinal terminology, are the only reason their vocabulary contains the word “Trinity.”

This is because the Trinity was defined by the Church and promulgated by her teaching offices (e.g., Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons). This summary of the Trinity — three persons and one essence — is not found in Scripture. That is because the Church invented new words and meanings to define and defend the Trinity authoritatively:

In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".

CCC (253) 7

The Church had to develop “her own terminology” for the Trinity. This means that if you’re a Protestant today speaking about the unity between the Son and the Father, or attempting to understand it, you’re indebted to the Catholic Church because it was her saints, doctors, and martyrs who defended this doctrine so you could study and preach it today.

The Trinity and its definition are not something that you would have just “picked” up from a “clear” and sincere reading of the scriptures. You would have to be taught the Trinitarian doctrine by someone who already had it taught to them.

Secondly, most people fail to realize that the Trinity is the most profound mystery of the Christian faith. This is depicted in the final line of the paragraph, “infinite behind all that we can humanly understand.” To think that this is just something that was “figured” out by smart people or that it was just a really hard puzzle to solve is a very prideful posture to take.

But because Protestants take the facts and historical development of doctrine for granted, they believe that armed only with their Bible and intellectual determination, they too could derive the Trinity and its definition entirely on their own. But they would have most likely ended up a heretic.

That is the thing people fail to realize about heretics is that they are often extremely knowledgeable on doctrine and scripture, as well as very charismatic in their speaking. That is precisely the case with Arius, who espoused that Christ was not divine.

Arius’s heresy gained massive momentum in the early Church, even after his position was condemned by the councils. But the reason that heresy was stymied was due to the Church’s authoritative teaching office, not because a couple of deacons and pastors got together with Arius in their local church and had an exegetical Bible study into the late hours of the night.

St. Jerome gives some insight into the spread of this heresy in his work, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, and how the heresy’s supporters ignored the Church’s authority and effectively promulgated the heresy throughout the region:

After these proceedings the Council [Nicea] was dissolved. All returned in gladness to their own provinces. For the Emperor and all good men had one and the same aim, that the East and West should be knit together by the bond of fellowship. But wickedness does not long lie hidden, and the sore that is healed superficially before the bad humour has been worked off breaks out again. Valens and Ursacius and… eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that [Jesus] was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment…the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.

Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians 198

Some will claim the Bible as authoritative, and it is, but it is not a summary of doctrinal teachings. For example, it says nothing about IVF, Cloning, Body augmentation, or gestation of babies outside the womb. All of these are ethical issues that have profound moral impacts on society, but many Protestants will say, “Well, if the Bible is silent on it, then it’s permissible.” Hence, the reason why abortion ultimately took off among Protestants, since the Bible did not clearly and explicitly define life at the moment of conception.

When two people both agree that Scripture is authoritative, but they don’t agree on a doctrine, there has to be a third office that can judge the contradicting parties and their interpretation. This is not a uniquely Catholic thing either. It’s just how institutions function and survive division. If every soldier had his strategy implemented during World War II, the Allies would have failed to conquer the Axis powers. Someone has to give the orders, someone has to argue for his strategy, but a commanding authority has to ultimately be the one who makes the decision. Otherwise, the army or institution will fracture and eventually dissolve.

Without that kind of authority structure in the Church, then doctrine is no longer about revelation from God, but instead is reduced to reason alone, not faith alone, to determine what is and is binding on all the faithful.

For example, as mentioned above, to deal with difficulties around the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Church had to develop new terms and meanings for existing terms in order to adequately explain what the doctrine of the Trinity meant. But they still had to develop this over several years.

Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is &uot;consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him. The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".

CCC (242) 9

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the teaching on the Trinity formed between two councils: the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.

Today, the Trinity is a binding doctrine on all Christians everywhere; whether they reject or accept it is a different issue. This is the binding doctrine on all Christians everywhere.

Conclusion

Truth is exclusive, and doctrines are merely truth claims about Christianity. The internet and AI have exposed in extreme clarity the full extent of doctrinal confusion there is between the various Christian sects that cannot agree on what is or is not a part of the Christian doctrines. That is why many have just assumed that doctrine is an irrelevant part of Christianity. But without doctrine, our salvation is at risk. Doctrine, according to St. Paul and St. Peter, is clearly meant to protect us from falling into sin or damnation.

We are faced with two propositions: either we can know what the Christian faith teaches, and therefore only one Church has the fullest expression of those teachings, or no church has doctrine 100% correct and Christianity, at its core, is a spiritual agnosticism and the Gates of Hell actually prevailed where the Church has failed.

Furthermore, if the latter is true, that no one has doctrine 100% right, then the wisest thing a Christian can do is fall back on private interpretation as their own pope, council, and magisterium. It may seem like a humble position to say that you won’t pick a denomination as the best expression of Christianity, but all you have done is elevated your own acumen above the cumulative acumen of the history of Christianity, something that C.S. Lewis would have called “chronological snobbery.” The only person happy that you’re taking this position is the Devil.

If the former is true, that Christ really did establish a Church as the guardian of the truths of Christianity, then your entire reason for being on earth is to find that Church or die trying. One thing is for sure: it’s not going to be some hip new non-denominational Church that sprang up a couple of years ago.

— DR.

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