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

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

Some Approaches to the Problem

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

I guess we have a few options:

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

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

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

We will opt for a different way.

In Essentials, Unity…

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

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

1. That we agree on the essentials.

2. That we agree on the non-essentials.

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

The phrase invites us to ask several questions:

• What are the essentials?

• Who decides the essentials?

• Where does one go to find them?

• Who enforces the requirement to believe the essentials?

• What are the risks of getting the essentials wrong?

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

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

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

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

Doctrine Matters

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

“Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven…“Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock…

Mt. 7:21-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

— 2 Pt. 2:1–2

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

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

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

— Gal. 5:19-21 (NIV)

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

So, where do we even start?

WWJT - What Would Jesus Teach?

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

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

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

• ☑️ Belief

• ☑️ Obedience

• ☑️ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

1# Jesus & Belief

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

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

…Whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Mk. 16:16

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

Therefore, the first essential of the Christian faith is:

• ✅ Belief

• ☑️ Obedience

• ☑️ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

#2 Jesus & Obedience

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

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

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

Mt. 7:21

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mt. 7:24-27

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

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

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

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

— Jn. 3:36 (NIV)

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

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

— Jn. 3:36 (NABRE)

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

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

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ☑️ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

#3 Jesus & Baptism

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

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

Jesus said to the religious leaders,

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

— Jn. 5:39-40

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

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

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

— Jn. 3:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rom. 6:3-4

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

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

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ✅ Baptism

• ☑️ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

#4 Jesus & His Flesh

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

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

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

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

— Jn. 6:53-54

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

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

2. Misinterpreting Jesus’ words here has eternal risks.

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

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

St. Paul tells us this in 1 Corinthians,

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

1 Cor. 10:16-17

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

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

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

At this point, we have four essentials:

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ✅ Baptism

• ✅ Body & Blood

• ☑️ Unity

That leaves us with one more. Unity.

#5 Jesus & Unity

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

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

— Eph. 4:1-6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Jn 17:3

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jn. 17:11; 20-23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One might be curious how I could say this.

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

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

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

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

As Paul says in Romans,

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

Rom. 16:17-18

Recap

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

• ✅ Belief

• ✅ Obedience

• ✅ Baptism

• ✅ Body & Blood

• ✅ Unity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidelines

Basic courtesy for Pious Reflections subscribers

1. Leave comments, not sermons.

2. Seek clarity.

3. Don’t be afraid to offer criticism

1. Leave comments, not sermons

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

2. Seek clarity

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

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

Leave a comment

3. Criticisms are welcomed

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

Leave a comment

The Mission

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Ad Gentes (AG), 7.

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

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

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

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

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

• To be more faithful.

• To be more hopeful.

• To be more loving.

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

— DR

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

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

Leave a comment

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

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

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

Leave a comment

The Ignorant Protestant

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

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

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

Meet Jake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday

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

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

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

The Slip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle for Jake’s Soul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Judgment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Returning to the topic at hand. Some Catholics will seek to emphasize other factors as if it were nearly impossible for someone to commit mortal sin. This is a problem because it paints the picture that one is more at risk for hell if they become Catholic, which is blatantly false. The truth is how one is saved, and it is the truth that ultimately conquers sin. Furthermore, many Catholics will try to cite the way someone was raised or the social pressures that we face as a justification that someone did not commit a grave sin. But this thinking is condemned by the Church:

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances ( environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. — Ibid; emphasis mine.

Not only do we know what sins are gravely sinful, but we Christians must be willing to warn people, in love, wisdom, and respect, when they are committing actions that will likely lead their souls to hell. Again, we may not know the final destination of one’s soul, but we most certainly can know, with certainty, the trajectory certain actions will place on a soul.

Catholics must remember that we are held to a higher standard. If we pretend that those outside the Church are saved by their ignorance, then we will always have an excuse not to warn people about the dangerous sins they are committing. In doing so, we risk our own salvation!

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Lumen Gentium, 14.

To evangelize the world, we must cooperate with God’s grace. Part of that evangelization is necessarily the call to repentance. Today, people prefer to say, “Come have a relationship with God,” and avoid discussing the need for repentance altogether. But you can’t have a relationship with God if there is no repentance. And anyone preaching a Gospel without repentance is just giving you a TED Talk.

The final verdict ultimately lies with God, as the book of Sirach says,

If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you;
if you trust in God, you too shall live…
Before man are life and death, good and evil,
whichever he chooses shall be given him…
The eyes of God are on those who fear him;
he understands man’s every deed.
No one does he command to act unjustly,
to none does he give license to sin.

— Sir. 15:15-20

Conclusion

Jake was ignorant of the Church, but God, through his providence, tried to use a Protestant to warn Jake about the truth God had revealed in His Church, that is, the Catholic Church.

Jake, though he was ignorant of the Church, still had access to the truth that God was giving him through Max. In the end, Jake died in a state of grave sin, and by all appearances, he died with mortal sin on his soul.

1. The sin he was committing was a grave sin: Fornication.

2. Jake had full knowledge that he was committing a serious sin due to Max’s witness.

3. Jake consented and habitually sinned, despite Max’s warnings.

But even still, Christians do presume the salvation of an individual soul. God’s judgment of individual souls is a mystery, but the laws by which he will judge are not. If you are a Protestant who is in mortal sin, repent. Tell God you're sorry, and stop the sin immediately. Then go and talk to a Catholic priest about how you can learn more about what the Church teaches.

God bless.

— DR

The reality is, if you’re a former Protestant, you’re probably going to get hit with this question by a close friend or family member who is still wondering why you became Catholic in the first place: “If I don’t become Catholic, do you think I’m going to Hell?”

Some people will address the question to you directly, and others will discuss it without you in the room. All of this is completely normal, since it’s a sensitive topic.

At the same time, it’s also not good for Protestants to consume anti-Catholic content and avoid a proper understanding of the facts. They often presume they know more than they do about the Church and Scripture; I say this speaking from experience. So it seemed to me that an online essay would be a good way to allow people to engage with these questions at their own pace in their own time.

My intent is not to poke the Protestant bears or Catholic tigers in my life. But to demonstrate my current understanding of the issues, so that those who are currently wrestling with the same topic can share their thoughts on the issues as well. Whether you're Catholic or Protestant, I welcome your comments.

Leave a comment

I make no claim that what I’m about to present is free of error in its content or its presentation. I’m very much open to criticism from those more knowledgeable about the topic than me.

That’s why I decided to write this essay. It was to give those people who are curious about my current understanding a window into my thinking, without the awkwardness of having to say those infamous words, “Hey, can we talk?” But also for me to put my thoughts out there so that they could be critiqued and refined.

With that massive qualification out of the way, let’s talk about “The Question.”

Are Protestants Going to Hell?: A Different Approach

As I was reading books and consuming podcasts on the doctrine, “No salvation outside the Church,” much of the content focused on showing the viewer/reader that it was possible that Protestants and non-Christians could still enter heaven even if they remained outside the Church. This article is not a contradiction to their answers, but rather it aims to show the other side of the preverbial coin, so to speak.

Their responses typically had two principles: First, God wants all people to be Catholic, and second, that it was possible to be saved even if you never became Catholic. This is true. But since Catholics can’t be presumptuous about their own salvation, they certainly should not be presumptuous about another’s, let alone a Protestant or an atheist who rejects the Church, even if they can be saved in ways known only to God.

To be clear, I’m not the smartest or most qualified person to answer this question, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to answer the question. After all, if you’re Catholic, especially if you’re a former Protestant turned Catholic, you’re guaranteed to be asked this question in one of two forms:

1. “If I don’t become Catholic, am I going to hell?”

2. “If a Protestant does not become Catholic, are they going to hell?”

Obviously, the first question is much harder to answer because the questioner has made their inquiry at a far deeper and more personal level. In these situations, it always seems to me that the person is asking you to give your opinion, which isn’t worth much in the grand scheme of things. These individuals always strike me as being more interested in what I think, not what the Church teaches.

That does not mean you compromise the truth to accommodate the relationship. But it does mean that you need to be prudent in how you engage the question and the person. This is much harder to do in a written format, and so we will not seek to answer this form of the question here. After all, who the “I” is in that question is very important in considering our answer.

For that reason, we will address the easier form of the question: “If a Protestant does not become Catholic, are they going to hell?”

Salvation by Affiliation?

First, Protestants, especially older ones, need to understand that Catholics do not believe you are saved by virtue of your membership in the Catholic Church. This is a common Protestant misunderstanding. Some Protestants believe that Catholics think that instead of praying a prayer to be saved, you just need the Catholic VIP card to get to heaven. The Church teaches the exact opposite,

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

Lumen Gentium, 14.

When Protestants say that Catholics are proposing a “salvation by association” theology, they are revealing that they have been reading too many anti-Catholic authors and not engaging with the actual teachings of the Church. We are not saved by “affiliation” with the Catholic Church. We are saved by faith in and obedience to Christ. That is why it’s important to be in the one Church, because it is only within the true Church that one can fully follow Christ.

The Assumption

Returning to the actual question, “Will Protestants be saved if they remain outside the Church?”, there is an implicit assumption in it. The questioner doesn’t realize it, but the assumption their question makes is that the Church’s teachings are true.

If the Church is automatically false, then her teachings have no bearing on their salvation, and they do not need an answer. But on the other hand, if there is a possibility that the Church’s teachings and claims are true, then obviously there is an eternal risk for rejecting those teachings.

This is why the question is clearer when it’s rephrased: “If the Catholic Church is true, are Protestants going to Hell?”

Now, as we have already covered and will see in future articles, our answer varies significantly from person to person. There is a big difference between an unrepentant abortion doctor who hates the Church asking this question, a 21st-century Protestant who follows Jesus sincerely, even if sincerely in error, asking this question, and Martin Luther asking this question.

When a Protestant asks about their salvation from a Catholic perspective, we have to presume the teachings of the Church are true. Where it gets complicated is in the specific examples and scenarios that people bring up in these conversations. We can’t possibly account for every single human experience out there, let alone the internal spiritual state of every person in a given scenario, which is one of the reasons Catholics often speak in terms of “risk” to one’s soul.

We use this language, not because Catholics don’t know how to go to heaven, or that they have no assurance of their own salvation. Instead, they use this language to highlight that they are not your judge; they are sinners just like you. They can only judge an action as moral or immoral; they cannot judge the heart. That is reserved for God. Humans can know and judge whether an action is eternally risky, but God is the one who judges the person.

Judging vs Judgment

When a Catholic or Protestant is baptized, they have “entered the Church as though through a door.” Scripture and Church teaching are clear that belief, baptism, Christ’s body and blood, obedience, and perseverance are all required for eternal life.

According to the Church, when a person is baptized, whether Catholic or not, “…All sins are forgiven, original sin and personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” In this sense, the Catholic and the Protestant can say, “We are saved.” But neither has entered into heaven yet, so there is still sanctification and perseverance that must be accomplished.

Therefore, the only way that a Protestant or a Catholic would be in danger of hell is if they committed a mortal sin and they never repented of it. According to the Catechism,

If [mortal sin] is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and eternal death of hell… — CCC, 1861

A sin is mortal if the following criteria are met.

1. The sin is a “grave matter” (e.g., taking an innocent life, adultery, blasphemy, etc).

2. The sinner had “full knowledge” of the sin.

3. The sinner deliberately consented to the sin.

Knowing whether a sinful action is a grave matter is not difficult. It is also not the case that someone can just say, “Well, I don’t think that’s a grave sin, so it doesn’t apply to me.” Feigning ignorance about a moral truth is also considered a mortal sin,

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. — CCC, 1859; emphasis mine.

This is actually a shared point between Catholics and many Protestants. They would agree that certain sins either remove a person from grace or, as some Protestants say, “The sin reveals that the person was never saved to begin with.”

Being Catholic is not a prerequisite for knowing whether a sin is gravely sinful. Some sins are actually intrinsically evil. Meaning, they are never morally permissible. This means that whether an action is a grave matter or not is knowable by both Protestants and Catholics. But knowing whether a person is guilty of mortal sin with certainty is only known to God and the individual committing the sin.

The Catechism states,

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

As we proceed on this topic, Catholics must understand that our role is merely to know our faith and to make it known to others. What they decide to do with that information is between them and God. But, again, presuming that a Protestant has been warned that they are committing mortal sin, either by a Catholic, by study of the Church, or the scriptures, they are risking mortal culpability for their actions if they continue to commit them.

Over the next couple of weeks, there will be articles posted here discussing various scenarios and examples that apply these principles. So make sure to subscribe. Moving on.

Misconceptions about Truth and Ignorance

It should be clear now that the Church is not teaching that a Protestant is just as likely to be saved as a Catholic, nor do they believe in “once saved always saved” for Catholics, but not for Protestants.

The Church is merely saying that it is possible for those outside the Church to be saved. It also should be stated that the Church is not saying that “ignorance” is just as good as the truth.

The Catechism and scripture both affirm that “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), and that “Salvation is found in the truth,” not in ignorance.1 If the Catholic Church is, as Scripture teaches, “the pillar and foundation of all truth…” (1 Tim. 3:15), then it simply follows that rejecting the Church is a decision of eternal consequence.

When the Church speaks about exceptions to God’s plan of salvation, she is merely telling the world that God is perfectly capable of making exceptions and remaining merciful, just, loving, and true. She is not teaching that there are many roads to God, but instead that God has the power and knowledge to know who will be exempt and who will not. Recall what Jesus said to his disciples,

“I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.” — Jn. 10:16

While the thief on the cross is a beautiful and hopeful picture of God’s mercy, we must also account for Judas Iscariot in our discussions about salvation. Remember, there is one thief on the cross that was saved, but there were many disciples who, “from that time on…went back, and walked no more with [Jesus]” (Jn. 6:66).

To be clear, the number of those entering heaven by exceptional ignorance (a.k.a, “invincible ignorance”) cannot be greater than those who enter by way of the knowledge of the truth; otherwise, ignorance would be superior to faith, and Jesus would have come, not to save the world, but to “condemn the world.” For the record, this would also completely contradict Jesus’ own words in scripture,

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. ¹⁸ Whoever believes in him will not be condemned…¹⁹ And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil…But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God. — Jn. 3:17-21

To Be Continued

With all of these qualifications out of the way, we are now in a position to apply them to specific scenarios where a person might ask, “Are Protestants going to Hell if they don’t become Catholic?”

I plan to have four articles, each addressing the question as it pertains to the “type” of Protestants below:

1. The Ignorant: Protestants who know of the Catholic Church by name, but are completely ignorant of her actual teachings.

2. The Blasphemous: Protestants who know the teachings of the Church, reject them, and blaspheme them.

3. The Indifferent: Protestants who know the teachings of the Church but are indifferent to them.

4. The Resistant: Protestants who know the teachings of the Church and love them, but refuse to submit to them.

Since the non-Catholic’s salvific status is only certainly uncertain, then it follows that an equally valid answer, in some cases, is “Some Protestants won’t be saved.” In the upcoming article series titled “Are They Going to Hell?” I want to focus on the actions these Protestants are taking that increase their chances of eternal damnation. This is not to be judgmental, but will hopefully help educate Catholics and Protestants so that we can ensure that we avoid sin and help others do the same.

After all, if the Church is what she claims to be, and some refuse, for whatever reason, to remain outside of her protection, they are, logically speaking, taking a risk. A risk that we Catholics are obligated to, with love and truth, inform them of,

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

— Ad Gentes (AG), 7.

If you’re interested in joining this conversation, feel free to subscribe so you get notified when the next essay in the series drops. I’ll also be doing some podcasts on this and addressing any questions or comments in the comments section below.

If you want to watch some great content addressing how a Protestant could be saved despite being outside the Church, check out these great resources in the following footnote.2

— DR —

Some worlds are big, and others are small, but the road to any of them begins in the soul. This is a small world with a big lesson.

The City of Mortal

The world in which our story takes place is called Ethos. Our heroes and villains reside in and around one of the few cities in Ethos called the City of Mortal. It was guarded by three dragons, each varying in size, abilities, and magic. This was because the citizens of Mortal had made a deal with the dragons. In exchange for sacrifices from the people, the dragons would avail the people of their power and protection.

You may be wondering why the people would do such a thing, but you only need to look in your own heart to know why people abandon God. Why do you hit your brother? Mock your sister? Disobey your mother? Ignore your father? As it is with us, so it is with the people of Mortal. They exchanged the light for darkness, the angelic for the demonic, the eagles for serpents, because they preferred to live in the dust rather than in the air; in short, they wanted to do it their way — they even wrote a song about it!

The City of Mortal used to be the Garden of Life. But when they made the deal with the dragons, they exchanged the Garden for a city of luxury and comfort.

Initially, the dragons exacted a cost from the people that was very easy to accommodate. But if you know anything about dragons, then you know they pervert all virtue. They use their virtues, like patience and wisdom, for evil rather than for good. For example, their patience is unmatched by any human. They can wait for centuries to get what they want and are willing to endure exceptional discomfort if they know in the end, their bellies will be filled with that which they desire most, human souls.

Making Deals with Dragons

When the citizens of Mortal met with the dragons, the dragons drew up a contract — because who's gonna argue with the dragons? The contract stated that the dragons would offer the humans some of their wisdom, magic, and gold in exchange for the humans’ first fruits, that is, vegetables and, of course, fruit.

Now, of course, dragons despise fruits and vegetables. They desired something far more valuable, but they were willing to wait, even eat things they didn’t particularly like, if it meant they would eventually be satisfied. In return for first fruits, the people asked the dragons how to run the city, called on the dragons to use their magic to protect the city, and even received a little bit of gold in exchange for the meager sacrifice of fruits and vegetables. The trap had been laid, and the dragons could already see their plan coming together.

After one year of fruits and vegetables, the dragons rewrote the contract. The dragons, those cunning devils, did not merely change the meaning of the words “first fruits”; they expanded the meaning to include more than fruits and vegetables. Now, “first fruit” would require the people to give them animals to eat. The firstborn of every tree and every animal was to be given to the dragons once a year.

The first year of animal sacrifices would forever scar the memories of the people. Even if you were deep within the City of Mortal, you would have heard the cries of the animals mixed with the songs of dragons as the sacrifices were consumed. It was the stuff of nightmares.

But it gets worse.

The dragons, though they were diabolically evil, were surprisingly mindful of fairness. But this was not in the best interest of the people. No, the dragons needed it to be a fair contract to deceive the people. This ensured that what was unfair for the dragons now would eventually be unfair for the people in the future. After all, who is going to turn down a deal where they trade an apple for some gold and magic? It is for this reason, after the dragons were defeated, that the people developed a saying, “All devils come with pen and paper, but a deal with an angel is always safer.” Who you’re signing a contract with is just as important as what the contract says.

As the contract demanded more “first fruits” from the citizens, the citizens received more wisdom, magic, and gold from the dragons in return — dragons always keep up their end of the deal.

The people were able to consult the dragon’s dark wisdom more frequently, request their dark magic for basic necessities, and even received more gold than the year before. But, just as the dragons had foreseen, the people were now dependent on the power of the dragons for the City of Mortal, not just to thrive, but to survive.

The dragons began to salivate at the thought of what would happen next year.

The year passed, and the Dragons redrew the contract. This time, they announced, “We now require the first fruits of the trees, of the animals, and of the womb. In exchange, the citizens of Mortal will receive even more wisdom, more power, and more gold.”

The men and women looked at each other. To the surprise of many men, the first person to agree was a young woman who was not yet a mother. The woman walked up, signed the contract, and turned and faced the people,

“My friends, I have talked with the dragons. Their wisdom is beyond anything we could think of on our own. Think of all that we could do for our future generations with the magic and gold they will give us. They also have, in their great wisdom, shown me the truth about us.” She paused, took a deep breath, and continued.

“How many of you remember when you were just a seed in your mother’s womb? None of you can! You were more like a parasite than a baby! Are we truly going to say our babies, who have yet to stop nursing from a breast, even have a “soul”? If they cannot even know their names, who their mother or father is, nor even the very City of Mortal, then what use are they? The dragons have assured us that this sacrifice will cost us a little now, but it will bring us great prosperity and comfort in the years to come.”

The men were too afraid to argue with such an intimidating woman, and the women had been deceived into believing they would use their gold and wisdom to have bigger families. “One child dead will lead to houses with 7 heads.” But this never happened. As their comfort grew, their families became smaller and smaller. They began to live like the dragons. They were wise, they were powerful, they had gold, and they were childless.

That woman’s speech was all it took...

The following year, the women of the city walked the path to the top of the mountain to sacrifice their children, and the men stayed home with the others.

After raising the child for a year, the firstborns were fed a magic berry — courtesy of the dragons — that put the child to sleep. The mothers then veiled their faces, put their children in their baskets, and carried them up the path to the dragons’ mountain.

Initially, the women were saddened, but the dragons continued to remind them that a few babies, who couldn’t even speak yet, were not truly human…yet…and so they shouldn’t feel bad about such things; “It is no different than giving us vegetables or fruit,” the dragons would say.

Legion, the head dragon, assuaged one mother by asking her to call her dog by name. The dog came running. Then Legion said, “Now call your baby boy. The baby burst into tears and tried to crawl away. “See,” said Legion, “They are no better than dogs.”

Each year, the people gave more and more babies to the dragons, and the people received knowledge of how to prosper without children. The dragons inspired the people to invent new technologies that no one thought possible. Clothing was also improved by the scales the dragons shed and returned to the people, something Legion said was a demonstration of “dragonic charity” for the people.” Finally, the people received the finest gold, not too much, of course. The dragons were greedy creatures. The only thing they loved more than gold was a human soul.

After several years, the people’s needs were completely satisfied. Everything was comfortable. The people of Mortal had all their needs met. There was no question they could not answer, no object they could not build, no thing they could not buy. The people were trapped.

The Dragons

You now know how the City of Mortal found itself in need of saving. Now it is time for you to learn about the dragons.

The first dragon was named Green. She was a small dragon, no bigger than a large dog. Her demeanor was kind, but that was only to deceive ignorant children. Her bite was painful for adults, but deadly for children.

Despite mothers fulfilling their sacrificial requirement, Green continued to hunt foolish children in her spare time. Many mothers in the City of Mortal had lost their older children to the bite of this devilish dragon after she had lured them away from their homes.

Green was also the fastest of the three dragons. One moment she was on the ground, and in the blink of an eye, she was in the trees, singing sweet melodies about envy and greed that attracted the children with weaker souls! A perfect imitator and deceiver, as all dragons are, she would imitate the voice of a mother, telling them that she had their favorite candy with her in the woods.

The only children that were spared were the children whose parents taught them about who the Logos was, how to recognize His voice, and to heed His teachings. These children learned that it was not the “kindness” of one’s words that indicated safety, but whether they were true — “love without truth is only a lie,” the Logos-fearing mothers would say. Those children who were neglected in such teachings were lured into the woods at dusk, just before dinner time, where they met their fate.

The second dragon was Blood. She was named this because of the blood-red scales that covered her body, but what was more intimidating were the sharp spikes that lined her back and arms. They were all over her body and razor-sharp. At their base were faint stains of blood. Within their cracks and crevices of the spikes were bits of dried flesh from the prey she had recently hunted.

Blood was more shrewd than Green. She would entice men to anger or bloodlust. She was a manipulator, a dragon who feeds on the rage of men and young boys; the more rage a man had, the tougher and juicier his soul would be.

When a man approached, Blood would simply sit and stare into his eyes. With her piercing gaze, she could see within their eye all their triumphs and failures. It was this ability to see a man’s past through his eyes that enabled her words to pierce their unguarded hearts, make their blood boil, and eventually cause them to make a fatal error in battle.

Blood was the protector of the final dragon, who ruled Mortal from the top of his mountain. This final dragon’s name was Legion.

Legion was the dragon with more heads than you could count. His scales were black and shiny like obsidian rocks but stronger than diamonds. He had the speed of Green and the wit and shrewdness of Blood. He was the King of the Dragons, and the rest of the dragons were his queens.

Legion’s power was unmatched, and the more souls he ate, the stronger he became.

Those are the dragons, and after nearly a 100 years, the City of Mortal had begun to stop having children altogether. The dragons were becoming more insatiable, and the townsfolk were living on borrowed gold and ideas. There was no longer any the people would be able to satisfy the dragons in the next year. It was time to kill the dragons.

The Knights

Now, what would a story be without its knights? Our story has two: Sir Courage and Sir Perseverance. These men were the last knights remaining in Mortal.

Read more

Given that it is still Christmas, my family and I decided to watch the classic Christmas film, It’s a Wonderful Life. Earlier this weekend, we also saw the new animated film put out by Angel Studios, David. The latter was a decently made film with beautiful animation, some fun characters, but very unlikely to be a “classic” in the sense of Christian movies like Prince of Egypt or movies like It’s a Wonderful Life. David is having success, not because it was an incredible movie, but because our standards for quality entertainment are in the dumpster. We have been conditioned to applaud a “good ole college try,” which has its place, rather than to appreciate a quality production.

Today, we get movies that may have great action through the magic of green screens and computers, but now the actors appear lifeless and “soap opera” like. We may get a movie that has a great score in terms of the music, but the story may be rushed and lacking the character development that leads to scenes like when Jimmy Stewart is praying in a bar for dear life. In a movie like David, we see a film that can be carried by the divine inspiration of the Bible, but is bogged down by our modern evangelical feminization of male heroes. The movie was fun, but it will not be memorable. After watching It’s a Wonderful Life and seeing George Bailey battle his Goliath, you realize that Jimmy Stewart’s character is not just larger than Goliath, but larger than life. Why is this?

It’s a Catholic Thing

Whether the directors of It’s a Wonderful Life were Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or some myriad of Protestantism is something on which no comment will be made. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The movie is Catholic, whether the creators intended it to be or not.

This is not to say that the movie is preaching the Catholic faith either, but rather that the story is more meaningful when viewed the way a Catholic views the world, that is, to view it sacramentally. That is, the idea that the visible, what we can see with our eyes, reveals an invisible truth that is needed by our souls. Secondly, the Catholic views the world through typologies, patterns of things that overlap with other things, not only literally but also analogically.

This can be person to person, as in Adam being the man through which sin entered the world, and Jesus, the man through whom sin was eradicated, or it can be object to object, as in the Kingdom of Israel in the Old Covenant and its foreshadowing of the New Kingdom of God in the new Covenant, the Church. It can even connect objects to persons. This is seen in the manna from Heaven, which Jesus reveals is a foreshadowing of the flesh he will give to us for salvation. The Tree of Life is also a foreshadowing of Mary; the fruit of her womb gives eternal life. Mary is the Tree, and Jesus is the Fruit. Just as when God says, “Now, what if [man] also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life, and eats of it and lives forever?” (Gen. 3:22), so God-the-Man, Jesus Christ, says of his own flesh,

“‘Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”

— Jn. 6:54

This way of looking at the world is not common among modern authors that I have read (if you know of some, drop them in the comments), unless they were practicing a Christianity that was sacramental. Is it any wonder that C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien are some of the greatest authors to have lived, and their theological view was not to view scripture or the world through a rigid literalism or fundamentalism, but rather to create worlds that had concrete heroes, villains, and weapons that pointed to spiritual truths. In other words, they wrote their stories sacramentally and typologically. With Lewis, we have the Lion of Judah represented by Aslan the Lion, and for Tolkien, we have Hobbits who are flawed and bumbling heroes (i.e., very much like Christians in God’s plans) deemed essential to the salvation of Middle-earth, and whose sustenance is Lembas bread, a food that is made by the angel-like elves and which possesses the properties of the Eucharist.

Thus, we should not be surprised that It’s a Wonderful Life is a classic, that is, it follows a similar “sacramental” or “typological” approach to its story.

The Catholic Lens

Some people will credit It’s a Wonderful Life’s success to its loss of copyright in the 70s. This allowed it to be aired on public television for many years, free of charge. Certainly, exposure is half the battle for a film’s success, but exposure does not guarantee its success. There are plenty of films that play every year around Christmas, Die Hard comes to mind, but while Die Hard may be a movie that happens around Christmas, it is not a Christmas movie per se. Besides, once Generation Z floods the movie queues with anime slop, the joke will have lost its steam, and some other movie will take the “It’s a Christmas movie. Prove me wrong” debate stage. But I don’t think It’s a Wonderful Life will fade from the Christmas classics collection anytime soon.

This is because It’s a Wonderful Life is a Christian story, in that it imitates the method of storytelling in the Bible. It is a uniquely Catholic story in this regard. It never names the theological principles, dogmas, or points explicitly. It leaves those truths to the reader to deduce. This is why the word “Trinity” is never found in the Bible, yet we all believe it as Christians because it’s clearly pointed to in the text. Similarly, theological things are “dimly” discussed, and even sometimes crudely dumbed down so as not to distract the viewer, but they are still there nevertheless.

The film’s opening scene is of friends and family praying for a man named George. One man says, “I owe everything to George Bailey. Help him, dear Father.” Another man, Italian and clearly Catholic, prays, “Joseph, Jesus, and Mary, help my friend, Mr. Bailey.” Finally, it closes in on a house, and we hear a woman’s voice, “I love him, dear Lord. Watch over him tonight,” followed by two girls praying for their daddy to come home.

The scene fades out, and a starry night fades in. A cratered moon moves crudely across the screen as the camera moves in on two “galaxies” talking to each other. One identifies himself as Joseph, the other never discloses his identity. According to the film credits, it is a “senior angel.” They send for the clockmaker. His name is Clarence. This world is not strictly speaking the world of the Bible any more than a Marvel Comic is the reality in which we live, but that is what gives the story its mythological quality and ensures the viewer learns the lesson presented, rather than overthinking specialized theological terms or verbatim quotes from the Bible.

For example, we know that the angel Joseph must be St. Joseph, despite the fact that he is called an angel. This is not accurate theology entirely because, in actuality, St. Joseph is greater than the angels, as are all the saints. St. Paul reminds us, “Do you not know that we will judge angels?” (1 Cor. 6:3). But this deviation from proper theology is an example of why Catholic storytellers are better than evangelical ones.

A Catholic with the conscience of an evangelical would feel the need to be theologically precise, which would bog the story down and make it exclusively accessible to the evangelicals with a biblical knowledge level high enough to make the connections. For the rest of the world, it would cause them to ask the question, “What’s the difference between an angel and a saint?”, distracting them from the main storyline.

That said, it’s clear that the angel Joseph is actually St. Joseph because of the opening prayers, the only prayer in which individuals are actually named comes from the Catholic man named Martini, who prays, “Joseph, Jesus, and Mary, help my friend Mr. Bailey.”

From these opening prayers, and from the rest of the development in the movie, it becomes clear that It’s a Wonderful Life is intended to be universal in an analogous way to the Church’s universality. All Christians, and many non-Christians, are going to be moved by this movie, and once a year, whether you're Catholic or Protestant, a movie with subtle Catholic theology makes its way into the hearts and minds of every Christian in America.

The Devil and the Saint

Moving ahead, we see that George is a “Christ figure” only so far as the disciples were “Christ figures,” that is, imitations of Christ. Many people who enjoy film will ask the question, “Who is the Christ figure?” They typically identify a “Christological” character based on how willingly and heroically the character sacrifices himself. George Bailey willfully sacrifices, but he does so in his own strength. This begins to naw and eat away at him till he nearly gives up, contemplating suicide. An example of a Christological figure from another story would be Aslan, the Lion who is the creator of Narnia and other worlds, and who dies for the sinner, Edmund, as the perfect sacrifice. This is not George Bailey; he is entirely too sinful to be a Christological figure. No, George is a sinner on his way to sainthood, but he’s got a long way to go. George is far more like Peter than he is like Jesus.

Jesus said to Peter, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22:31-32). What we witness in It’s a Wonderful Life is George Bailey being sifted by the Devil, Mr. Potter. When George has completed his trial, he will be sent back to “strengthen” his brothers. But first, George tries to fight the Devil on the Devil’s own terms.

Mr. Potter is clearly the Devil throughout the film. In this respect, the film takes on a Job-like theme. Potter is restrained to his wheelchair and confined to his bank, symbolizing the temple of the “root of all evil,” the love of money. Potter is not physically strong, but he is spiritually and demonically formidable. He does not come at George with weapons like the Nazis and Japanese did against George’s brother, Harry, but it is alluded that Potter is just as evil as the heels in “Germany and Japan” by Uncle Billy, the man who loses George’s 8,000 dollars.

Potter’s weapons of choice are the same weapons that ensnare souls to Hell: comfort, greed, and power. He is a tempter and an accuser. He is diabolical in his ruthless attacks on George’s soul, highlighting how George is unable to obtain his dreams and fortune. If he can’t break George’s spirit with spiritual attacks, then he will do it through the manipulation of law enforcement to persecute and throw George in jail. The moment George has “technically” broken the law, it is Potter who is ready to call the cops, have him arrested, thrown in jail, and put out of business, all in the name of “justice.”

But what symbols do we see onset that would indicate that Potter is a kind of demon sent to torment George? For one, we see prominently displayed on his desk a skull. The image below was the best I could find, but if you watch the movie, you will see several scenes where the skull is in the corner of the frame, looking directly at the camera.

Secondly, we see one of the main enemies of the Catholic Church, Napoleon Bonaparte, a major persecutor of the Catholic Church. Napoleon famously invaded the Papal States and imprisoned Pope Pius VII. Bonaparte’s statue, being visibly present and blackened, clearly symbolizes the totalitarian and demonic spirit with which Potter attempts to rule both George Bailey’s life and the community of Bedford Falls.

Finally, we know that Potter is representative of the Devil because he is the only character who prides himself, well, on himself. His office is adorned with pictures of himself. He has begun to call so many evil things good that he is actually willing to praise the evil within himself as good by elevating himself within his office. Another characteristic of divine restraint is that men must go to him; he is not permitted to go to them, not unless he commands one of his “minions” to move him there. Potter is powerful, and more powerful than George and his good works. This is precisely why George needs the grace of God to defeat him. The only problem is that George is not a praying man…yet.

From Sinner to Saint

In George’s most desperate moment, he goes to what man naturally thinks will be his salvation, Potter, the Devil. George has been sacrificing his entire life. Potter has made sure to point that out, as well as highlight that this lifestyle has only brought George poverty and failure. Potter is also the accuser, telling George that he is a failure in the eyes of the world, and Potter is right.

But in the eyes of Heaven, George is exactly what the world needs. George doesn’t realize it yet, but his suffering is precisely what God uses for the salvation of others. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

George realizes that he has lost his 8,000 dollars and is on his way to jail if he doesn’t find a remedy. Judgment day is coming — a very similar theme to Advent, by the way, but that would make our analysis far longer than it should be— and George naturally goes to the vice that is holding him back from becoming a saint; George believes that money will solve his problems.

George sits unnaturally low in a chair in Potter’s office, placing him a little lower than Potter. Man was made a little lower than the angels, says the scriptures, but when man seeks his salvation from money, he becomes a little lower than the demons. This is symbolized by the fact that throughout the film, George is always taller than Potter, except when George is begging Potter for help. This is also echoed by our Lord, Jesus Christ, when he says that “the root of all evil is the love of money. You cannot serve both money and God.” George is turning to money, and in doing so, it almost kills him.

George Bailey is a typical sinner. He thinks that if he does good things, that will be enough to make his life fulfilling. He doesn’t know why he’s sacrificing so much for everyone, but he knows it’s the right thing to do; he lacks revelation, something that suffering tends to bring about, whether we like it or not.

This is evident by the fact that George turns Potter down after Potter offered George a job. George is about to take the offer, but after shaking “the Devil’s hand,” George has a grace that illuminates his conscience. Don’t make a deal with the Devil, George.

George responds and turns down the offer. But it’s not enough to say no to the Devil; you still have to say, “Yes” to God, otherwise you will end up right back in Potter’s chair, lower and more helpless than before, which is precisely what happens to George.

Until George prays his famous “Dear Father in Heaven” prayer, he has believed that he can make it through life on good ole American hard work and pragmatic living. He’s helpful to his neighbors, loves his wife and kids, probably even goes to Church occasionally, but he still has not turned to God. He believes that if he just does enough good things, then, through his sheer will, tenacity, and pragmatism, he will beat ole Potter and save Bedford Falls. But self-sacrifice without grace, as the Devil knows, will only lead a man to a breaking point where he has to choose between God and the Devil.

Self-sacrifice is the way to sainthood, but without grace, it just destroys the sinner. George is missing something, mainly the grace that only God can give, a grace that will cure George of his trust in money by replacing it with a love of God and love of neighbor. We know George’s spiritual state is one of pragmatic humanism because of his prayer,

“Dear Father in Heaven, I'm not a praying man, but if you're up there and you can hear me, show me the way. I'm at the end of my rope. Show me the way, God.”

George’s cry for help rattles Hell, and he is immediately struck in the face by Mr. Welch, but it rings in Heaven as well, and Clarence, the second-class angel, is sent to George’s aid. Clarence later reminds George that he, Clarence, is the actual answer to George’s prayer, not Mr. Welch’s fist. But before this conversation, George nearly attempts suicide, a mortal sin that would have condemned George’s soul to the fires of Hell. This is one of the biggest indicators that Potter is the Devil. It is also one of the more Catholic moments of the film.

“Suicide, that’s against the law,” says one of the characters while Clarence and George dry off from the cold swim in the river. “It’s against the law where I come from, too,” says Clarence. This is a reference to the teaching in the Church that a man who commits suicide commits a mortal sin, presuming he was fully aware of the graveness of the evil, damning him to Hell. But Clarence comes in at just the right moment and demonstrates how God uses grace and man’s free will in coordination to save sinners.

Clarence famously jumps off the bridge first, and then begins the sequence of scenes that reveal to George what life would be like if George had never been born. The only thing worth pointing out here is that Potter is never seen during this part of the film. Potter’s name and fingerprints are everywhere in Pottersville, but he is nowhere to be found. It is as if George’s absence has released him from his confines, and now the demonic spirit of Potter has possessed both the town and the souls of the citizens. One key scene is when Violet, a tiny blond girl and flirt, is seen raging violently against four police officers who are trying to wrestle her into a police vehicle. One could read it as just a strong blonde or her having a demonic strength. After all, the only thing we can make out of her shrieks is, “I know Potter.”

George concludes this “never been born” scene with three prayers to God, very similar to Peter’s prayer on the beach to Jesus. When Peter is asked three times if he loves Jesus, Peter says, “Yes, of course I do,” three times in response.

George is given a similar question, but it is implied, not stated, “George, do you want to live again?” to which George replies three times, “I want to live again. I want to live again. I want to live again.” As if remembering who he should send these three prayers to, George concludes with, “Please God, let me live again.”

Embrace the Suffering

In the final scenes of the movie, George begins to see all his suffering through the eyes of Heaven. It is analogous to how a new Christian sees the suffering of Christ: what was once a bloody, gruesome, and violent murder now takes on a beauty and redemption that can only be seen by faith. Similarly, George has had his eyes opened to what was missing in his self-sacrifice, mainly the grace needed to offer it up to God.

He begins to express joy for all the suffering in his life. He’s excited about his mouth bleeding, he’s excited about Zuzu’s dead flower pedals, he’s excited about his broken-down car, the broken banister, and even the prospect of going to jail. But he’s also thankful for the gifts of his family and his wife, Mary.

As he comes down the stairs, his wife comes in wearing a veil, a hallmark sign of the Blessed Virgin in the Catholic Church. Mary, George’s wife, is not a 1-to-1 match of Mary in the teachings of the Church, but that doesn’t mean she does not point to Mary’s role in the lives of believers in any way at all.

There is a very important line that comes from Uncle Billy that will highlight why Mary is a type of Mary, our Heavenly Mother. First, is that her prayer at the beginning is merely described as a woman praying. All we hear is, “I love him, dear Lord. Watch over him tonight,” and it is this prayer, along with her children’s prayers, that storms the gates of Heaven to save their George.

After entering the home, she removes her veil. Mary brings George into the living room and clears a table, runs to the door, and yells, “Come in, Uncle Billy!” Uncle Billy, the man who lost the 8,000 dollars, comes into the home with a basket full of money. Mary helps him pour it on the table. While Uncle Billy dumps the money in front of George, Uncle Billy says, “Isn’t it wonderful. So many friends. Mary did it. Mary did it, George.”

We discover that while George was discovering what the world would be like without him, Mary was going throughout the town seeking those willing to help the man who had sacrificed so much for their town. She interceded for George in a way that he could not. More money piles on the table.

Finally, a man informs George that Sam Wainwright has wired him 25,000 dollars. Cheers erupt from the crowd in the house, and Mary, in a similar way to the Mary at the Wedding in Cana, says, “Mr. Martini, how about some wine?” At this point, George’s daughter starts to play, Hark the Herald Angels Sing, which highlights the fact that George, having been baptized in the cold waters of the river, having participated in death, is now alive. The last line we hear before Harry comes in is, “God and sinners reconciled.” George has been reconciled to God, but only by the prayers of the faithful and the grace that can turn a man from hating his life to realizing it’s a gift.

It’s a Wonderful Life is a beautiful movie, not because it is rigid in its theological storytelling, but because it is truthful in its theological imagery. George cannot become a saint if he keeps fighting Potter on his own, and we can’t do it either; we need Christ in the sacraments, which, if you pay attention, make frequent symbolic appearances in the film. George needs to keep loving his neighbor as himself, but the key deficiency with George is that he lacks the grace to endure the trials that self-sacrifice brings. In the end, life is worth living, but we will only be able to survive it if we have the bread and wine that the crowd feasted upon in the living room of George’s home. It is only then that our sacrifice, even if it kills us, will be used by God for our good and for the salvation of souls.

— DR

Yesterday, the world received the Christ Child. Today, Heaven receives the first Christian soldier, Stephen the Martyr.

Stephen has the title, “Protomartyr.” He is the first Christian to die for the Faith. In his death, we see that Christ calls us to become children so that we may become soldiers of Heaven. Today, the Church calls us to reflect on a sermon from St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, born in the fifth century and died in the sixth.

The sermon is titled, “The armament of love.” In it, Fulgentius opens his sermon with the line, “Yesterday we celebrated the birth in time of our eternal King. Today we celebrate the triumphant suffering of his soldier.”

The Church’s juxtaposition of Christ’s birth, the fulfillment of our expectation, is short-lived as we recognize that Christ’s teaching, as with many of his teachings, is exactly what it sounds like: “If any wish to come after me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Mt. 16:24).

St. Fulgentius directs our attention to the power of love and prayer. He writes of St. Stephen’s martyrdom,

His love of God kept him from yielding to the ferocious mob; his love for his neighbor made him pray for those who were stoning him. Love inspired him to reprove those who erred, to make them amend; love led him to pray for those who stoned him, to save them from punishment. Strengthened by the power of his love, he overcame the raging cruelty of Saul and won his persecutor on earth as his companion in heaven. In his holy and tireless love, he longed to gain by prayer those whom he could not convert by admonition.

After reading such words, one wonders about the reunion of Paul and Stephen in heaven.

Today, many Christians downplay the importance of doctrine and prayer, the two things Stephen preached to us as he died. First, he admonished those in error, showing us that to follow Christ is a costly adventure. Truth divides, but popular opinion today is to deny truth altogether, especially among Christians, even the conservative ones. Secondly, he shows us that prayer and our intercession for others are essential to their forgiveness. Don’t forget, Saul was holding the coats. We would be foolish to think that Stephen’s prayer, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them,” had no impact on Saul’s conversion.

After Christ’s resurrection and ascension, St. Stephen is the first martyr to demonstrate what it means to “deny ourselves” and to “carry our cross.” Our cross may not be made of wood; it might be something entirely different. Regardless, our prayers for those who hate us will be essential to finishing the race.

Subscribe now

The Crown

Stephen comes from a Greek word, stephanos, which literally means “crown” or “wreath.” St. Fulgentius, in the same sermon, said, “Love was Stephen’s weapon by which he gained every battle, and so won the crown signified by his name.”

Stephen’s crown is one of stones. Which is ironic, because these stones were being hurled at him by “Sons of Abraham.” It was John the Baptist who said,

“You brood of vipers…Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Mt. 3:7-9).

Some might say that this is a coincidence or merely accidental to the story of Stephen’s martyrdom. These “scholars” will bring up things like, “Well, people stoned people all the time. Why would this be some significant tie-in to a statement about God being able to make Sons of Abraham from stones?”

Firstly, because God is the author of History and God knows that stoning is a preferred method of murder by the people He is trying to save. After all, He gave it to them in the Old Testament as a form of “just punishment.”

Secondly, because the passage around Stephen is incredibly typological. He is a “type of Moses” in this passage, and that is very clear when we see the Old Testament and New Testament passages side by side. Whether or not St. Luke was intentionally trying to write typologically is irrelevant. Typologies are more a function of historical events being related, not the explicit intent of the author to relate them. In other words, an author might be just “recording the facts,” and it just happens to be providentially typological.

Recall that the “Freedmen,” a group of Greek-speaking Jews, are angered by what Stephen is saying about Moses. Now read the two passages side by side.

Stephen’s story, by an act of the Holy Spirit, is clearly an event that is intended to remind Stephen’s hearers of Moses and the bringing of the covenant (Ex. 34:29-35). Therefore, it’s not a coincidence that Stephen, after describing much of Israel’s history and Moses’ role in it, concludes his speech with, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit…you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

After hearing this, they can no longer contain their rage and begin to stone Stephen. Saul is the one standing by approving of the murder. Christ is crowned with thorns, and Stephen is “crowned” with stones. Yet, just as John the Baptist said, God actually used the stones thrown by Sons of Abraham to raise a man to Abraham.

The King

Advent is all about the anticipation of Christ’s birth. Christ enters our darkness as a child, an action foreshadowing a teaching His disciples will hear when He is an adult, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Beneath the imagery of Christ becoming a child and his disciples doing the same is a more foundational teaching: to enter Heaven, we must follow in the steps of Christ. Something only possible if we are willing to give up our strength, to become weak, to become a child, so that we exchange our strength, our weakness, for His strength.

The road from Heaven to Earth appears fit only for children. Christ comes as a baby to our earthly home so that we might know the way to our heavenly home. Christ does not beckon us to become children because He wants to make us weak. He calls us to become children because He did it first; we love, because He first loved us, as the Scriptures say.

But we should not believe that in becoming children we are to remain children; even Christ grew in wisdom and in stature. He does not want us to stay children. He calls us to become children, but only so that he can make us into soldiers.

We see this most clearly demonstrated in the death of St. Stephen, the First Martyr. His name was the name of the crown for champions. So, as with everything in Christianity, it is fitting. Saul, standing by, would later write these words, “In a race, everyone runs, but only one receives the prize. Run in such a way that you may obtain it.” The champion of such races would have been crowned with a stephanos, or a “crown.”

Scripture doesn’t tell us whether St. Paul was thinking of Stephen when he penned those words about winning a race to the Corinthians, but I suspect he did. One might object and say, “Prove it,” but the scriptures remind us we ought not respond to such fools, lest we be shown to be fools ourselves.

Merry Christmas

St. Stephen and St. Paul, pray for us!

Matt Fradd just released his first Daily Wire+ interview, and it is amazing. I decided to post it here for people who want a little bit more insight into one of the men who inspired me to convert to the Catholic faith.

When I first heard the title of Scott Hahn’s book, Rome Sweet Home, I laughed. I guess we all have a bit of Sarah in us — for those that don’t know, she is the one who laughed at God.

Scott Hahn’s book did not lead me to convert to the faith right away, but it did lead me to the conclusion that God wants some people in the Catholic Church, which inevitably led me to the conclusion that God wants all people in His Church.

In this interview, they don’t get into a lot of Catholic Apologetics, but they do shine light on one of the most important ways to approach scripture, which is typologically. If you don’t know what that means, then you gotta watch this interview. You won’t be disappointed.

God bless,

—DR

There are three things to consider as we analyze this scandalous event.

First, is whether or not it was scandalous? It was. Second, whether the sins in question are actually damnable? They are. Third, whether scandals like this prove that the Catholic Church is just another denomination? It is not.

Subscribe now

So Scandalous

Fr. Martin, apparently, has stated many times that he is adamantly supportive of the Church’s teaching on marriage between one man and one woman and that he does not desire to change the teaching. But he doesn’t seem to care about the Church’s teaching on scandal. This is important because scandal itself can be a mortal sin, and Fr. Martin has encouraged Catholics to attend pseudo weddings known as “gay” weddings. According to an article penned by Robert P. George, a well-known academic and professor of Princeton University, Fr. Martin has, “…attributed most people’s opposition to redefining marriage to bigotry, compared those who won’t attend same-sex weddings to racists…”

Regardless of what a Christian says, it is more important what they do. A Christian can’t attend a fake wedding any more than they can receive a fake Eucharistic host. The very idea of a man “marrying” another man is an anti-Christian ceremony. It perverts the sacrament that Christ instituted, and to attend would be to cause scandal. But what is “scandal”?

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

CCC - 2284

Presuming that the fake ceremony at a gay “wedding” mimics a traditional and real ceremony of a husband and wife, there will be a question posed to the congregation: “If anyone objects to this marriage, speak now or forever hold your peace.” According to the Catechism, a Christian in attendance would be obligated to speak against the supposed marriage because it was not a real marriage, lest they, by “omission,” deliberately lead another into “grave offense.”

This teaching is also supported by Christ’s words when He says that anyone who leads “these little ones” astray, should prefer to be drowned via a millstone around their neck, rather than to be judged for the sin of scandal (Mt. 18:6-9) — I guess we know where the mafia got the idea for cement shoes and “swimming with the fishies.”

As it pertains to the confirmation currently up for discussion, at least one individual has most likely committed a mortal sin. Fr. Martin, the priest presiding over the confirmation ceremony, knows the Church’s teaching on the matter. Unless he intentionally misled the confirmand (i.e., a person seeking to be confirmed in the Church), then all parties involved have some level of culpability in the scandal. Furthermore, Fr. Martin could have done one of two things: (A) prevent this event from being a public event uploaded to the internet, or (B) inform people that the men in question have renounced their gay lifestyle. Otherwise, it’s misleading to the public and causes scandal among those within the Church and those outside it. One look at the Protestant responses on social media and it’s clear that events like this necessarily prevent many from taking further steps to enter the Church.

Robert P. George’s 2017 article, referenced above, highlights Martin’s reluctance to speak openly about the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality,

“[Fr. Martin] sometimes explains his unwillingness to proclaim [The Church’s] teachings on marriage and sexuality by saying that everybody already knows what the Church says on those issues.”1

Robert P. George is a trustworthy academic, author, and cultural critic, so his critique of Fr. Martin is presumed to be a fair one. Anyone who doubts George’s assessment can verify it by following Fr. Martin on X. But George’s observation points out that Fr. Martin not only knows the Church’s teaching, but that Fr. Martin knows that everyone else does too. In short, the evidence that there was full knowledge of the sin is substantial. Essentially, Fr. Martin’s position is “everyone knows, so no one needs to say anything.”

This covers our first question, “Was there scandal?” The evidence is clear: if everyone already knows what the Church teaches, and these persons give the appearance of violating that teaching, then it is a scandal.

Church Teaching

If these two men in question, Gio Benitez and his partner (both of them received the Eucharist), have decided to renounce their homosexual relationship and activity in private, then we may presume they have done nothing wrong. Maybe they are choosing to renounce their life of sin, and the news media or Fr. Martin has yet to inform us of this decision? Doubtful. To be fair, we aren’t necessarily required to know either. However, the fact that nothing was said leaves individuals outside the Church in a state of confusion or scandal. So far, no evidence has been presented to me that would indicate this is the case. If you have news that these men have abandoned their homosexual practice and embraced God’s design for their bodies and relationships, post the link in the comments.

Regardless, confusion, scandal, and heresy are always an opportunity to present the truth of the Christian teaching, which is found fully in the Catholic Church.

When you enter the Church, you have to intend to turn away from your sin. This does not mean that the person who is struggling with their sin needs to have conquered their sin before they come into the Church, but the promise that one will is part of confession. If these men did not intend to abandon their homosexual actions or didn’t confess their homosexual sins to a priest, then they are both receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin for all humans, not just Catholics. It is a violation of God’s created order and moral requirements for following Him. Furthermore, mortal sins against nature are sins that all people know are severe, or in the Church’s language, “grave.” This means that, according to the Church’s teaching, unless an individual repents of the sins we have been discussing thus far, they are on their way to Hell: either the priest, the confirmand, the sponsor, or all three.

The Catechism says it this way,

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts — such as fornication — that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (1756)

This means, contrary to those who would like to apply “invincible ignorance” to every sin on the earth, there are some sins that man has known and will always know to be mortally sinful: fornication, adultery, murder, homosexuality, drunkenness, stealing from the poor, murdering a child in the womb, etc. In these situations, the Church is shining a light on the Natural Revelation of God and setting it in its proper place.

One might exclaim, “But the priest had good intentions!” They might say that the priest has an earnest desire for the sinner to be strengthened by the body and blood of Jesus or to show them that the Church loves gay men, but none of these would justify permitting an individual to enter the Church and receive the Eucharist unrepentant. The Catechism says,

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act…Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (1754).

Giving the Eucharist to a woman who is sleeping with a married man is a mortal sin. Giving the Eucharist to a woman engaging in intercourse with a divorcee would also be adulterous, even if in the eyes of the State the man was her husband. This is why the Church has annulments — the process by which the Church determines if someone is married in the eyes of God, not the state.

The same is true for homosexual men, but even more so because they are violating a more obvious tenet of Natural Law. A Doctor who mutilates the genitals of a child, confused about their sexual identity, is violating the Natural Law just as much as two men in a homosexual relationship. If the doctor wanted to come into the Church, he too would have to renounce his practice and decide to actually do medicine instead of harm.

Some may say, “But what about their upbringing? They were raised in a culture that promoted LGBT stuff, and convinced them that it was ok.” Contrary to popular Catholic opinion, the Church teaches that circumstances are not sufficient to change the morality of a particular action. The Catechism says,

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances ( environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. (1756).

Therefore, no amount of good intention or social pressure can justify what has happened in a parish in New York City, where a priest confirmed two openly practicing homosexuals into the Church. Even if these men somehow caved under social pressures, this does not lower the severity of the evil — it may lower the level of their culpability, something only God knows. But the sin in question is still objectively evil. Just so we’re clear, if you die with a mortal sin on your soul, you go straight to hell. End of story.

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” (1033).

To be clear, you can’t “accidentally” commit mortal sin. There is never any doubt about the matter. That is one of the criteria that causes the mortal sin’s effect, spiritual death, to be applied to the soul. The Catechism says it this way:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is a sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (1857)

If we apply this to the sinner struggling with the sin of homosexuality, we would get the following:

1. Full knowledge, which they have based on Natural Law and Church teaching.

2. Object of the sin is a grave matter —blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc.

3. Deliberate Consent— unless someone is forcing you to commit the act via violent threat or blackmail, you are consenting.

The only ambiguity from my perspective is whether or not the Priest told them that practicing homosexuality was not an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist and entering the Church. But again, this is highly doubtful. If you are a public figure and homosexuality is part of your public influence, then when you come into the Church, you should publicly announce that you have left this lifestyle. Not because your private life is interesting, but because you are now part of the body of Christ, and you don’t want to lead other souls to believe lies about the Church, mainly, implying that homosexuality is somehow approved by the Church.

It was previously mentioned that some sins are mortal all the time. Many Catholics seem to forget this aspect because their concern is more with the culpability of the mortal sin, rather than the objective nature that the Church ascribes to it. This is not mere speculation on my part either:

There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object: such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (1756)

This list is not exhaustive, but the categories listed entail scandal in the Church, like appearing to confirm a practicing homosexual. Scripture also affirms this truth that there are some sins of which ignorance is impossible. St. Paul writes the following in his letter to the Romans,

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them…So they are without excuse…

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Rom. 1:19-20; 26-27.

Nature, the Church, and Scripture are all very clear on this point, such that at least one, if not all those present in this ceremony, are without excuse. Only God knows with certainty the state of their souls, but we can be reasonably certain that some form of mortal sin and scandal has occurred.

Does this Disprove the Church?

Not any more than Isaac Newton murdering a man by pushing him off a cliff would disprove gravity, or Elon Musk disproving rocket science by murdering a bunch of sharks when it landed in the ocean (true story, environmentalists apparently challenged him on his rocket designs for this reason).

Homosexuality is a disordered desire. A disordered desire is nothing more than a desire to sin. This is controversial today, even among Christians, because we are constantly worshipping at idols that are made in our image. Anyone who points out our disordered life is immediately seen as an enemy of our “precious” self.

When our desires are disordered, our “orientation” — an extremely intentional word choice — is inverted; it’s not about what He wants, it’s about what “me” wants. Whether it’s the desire for sex, family, brotherly friendship, or to feel good in your own skin, all of these, if not given to God, will turn us, bend us, and twist us inward, where our desire remains, but God is absent. There we will find an altar, with no bread or wine, no paten or chalice. All that will be present is a darker version of ourselves, arrayed in frayed vestments, presiding over a ceremony in which the self is worshiped, the soul is fattened, and all of Hell salivates as we attempt to work out our own damnation with pleasure and ecstasy.

The desire for sex can quickly lead to adultery or fornication, a mortal sin. The desire for a child could lead infertile couples to pursue IVF, a mortal sin. The desire for brotherly friendship could easily turn into a homosexual action, a mortal sin. And the desire to feel at home in one’s body may actually lead to transgender surgeries, which invert the body biologically through surgery, making scars in the soul visible on the body.

In short, most sins start in a desire for what is good. We must remember that God saw what He created in the Garden and said it was “good.” Our anger is often out of a desire for justice, but this can quickly turn to revenge or murder. Our recognition of beauty can quickly be turned to lust and adultery. Our love of food, money, or pleasure can quickly move from rest to gluttony, greed, or sloth. Our desire to do great things for God can quickly lead to doing great things for ourselves, ultimately leading us to the sin of pride.

God loves sinners too much to leave them in their sin, and He has, in His wisdom, decided that we should be co-laborers in His work of helping people see the “error of their ways” and to turn away from sins and follow Christ. There is a place for tolerance and love in these situations, but that tolerance and love are only effective when the sinner recognizes their desires as disordered and their need to be healed of them. This is not just for Homosexuality, but applicable to all sins.

Take two hypothetical men. One struggles with same-sex attraction, the other desires a wife. The first recognizes he is in sin from the start. The second believes that because his desire is natural, there is no sin in it; his intentions are blinded by the natural good of his desire.

Over the years, the gay man spends time in the scriptures, seeks spiritual counseling, wrestles with his sin, and decides that God wants him to begin preparing his heart for a wife in the future. A few years later, he is married to a beautiful wife, has a beautiful family, and loves God even more.

The second man, like the brother in the prodigal son, still doesn’t have a wife, but has always been with “God” in his desires. However, God has not fulfilled his desire for a wife. The man becomes bitter towards God. He begins to feel that God owes him a wife because of “all he has done for God.” Eventually, what started as a “good desire” is now only a desire to satisfy himself. It has warped him and has inverted his relationship with God. His prayer is no longer, “not my will, but Your will be done,” it has changed to “Not your will, but MY WILL, MY WILL, MY WILL! DO MY WILL, NOW!”

After saying such a perverted prayer, the second man raises his head only to find darkness and gnashing of teeth. “I’m no longer a Christian,” he says.“I did so much for God, and He never did anything for me; I’m done with Him.”

The second man has turned his back on God, and the solution for him is the same solution for every sinner. The only way back to God is to turn our backs on that sin of all sins, that twisted and bent our souls in the first place. It is the same sin that Satan tempted Eve with in the garden, “ye shall be as gods.” It is the sin of pride.

Praying the Liturgy of the Hours is an immense blessing. If you’re unfamiliar, it is a practice that goes back to the Jewish practice of singing and meditating on the Psalms. Given that the early Church’s composition was a significant number of Jewish converts to Christianity, they continued this practice. As time developed, the New Testament was incorporated into the practice.

One of the Canticles from this week was a famous passage from Revelation. As our country continues its inevitable decline into political, moral, and spiritual madness, these words gave me pause:

For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who night and day accused them before God.

[The holy ones] defeated him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love of life did not deter them from death.

Rev. 12:10-11

Our national identity is in question, and when this happens to a country, it often precedes cultural and political turmoil. The most recent elections have led to significant amounts of speculation:

Are we on the road to Communism, as some elections in New York City would lead us to speculate, or are we becoming freer as a country?

Are we a country that can see the imago dei across the aisle, or are we a country that sees our political opponents as domestic enemies?

Are we one nation under God, or are we a blob of people begging totalitarian boots to crush our necks because we cannot handle the responsibility that comes with the freedom to turn them?

Are we a nation that defends the right to life, or are we a nation of ghouls monetizing crises to profit from baby murder, the mutilation of confused children, and the systematic elimination of elderly disabled?

Finally — though there are more questions one could entertain — are we a generation of people that care more about the success and legacy of the next generation than we do about the success and legacy of our own?

That said, no political situation is perfect.

As Jesus taught, “The politicians will always be among you…” wait, that’s not right. He said, “The poor will always be among you…” In some sense, we will always have political disagreements because there will always be suffering in the world. The goal of any nation should be to decrease and mitigate suffering and, in some cases, eliminate it altogether.

But as each problem is eliminated, new problems are discovered. Politicians, academics, and atheists — but I repeat myself — will be perplexed by this fact, that suffering, no matter how good our political situation gets, will always be with us. That is because where there is sin, there is suffering.

When a politician like Jay Jones can have text messages leaked that describe his desire to kill his opponents and “piss on their graves” and still win, all without losing a single endorsement, the party that elected him is moving us towards revolution. The same goes for New York City, which elected a Muslim Communist 25 years after 9/11, demonstrating that fate sometimes has a dark sense of humor. The political image of the Democrats is no longer the Donkey, it is the Communist hammer and sickle.

Not to be outdone, the GOP has done little to effect change for the next generation. They siloed themselves off from the cultural battles of the world. They would decry pornography while simultaneously saying that Game of Thrones was the best series ever made. They abandoned their kids’ moral and spiritual development to the education system, both private and public. They believed morality and spirituality were “products” that could be packaged, bought, and consumed by their children, only to find their kid now believes they are a cat or a woman seeking asylum in the foster care system in California. They mocked people with big families, only to have massive migration come in and replace their communities and values. They praise God that they will be grandparents because most of their kids have decided to be DINKs1 rather than adults.

They believed the lie that “Communism” or “Nazism” could never come to America because, well, obviously that won’t happen. After all, we are, they imply, too good for God to abandon us. Apparently, their argument goes like this: we murder babies, sell sterilization to men and women, get divorced, go to Church, pursue transhumanist procedures like IVF and Surrogacy, write killer worship choruses, and judge people who smoke and drink while encouraging diabetes among the faithful. If anything bad is happening to our country, it’s not because of our sin, it’s because Jesus is about to come back.

Obviously, this is a caricature, but as with every joke, it’s funny because there is a hint of truth in it.

For the Democrats, there is no greater virtue than being willing to sacrifice your life for the party, and for the GOP, there is no greater virtue than being successful while avoiding the social, moral, and spiritual conflicts of our day. This is probably one of the reasons many Christian conservatives don’t like Trump or Charlie Kirk. Trump demonstrated that he had the courage to fight the Left, even if he couldn’t do it perfectly or to the liking of establishment politicians.

Charlie Kirk is another example. Many conservative Christians clutched their pearls as Charlie Kirk spoke into a microphone, convincing people that racism is evil, they shouldn’t be transgender, Jesus loved them, and they should go to Church. Once he was shot, many “Christians” said that they could “see why it happened.”

One party sees the poor as a means to political power, and the other sees the next generation as a threat to their capital and comfort. It appears that Trump is trying to solve this problem, and it’s definitely the case that Charlie was trying to as well. But if Trump’s efforts and, in Charlie’s case, sacrifice, fail to bring virtue back into our political situation, a second American Revolution is inevitable. The lines that no one wanted to draw to prevent the Revolution will, as is the case in all revolutions, be drawn for us. We already saw this happen during the COVID lockdowns. Which brings us back to our reading from Revelation, “…love of life did not deter them from death.”

Russia: Love of God & Love of Neighbor

It can be tempting to believe that our escape from political descent into Hell would be a political party, candidate, or revolution, but it is not. Our only way out of the valley of death, in all meanings of the phrase, is through it. It reminds you of the nursery rhyme, We’re Going on a Bear Hunt, “We can’t go over it… can’t go under it…Oh no! We have to go through it! Stumble trip! stumble trip! stumble trip!”2 We must, as the scriptures say, overcome this evil by “the blood of the lamb” and a love for life that remains undeterred by death.

This is a hard truth of the Gospel, and no one can claim to “be ready” for such a call; all we can do is prepare our hearts for the day that God calls. This is the theme throughout many of Jesus’ parables, that we are waiting for His call, and the question posed to his hearers is, “Will they be ready?”

Let’s consider two examples: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a revert to the Eastern Orthodox Church and a survivor of Russian Communism, and Takashi Nagai, a convert to Catholicism and a survivor of the Nagasaki bombing that ended WWII. In their words, one finds a deeper understanding of the passage:

[The holy ones] defeated him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love of life did not deter them from death.

Solzhenitsyn retells a story of an Orthodox woman standing up to Russian Communist interrogators. She had helped an Orthodox bishop escape via an underground network of Christians. According to a woman who shared a bunk with the old woman, the interrogators (i.e., torturers) interrogated her every night. As the guards shook their fists in her face, the little old woman responded,

“There is nothing you can do with me even if you cut me into pieces…I am not afraid of anything. I would be glad to be judged by God right this minute.”

There were such people…who did not return to their cell for their bundles of belongings, who chose death, who signed nothing denouncing anyone.3

This woman shows us the “two mites” of the Christian faith: love of God and love of neighbor. She risked her life to save her Bishop, and she loved life but was not deterred by death. But what of those who were slaughtered for their beliefs? What stories do we have of them?

Solzhenitsyn discusses this question later on in the volume. “What is it like,” he asks, “for people who wait there? What do they feel? What do they think about?” He continues,

The morbid desire to pierce that curtain is natural…And it is natural that those who have survived cannot tell us about the very end — because, after all, they were pardoned…

What happens next is something the executioners know about…However, even the executioner doesn’t know about everything right to the end…He doesn’t know about the very end! Only those who have been killed know it all to the very end — and that means no one.4

The ultimate question put to the Christian, especially in totalitarianism, is this: “Are you going to die for God, or are you going to die for something else?” As one wise father put it, “When we say ‘yes’ to one thing, we are saying ‘no’ to another.”5

The Russian woman demonstrates how we can have courage under intense pressure, and that our fear of God should be greater than our fear of man. Now, we turn to Takashi Nagai, who invites us to consider how God’s providence may lead us to be “sacrificed” for the good of others.

Japan & God’s Providence

Takashi barely survived the atomic blast that rocked Nagasaki. You can read about this part of his story in A Song for Nagasaki by Paul Glynn. But Takashi’s speech is more relevant to our current discussion, as it offers us a perspective on suffering that goes a bit deeper into the veil of suffering that most reflections are unwilling to explore. It is the idea of participating in the sacrifice of Christ for the benefit of others.

At the time of this speech, Takashi had heard that the atomic bomb was intended for a different city. But due to reasons beyond their control, the Allied bomber had to choose a secondary target. However, when they released the bomb, the wind sent it off course. Instead of hitting a military target, the bomb detonated over the largest religious structure in the Asia-Pacific region at the time, the Catholic Urakami Cathedral.

Many Japanese Catholics had been persecuted and martyred throughout Japan’s history. This Cathedral was a testament to God’s love for the Japanese people and a reminder that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church. In a moment, all of that was destroyed, and thousands of Catholic Christians were killed in the blast, one of which was Takashi’s wife.

What is Takashi’s “take” on this event, which leveled his city, rocked the Catholic faith, and killed his wife? On the steps of the decimated cathedral, Takashi spoke,

I have heard that the second atomic bomb, calculated to deal a deadly blow to the war potential of Japan, was originally destined for another city. But since the sky over that city was covered with clouds, the American pilots found it impossible to aim at their target. Consequently, they suddenly changed their plans and decided to drop the bomb on Nagasaki, the secondary target. However, yet another hitch occurred. As the bomb fell, cloud and wind carried it slightly north of the munitions factories over which it was supposed to explode and it exploded above the cathedral.

This is what I have heard. If it is true, the American pilots did not aim at Urakami. It was the providence of God that carried the bomb to that destination.

Is there not a profound relationship between the destruction of Nagasaki and the end of the war? Nagasaki, the only holy place in all Japan—was it not chosen as a victim, a pure lamb, to be slaughtered and burned on the altar of sacrifice to expiate the sins committed by humanity in the Second World War?

Our church of Nagasaki kept the faith during four hundred years of persecution when religion was proscribed and the blood of martyrs flowed freely. During the war this same church never ceased to pray day and night for a lasting peace. Was it not, then, the one unblemished lamb that had to be offered on the altar of God? Thanks to the sacrifice of this lamb many millions who would otherwise have fallen victim to the ravages of war have been saved.6

Takashi’s perspective is hard to accept, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. We Christians often forget that we are called to imitate Christ, not to be confused with duplicating Him — something blasphemously impossible. Instead, whether we are in a totalitarian state or stewards of a free one, our obligation is to be disciples willing to listen to the words of Mary, “do whatever he tells you.” Should God request our lives, we echo the Queen of Heaven’s fiat, “Let it be done to me according to your word.”

The Call to Sacrifice

We Catholics have a distinct advantage in these situations and, therefore, a higher expectation. Like Frodo in The Lord of the Rings, we are not without gifts for the journey. These are, of course, the sacraments, chief among them being Christ in the Eucharist. This Bread of Life is what gives us eternal life. It paradoxically enables us to love life and yet be undeterred by death; this is the narrow way, and few there be that find it.

As our culture descends into madness and division, we Christians will almost certainly lose political representation and protection. If radical politicians continue to defeat moderate and principled ones, the moderates will be displaced, and radicals will require their members to swear their fidelity to party and country. It has happened in other countries, and there is no reason it could not happen here. If it should happen here, we Christians must remain loyal to Christ and His Church alone. We must be disciples who say, “not my will, but your will.” As with all times of evil, God will choose saints to light the way, and we must be willing to accept His call to deny ourselves, carry our cross, and follow Him.

Microsoft recently announced that they are remaking one of the greatest franchises of all time, Halo: Combat Evolved. This game became a cultural phenomenon overnight in 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Approximately 25 years later, the video-game remake was announced, and social media was flooded with commentary, memes, and angry posts of men who have failed to realize that they are no longer the gaming industry’s target market.

One of the best posts came from the Whitehouse social media accounts. Here, you see the President saluting the flag, wearing the same suit as Master Chief. In the games, you never see Master Chief take off his helmet, and so the Whitehouse appears to be insuniating that the man behind the mask has always been Donald J. Trump. Solid troll…

I found myself thinking about buying a console just so that I could play Halo with my son. A few years ago, I bought him some of the action figures from the franchise, and he thought they were so cool that he wanted to go as Master Chief for Halloween this year! My heart grew three sizes that day. But not all reactions to the news were as wholesome as mine or my son’s child-like excitement when he “suited up” and grabbed a Nerf blaster to go find buckets of candy.

First, there were the leftists, shrieking on the internet that the Whitehouse Comms Team was politicizing a video game, because that has never happened before:

While many people were thrilled to see this gaming masterpiece slated for a remake, others demonstrated serious cultural maladies.

Master Chief, Dads, and Heroes

America has produced a pantheon of fictional heroes in the pages of DC and Marvel comic books. The two that are the most popular are Batman and Superman (sorry, Marvel). But in 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, a new hero was born, but he may have been the last one.

Master Chief is a stoic hero. He rarely speaks, but when he does, he never gets nervous or shows he’s afraid. When he is tortured, he never screams in agony, and his visor hides any pain that would show on his face. He is the kind of hero that makes you just want to be courageous.

He had a “helper,” an AI partner named Cortana who assisted him in all his missions — he was the muscle, and she was the brain. Their enemy was the Covenant: a radicalized religious alien race set on finding a weapon called “Halo” to destroy the entire human race as foretold in their prophecies. To them, Master Chief was the “Demon,” but to the player, Master Chief was a hero that their generation had contributed to American cultural identity.

Master Chief’s story was compelling because, like a cross between Batman and Superman, Chief was vulnerable like a human, but strong like a super soldier, and yet he was not Superman. You always thought he could die, and sometimes you thought he had, only to discover that fate would say “not yet,” and the story would continue.

You knew it was fake and “unbelievable”, but it accomplished what many stories aim to do but few can, and that is: instill in the player, reader, or viewer a suspension of belief that makes them feel as if “it could be real,” even though you know there is no chance it ever will be.

Master Chief became the last modern hero that was universally recognized across generational divides. As Matt Walsh recently discussed, we used to have a shared culture or “monoculture,” where we all knew, whether for good or ill, what was culturally relevant. Master Chief is one of those last vestiges of monoculture that has slowly died off. This game had such an impact on the country that those young men who played it growing up are now running the Whitehouse communications and using it to troll their political opponents. It’s even rumored that J.D. Vance was a big Halo fan at one point, but I have yet to verify this.

Needless to say, the announcement of the launch shows that Master Chief may have been the last modern hero that isn’t woke — woke heroes don’t exist; they are a contradiction.

The Halo remake also demonstrates that you cannot recapture your childhood excitement for a game once you hit a certain age. It may spike for a moment, but then it fades, and you realize you have more important things to consider. This is one of the joys of having kids. You get to share your childhood with them! Finally, it appears that a large portion of people expressing disappointment about this game have no kids at all to share it with. And that is a real problem.

Are We Going Up or Down?

A sign of a thriving culture is an understanding of virtue as manifested in the mythological heroes your culture creates and elevates. The hero is an “incarnation” of your culture’s value set displayed in the ideal “citizen” or “soldier.” When the hero overcomes the agreed upon evil, against all odds of course, the whole society cheers, goes home, and talks about the amazing experience they shared. Lord of the Rings, despite not following the books, delivered this in the theaters, and Master Chief delivered it in the homes of millions of gamers everywhere.

Show me a culture that can’t create heroes, and I’ll show you a society that is morally, spiritually, and politically confused, and most likely not having kids. This describes our own country, America. We are headed for a revolution whether we like it or not. It may be the case that this “remake”, not to be confused with a “remaster”, is another step in the Marxist revolution to destroy our American “icons.”

This destruction of icons is the hallmark of revolution. Historically, the groups that have done this are Marxists, Muslims, and Protestants. But more recent versions of this are more sophisticated, co-opting rather than destroying the heroes of a society. This is probably most obvious with Santa Claus, who was co-opted from the Catholic faith by materialist and secularist capitalists, or even the “rainbow” suits of armor that Microsoft displayed in the image above.

Radicals have already hollowed out our heroes and repurposed them for their political and spiritual agendas. In Catholic countries, Communism did this most effectively when it coopted the liturgical forms of the Catholic Church, and then implemented the same kinds of practices in their own political rites: processions, large canvas paintings, “votiv” candles, and even displaying their leaders’ bodies for “veneration.”

While few boomers were impacted by Master Chief the way their kids were, many of them will recognize the dark green super soldier when their grandkids show up wearing his merch — that is, of course, assuming their children have given them grandkids. Granted, they will associate Master Chief with the many times they found empty pizza boxes and cans of Mountain Dew strewn across the basement, but regardless, Halo and Master Chief impacted their entire family entertainment history.

For example, all my brothers bonded over this game while we were growing up under the same roof. My mom would make us cookies and milk, and we would play together, daydreaming about getting high-speed internet to play other players without split screens. When we moved out, we often kept in touch via Halo and other games over the internet. Needless to say, once our lives became too busy to play an hour or two with the “bros,” our communication and connection dropped significantly.

Halo was played by literally everyone. Youth groups were playing it for outreach events, college dorms were playing it instead of studying, and offices were having LAN parties in the IT department while they worked. It’s exciting because we could see a resurgence of social gaming happen for the next generation as adults share the “classics” they had as kids with their own. But it also may be a memorial to one of the last American icons that united generations around a story of courage, perseverance, and hope against all odds. In other words, the next generation may have to actually fight for their own country’s right to exist, rather than just imagine that fight through the eyes of Master Chief defending humanity’s right to exist.

There was a saying I read once, “When the gods are angry with the people, they give them crazy leaders.” We are seeing this play out in real time. New York City is about to elect a Muslim Communist, and he will take office during the 25th anniversary of 9/11. This is the financial capital of America, and it is about to become one of the biggest wins for American Communism in the history of the United States.

The first time Muslims attacked New York City, Microsoft launched the most iconic franchise in recent memory. Now, New York is under attack again, and they are relaunching the same game that preceded the war on terror.

The only question now is, will Master Chief inspire the next generation of young boys to “Finish the fight,” or is it one last hurrah for a group of middle-aged men pining for the good ole days of their youth before the lights of liberty go dim?

Only time will tell.

— DR

John Crist and Matt Fradd are “cool” Christian guys. But they share something unique. They both gained popularity in a culture that did not see Christians as “cool.” It may seem odd to start a commentary about a Catholic by first commenting on an evangelical, but it will make sense. John Crist became popular for one thing: mocking and making fun of Christian culture, not to be confused with Christianity. As one friend said to me, “John Crist noticed what we noticed, but we wouldn’t say anything. He actually said it! And we all laughed and said, ‘Yeah, we see it too.’”

Whether it’s movies like “This Time God’s Really Not Dead,” the sequel that never was to “God’s Not Dead 5,” or the fact that it would be impossible for Christian culture to accurately capture a film about a pastor in Boston due to Bostonians affinity for turning explitives into adjectives, it’s clear that American Christian Culture hit a major low point with the “fundamentalist” Christian movement. John Crist noticed, made jokes about it, and 15 years later appears to have been the first “Christian Comic” to appear on The Tonight Show. But a religion that can make a comedian famous is no religion at all; religions, if they are true, require reverence. Crist’s rise would not have been possible had modern Christianity not fractured beyond recognition. It was so disoriented in its identity that it was and is literally laughable.

In reality, Christian culture didn’t know who it liked more: Kirk Cameron or James Bond. Our options were pretty limited, and the people who were really trying to create Christian culture didn’t have the means or the creativity to do it well. That all changed with the era of podcasting. Suddenly, there was a revenue stream that could prop up an influencer, get them connected, and help them establish a brand that the free market could test.

Matt Fradd’s rise as a podcaster was not the same as John Crist’s rise as a comedian, but not because they were targeting different audiences. Fradd decided to embrace his faith, develop his skills, and spread the faith digitally from a small studio in Steubenville, OH, for most of his podcasting “career.” Matt Fradd’s rise is not the same as John Crist's, and as a result, Matt Fradd’s Daily Wire opportunity signals a new era of Christian entertainment. We are witnessing an era of content that does not mock our faith, but reveres it — yes, Andrew Klavan still needs some work, but I’ll write more about him later.

In a way, John Crist’s comedy, which I find hilarious, cleared some of the barriers Protestants had to Catholicism. I think people subconsciously thought, “If all our denominational differences are actually funny, then who cares if I decide to listen to this Catholic with a strange Australian accent?” People can “smell” contradictions. That is the basis of comedy. Again, John Crist noticed this and has even made it part of his comedy routine by asking the crowd who has changed denominations as an adult, leaving the one they attended as a kid. Every time he asks, a significant percentage of his audience’s hands are raised. Whether he realizes it or not, this opens people up to the existential experience that Protestantism leads to relativism.

After the show, they all head home, sit on the toilet, check their phone, and finally decide to click on this interview with a priest and an Australian named Matt Fradd. Once a comedian like John Crist can loosen people up about the arbitrary fundamentalism they all share, it paves the way for Catholicism, or another religion, to be more appealing, via podcasts like Pints with Aquinas or Bible in a Year with Fr. Mike Schmitz.

Matt Fradd’s joining the Daily Wire has mixed reactions. Catholics online have voiced everything from Fradd being a sellout to him being controlled by Ben Shapiro to benefit the “Zionists.” I’ll be honest, as a convert myself who is attempting to evangelize the culture through social media and influence, it’s been intimidating to see how many Christians are angry about Matt Fradd’s move to the Daily Wire. We Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, just don’t know how to support our culture warriors.

If they are struggling to get something off the ground, we are quick to criticize, point out flaws, and leave the person in a pile of negative comments and doubt. If they succeed, they become “worldly” in the eyes of their fellow Christians and are called— unless, of course, we’re a sports celebrity — sellouts and traitors to our Christian faith because if we were truly about the mission, we would do it in poverty.

Everything a successful Christian does is viewed by his fellow Christians through the eyes of skepticism. They wrongly believe that success is a sign that God is not with them, but my seminary professor viewed it differently: success and failure are both used by God to fashion us into the image of His Son. God is still working on Matt, just as He is working on you and me. God will use Matt’s success to make him more like Christ, not less. If Matt fails, God will use that as well. There is no chisel that God cannot use to bring out the image of His Son.

There are definitely risks that Matt Fradd is going to have to navigate, but that doesn’t mean his failure is guaranteed. If you care about souls encountering True Christianity in a culture steeped in relativism, you should be celebrating Matt Fradd’s new opportunity at the Daily Wire. But even beyond that, we are commanded to rejoice with our brothers and sisters when God blesses them. As the scriptures say, “We rejoice with those who rejoice,” and Matt is rejoicing right now; we should too! If for no other reason than that we want the Christian world to rejoice when God blesses us!

Matt Fradd has made a courageous decision. This is why God gives us the gift of faith. It enables us to walk through the “narrow way” that only faith illuminates: “Should I,” asked Matt Fradd, “Keep doing the podcast till I burn out, or should I move to Croatia and teach Christianity?” God provided a way, and Matt Fradd is showing us that the mustard seed of faith God gives us when we start an adventure is the same fruitful seed that he gives us to finish it.

With that said, it will be interesting to see how Matt Fradd traverses the tension between Daily Wire’s goal of making a profit and Fradd’s goal of winning souls. Historically, these two things mix like oil and water. As our Lord said, “You cannot serve both God and money.” But the Lord also said, through the pen of one of His apostles, “A worker is worth his wages.”

We all know that money can have a corrupting influence on a person, but we also know that it builds cathedrals, schools, hospitals, and podcast studios to evangelize the world. It seems to me that those criticizing Matt Fradd for “taking money” or “selling out” are really just insecure about the fact that their content doesn’t make money. What podcaster out there believes his or her message is not important enough to take an opportunity that would not only amplify their message but also allow them financial freedom?

If you have a podcast and you don’t believe your message is important, you shouldn’t podcast. The whole point of podcasting is that you believe in the truth so much that you want others to know it. Any other motive is unreasonable.

Finally, there is the Jewish factor. This is the grossest theory I have seen. It is the idea that Ben Shapiro is trying to control Catholic media by hiring a bunch of Catholics into the Daily Wire. I enjoy a good conspiracy theory, but this one is pretty disgusting.

If anyone saw the recent episode of Friendly Fire, where Fradd made his debut, you know that Andrew Klavan made some pretty awful comments. They were so bad that it made me wonder if Klavan was testing Fradd to see how Fradd would react to someone cracking jokes about the Church, Jews, and Jesus. I thought this was interesting to observe because, from their perspective, DW needed to see if Fradd had thick skin. But from our perspective, it was refreshing to see Fradd deal with comments and jokes the rest of us have to deal with regularly. As a Christian podcaster, we have not seen him have to deal with these kinds of comments in real time, much less from his friends. It was encouraging to see him handle it well, and not flip out, but also not jump in and pretend like it was nothing.

But the best part about Matt Fradd coming into the Daily Wire is that it signals a shift in the culture. There is now an audience, a large one, of souls who are hungry for the Truth, which can only be fully realized in Catholicism. These souls want to go deep, and they want to actually practice a rich, historical, and most importantly, true religion. The fact that Daily Wire has now added its fourth Catholic host to its team of podcasters should be an encouraging fact for any of us who are trying to serve God in this medium. For those who are looking for Christian content that you can be proud of, you should be thrilled that Matt Fradd will now get a professional boost in his quality and frequency. I can’t wait to see what Daily Wire can do with Matt Fradd’s message. It’s gonna be great.

— DR

Subscribe now

Holy Scripture

Reading: The Book of Wisdom 1:16 — 2:1a, 10-24

Passage:

“‘He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.”

“Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him in the end. For if the righteous one is the son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.”

“With violence and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.” These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them…”

Wisdom 2:16-21

Reflection

God humbles those who exalt themselves, and He exalts those who humble themselves. This was one of the antiphons during this week’s evening prayer. Who could have humbled Himself more than Christ?

As the scriptures say, “[He] humbled [Himself], becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted [Him] and bestowed on [Him] the name that is above every name…Jesus” (Phil. 2:8-9).

When we compare this to the life that brought Life into the world, we see Mary, the Mother of God, also elevated by the humiliation and exaltation of her son, the God-Man, Jesus Christ. In Mary’s Magnificat, found in the opening chapter of Luke’s Gospel, we see Mary’s prayer echo what St. Paul writes of Jesus: like Mother, like Son. She says, “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.” Why does she say this? Because God has,

“…Looked upon His handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed…He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.”

Luke 1:46,48,52

When Christ emptied Himself of His glory and began His descent, His Father did not pick just any woman; He selected the most humble woman. She is full of grace, and she is fully humble.

How could she have received the One who left the highest throne, if she had any inclination of her own greatness? In other words, to be filled with the most humble Being requires one to be emptied of any hint of pride. If we want Christ to enter us, we must empty ourselves as Christ taught us. As one thinker said, possibly C.S. Lewis, “Humility is not thinking less of yourself; it’s thinking of yourself less.”

But, as with all of Christ’s disciples, their faith must be tested. This is where we see the relevance of our passage. Both Christ and Mary are tested at the cross, which is prophesied in our passage today — you will need a Bible that contains all 73 books if you want to read this passage in its full context. If you don’t have one, you can find it here.

“He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is His Father,” is the kind of passage that makes you realize why the Jewish people would have been reluctant to include the Book of Wisdom in their Old Testament canon. It also hints at why the early Christians would have definitely seen it as prophetic and therefore part of God’s revelation.

When we compare these passages to Matthew’s Gospel, we can see that his crucifixion account and the beatitudes appear to be inspired by Wisdom 1-2. Specifically, we can see this in Matthew 27:43 and Wisdom 2:16.

“He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” — Mt. 27:43

“‘He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the righteous and boasts that God is his Father.’” — Wis. 2:16

What are we to take away from this, other than a point on the scoreboard for the Catholics in the Catholic-Protestant debate over the books that should be included in the scriptures? There are three things:

1. To be humble, we must empty ourselves, as Christ did.

2. We must fill ourselves with Grace, as Mary is.

3. We must be prepared to emulate both Mary and Christ in their passions.

The Devil will not permit us to just “be humble.” No, he will test our humility, just as the wicked tested the “lowliness of Mary” and the “patience of the Son of God” at the cross.

If we bend the knee in humiliation, the Devil will attempt to entice us to our feet with pride and self-exaltation. The Devil hates it when we take humble postures, like praying on our knees or lying prostrate on the floor, because he knows that to enter the throne room of God, we must enter on “bended knee.”

The Devil’s testing will come much in the same way it came at the cross. Mary’s lowliness is tested at the foot of the cross, and Christ’s patience and mercy are tested as the cross is lifted up.

Here we see Mary, our Mother and perfect disciple, remain faithful to her humble fiat while under persecution. At the beginning of the Gospel, one might say, “Well, easy for Mary to say, she was greeted by an angel. Of course, she would say yes.” But as we know from the scriptures, saying “yes” is not enough for us to be one with Christ; we must follow Him through the Valley of Death.

In Christ, we see our friend, brother, teacher, savior, and King living out the call He gave to us: “To be my disciple, you must [empty yourself], take up your cross, and follow me.” The question for us is, are we Peter watching from afar, or are we John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, sitting beside Mary, enduring the Passion alongside our Savior and His Mother?

It is here that our faith, hope, and love are tested. Do we have faith that even though our King is dead, He will rise as He said? Are we willing to wait in hope for His return, or have we decided to visit the tomb expecting to find the “living among the dead?” Do we love Him enough to stand by His Mother as Her heart, where She “treasured these things,” is ripped open and laid bare before a demonically drunk crowd, blind with bloodlust, cheering on the death of Her, Son: flesh of her flesh, and bone of her bone?

As our days grow darker, we must learn first from Mary and become lowly. We must, as Christ said, “deny ourselves” or “empty ourselves” of our pride. Once we have done this, we can respond to Christ’s call to “take up our cross,” and we do this by imitating Mary’s fiat, “Let it be done to me according to your word.”

Finally, with one hand in Mary’s and the other in Christ’s, we can carry our cross to Golgotha, knowing that just as Christ had someone commissioned from the crowd to help Him carry His cross, so our Queen and our King will commission their saints to help us carry ours.

Thanks for reading

—DR

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Holy Scripture

Passage: The Book of Wisdom 1:1-15

“Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom does not enter, nor does she dwell in a body under debt of sin.

For the holy spirit of discipline flees deceit and withdraws from senseless counsels and is rebuked when unrighteousness occurs.

For wisdom is a kindly spirit, yet she does not acquit blasphemous lips; Because God is the witness of the inmost self and the sure observer of the heart and the listener to the tongue.”

Wisdom 1:4-6

https://www.bible.com/bible/463/WIS.1.4-6

Reflection

About a month ago, I started doing the Liturgy of the Hours, specifically, Morning and Evening Prayer. But recently I started doing the Office of Readings alongside these hours of prayer.

As a former Protestant, it has been amazing to see all the “Catholic Shadows” — practices I thought originated in Protestantism, but were actually inspired by Catholics and modified by Protestants: think infant baptism vs. baby dedications — and trace the shadow to its object, the Church, and its source of light, Jesus Christ.

As I began praying the Liturgy of the Hours and doing the Office of Readings, it struck me that even our devotional life did not originate with Protestantism, but with the early Church. The earliest Christians were Jewish, and so they continued many of the Jewish devotional practices from the Old Testament, like singing and praying the Psalms. This practice has continued and developed for 2000 years. Amazing!

Today’s readings came from the Book of Wisdom, and the passage lends support to the idea that Mary was without sin. The Church’s official teaching is that Mary was immaculately conceived. Protestants deny this and sometimes apply this to Christ’s conception, but this is an error.

Mary’s conception was immaculate, being preserved from sin, but Christ’s conception was incarnate, He who knew know sin becoming man. Mary was created sinless; Jesus was begotten, not created. He is the Word made flesh, and His sinless flesh was given to Him by the sinless Virgin.

This should not be a problem for Protestants logically because if God can create “sons of Abraham from these very rocks,” a sinless woman from the rib of a man, assume a man up into Heaven, “become Sin for us,” while still retaining His sinlessness, then He can obviously create a woman as sinless a second time. God is omnipotent, and what He did once, He can do again.

But what about the scriptural support for this?

In today’s passage, we read the following:

Because into a soul that plots evil wisdom does not enter, nor does she dwell in a body under debt of sin.

In the New Testament, we discover that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is Wisdom itself (1 Cor. 1:24). God, a.k.a., Jesus, a.k.a., Wisdom, cannot enter or dwell in a “body under debt of sin.” This is why we have Baptism, because it cleanses us of Original Sin, making us a fit dwelling for Christ.

One principle of interpretation, whether it is the Bible or an ancient work, is to recognize when the author says something he didn’t have to. For example, when we see Mary in Luke’s Gospel, she is greeted by the angel with the famous line, “Hail Mary, full of grace.”

Why does the angel do this? Why does Luke think it’s important that he include this detail? Even if the angel said it, why does Luke think it’s important to use valuable ink and parchment to record this phrase?

Well, if Jesus is the Word become flesh, God himself, and He knows know sin, then he cannot be physically, mentally, and spiritually united to a “body under debt of sin.” Whatever body Christ inhabits must be cleansed of Original Sin. This is why Baptism is the first sacrament, because it cleanses us of our “first sin,” Original Sin, and makes us a temple of the Lord. Why? Because wisdom does not dwell in a “body under debt of sin.”

At this point, some Protestants might object and say, “See, but this passage is using the pronoun ‘she,’ and Jesus is clearly a ‘He,’ so we are justified in rejecting this passage as Inspired Scripture because it is a contradiction of the New Testament.”

But this line of argument would be problematic for the Protestant. The book of Proverbs, found in both the Protestant and Catholic canons, also refers to wisdom as a woman (Proverbs 8:1-36). In fact, Christian Music artists wrote a popular praise and worship song in the late 90s that was inspired by the following passage:

“Receive my instruction, and not silver, And knowledge rather than choice gold; For wisdom is better than rubies, And all the things one may desire cannot be compared with her.”

Proverbs 8:10-11 NKJV

The song was “Lord, you are more precious than silver. Lord, you are more costly than gold…and nothing I desire compares with you.”

I must have sung that song 50,000 times in my youth groups over the years, and I can distinctly remember asking my pastors and parents, “Why are they singing this song about Jesus, when the Bible clearly describes wisdom as a woman?” Today, my answer would be: “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.”

But additional revelation does not invalidate the Old Testament. If that were the case, then the Christians would have gone back and changed Proverbs 8 to say “wisdom is a man, or a king shouting to the fools in the street,” or they would have just done away with the Old Testament altogether.

Mary is the greatest disciple who ever lived. She is the model for all of us. When we enter into the waters of Baptism, our souls become washed of original sin, and we, in some mysterious way, participate in her immaculate conception. We are “born-again.” In the same way that Christ sanctifies the water of Baptism by His Baptism, so His grace prevented original sin from ever taking root in the soul of Mary.

One might object and say, “Well, if God did that for Mary, then why wouldn’t He do that for us?” To which I say, because “His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts are Higher than our thoughts.”

Wisdom is not necessarily taking the shortest path between two points; it’s taking the proper path. Wisdom is a mystery; Wisdom is a man; Wisdom has a Mother; and Wisdom only calls; He does not force us to do what He wills. The question for us today is, are we going to be like Mary and look into the mystery of God’s Wisdom, perplexing as it may be, and say, “Let it be done to me according to your word?”

Or will we join our voices with the agnostic Pilate who looked into the eyes of Wisdom and dared to ask Him, “What is truth?”

Leave a comment

While I’m continuing to research the topic, it is becoming clear that a major factor — certainly not the only one — in our nation’s moral blunders was the Protestant principle “Scripture Alone.” This principle seems to have played a significant role in deadening the consciences of millions of Christian Americans, including many Catholics, around contraception, abortion, sterilization, eugenics, IVF, and transhumanism in general.

My argument is primarily that the Protestant teaching of “Scripture Alone” is a major risk factor that influences Christian institutions to declare evil good and good evil.

One very prominent example is how the SBC was founded on slavery, which is a well-known and documented fact. In addition, their 1971 resolution affirmed abortion as morally permissible and exhorted their members to take political action to support it.

Richard Fuller was one of the first Presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, which formed over the moral and political issue of slavery. Richard Fuller defended slavery in a book responding to an abolitionist titled, Domestic Slavery Considered as a Biblical Institution (talk about a banger of a title).

I have already remarked on the utter irregularity of requiring me to take up this issue, when you ought from the Bible to make out your charge that slavery is a crime…But I pass this, and…undertake to prove the negative, and show that the Bible does, most explicitly, both by precept and example, bear me out in my assertion…that slavery is not necessarily, and always, and amdist all circumstances a sin. This is the position to be established, and the entire reasoning…is this, WHAT GOD SANCTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND PERMITTED IN THE NEW, CANNOT BE SIN.1

Fuller continues the line of argument by using 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is the famous passage that says, “All scripture is God-breathed, and sufficient for every good work.”

Fast-forward to 1971, and the SBC is affirming another human rights violation, abortion.

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.2

(emphasis mine).

This is in 1971. Five years later, the SBC would reverse this position, but as the largest denomination in the country, the damage had already been dealt. Their influence had affirmed abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” and for the next five years, pastors were permitted and encouraged to affirm it.

Abortion was not safe; it was murder. It should not have been legal; it should have been illegal. And it did not remain rare; it exploded into a massive industry of death that would move on to develop abortive contraceptives, abortive pills, and fertility treatments that led to the discarding of children in order to purchase another one through IVF.

1970s Evangelical Leaders

Around the same year, a book was published, Ethics: Alternatives and Issues, by Norman L. Geisler. He was a key leader of intellectual evangelicalism, one of the presidents of Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), and a founding member and first president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS). He wrote prolifically on apologetics, philosophy, and theology. Many of us apologists are indebted to him for his clear thinking on apologetics and his devotion to evangelism.

It’s worth noting that Geisler, several years later, requested that this book be pulled from circulation. I have only decided to quote him here because when I have made this argument to Protestants before and tried not to name names, they think that I am blowing it out of proportion, or they think that I am misquoting. I can empathize with them because it’s hard to believe that someone who was a prominent leader and defender of conservative evangelical Christianity would ever utter the arguments you’re about to read.

1971-Geisler on Abortion

First, Geisler denies that abortion is murder.

An Unborn Baby Is Not Fully Human — According to the law of Moses, the killing of an unborn baby was not considered a capital offense…(Ex. 21:22)… Abortion is not murder, but it is a very serious activity…One must have a good reason for extinguishing what God has kindled.3

What is important here is that because Geisler is an advocate of the primacy of scripture, he believes that using scripture bolsters his arguments. Another point, as we will see later, is that Geisler was aware of the Roman Catholic positions, as were most Protestants writing on these issues. This means that they were not reasoning in a vacuum. The most influential Christian “denomination” had already told people their arguments against abortion, but Protestants ignored them.

1971-Geisler on Eugenics

Second, Geisler asks the question about using abortion for eugenics. Is it permissible to abort a child with Down Syndrome? Geisler responds in the affirmative.

From the standpoint of the hierarchical ethics the basic principle is this: eugenic abortion is called for only when the clear indications are that the life will be sub-human and not simply because it may be a deformed human. Perhaps [Down Syndrome] is a justifiable ground for abortion…4

Here we see Geisler echoing what we have come to know as the “classical leftist” argument for aborting a disabled child. They frequently argue that it is justified for a mother to terminate her child if that child’s quality of life is so low that it justifies his murder.

1971-Geisler on IVF & Surrogacy

Third, and finally, on IVF and surrogacy, Geisler has a view that many still hold today. In fact, my first encounter with IVF and Surrogacy was with a Christian co-worker many years ago. They were doing IVF, and the wife’s sister was doing surrogacy for money.

Subscribe now

The second time I encountered IVF was during my seminary education. A friend of mine called to get some ethical advice because his wife’s sister was having a hard time getting pregnant. She asked my friend and his wife to consider participating in the IVF process by way of contribution of their gametes. I argued that he shouldn’t do that because of the embryos discarded, but admittedly, if someone pressed me on other forms of IVF, I’m not sure I would have had an answer. Which is probably why someone like Geisler, who is much smarter than I, wrote the following.

Scripture definitely condemns adultery on the ground that it is a union of two persons who are not properly married (1 Cor. 6:16). This leaves open the possibility that impregnation without the adulterous union could be morally right.5

(emphasis in original)

For those not in the know, pre-Pro-Life Geisler is making the point that “multiple-partner” IVF is morally permitted, meaning that a man could contribute his sperm for the fertilization of the eggs of another man’s wife, so that the couple in question could have a child. In other words, your friend Joe just gave your wife a baby via IVF, and the child is not yours; it’s Joe’s.

If you are aware of the brilliance of Norman Geisler, you are probably as shocked as I was to read these statements. In fact, whether we are Catholic or Protestant, it is a reminder that we must be students of the Christian faith throughout our lives, presenting our arguments with humility, not to be confused with skepticism or timidity. But this is only possible if the doctrine does not change.

Protestantism teaches that doctrine and morals can and probably should change from time to time, but Catholicism teaches that the doctrine and morals of the faith cannot change. If doctrine and morals can change, then Martin Luther, Karl Marx, and the person who believes they are cat must all be given the presumption of “discovery” by virtue of the fact that they are novel, and the creed, dogma, or morality that they challenge must be viewed with skepticism by virtue of their legacy.

One might argue that Protestant skepticism of Church authority and history is precisely what led Norman Geisler to question the status quo that had been established by the Church, but not explicitly in scripture. In short, if you have to start with Scripture, you will not have time to consider things outside of Scripture. And why would you? They will only lead you astray. This leads someone to be blinded by the brilliance of scripture to their moral detriment.

They Knew

One common objection at this point is that people were duped because abortion was a novel technology, and they did not have the understanding of fetal development like we do today. This is false, and yet people still continue to deny this fact or say, “Well, I haven’t read anyone say that.” So here is another quote from Geisler in the book I’ve been quoting up to this point. In it, Geisler gives us a picture of what people knew about fetal development and the laws that were currently on the books when abortion came in and overthrew the status quo; abortion did not come into a country that was uncertain about life. Abortion revolutionized a Christian country that knew when life began and all the nuances of its development.

It is now known that the unborn receives its entire RNA and DNA genetic potential at conception. By the end of four weeks a budding cardiovascular system begins to function. At eight weeks the electrical activity of the brain is readable and most essential organ formations are present. And by 10 weeks the fetus is capable of spontaneous motion. In many states the law requires a birth certificate for a twenty-week-old fetus. From this it appears evident that every point of progress realizes an increased value until finally the full human value is attained.6

If this quote was not enough, one can read Daniel K. Williams’ work, Defenders of the Unborn, to find out just how radical the idea of abortion was in America and how Protestants succumbed to the novelty of controlling fertility.

Pro-Life Geisler

In 1989, Geisler recanted his arguments in the first edition of his ethics book: Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues & Options. The second edition is still in print and was published in 2010.7 For those who have read it, let me know in the comments how many of these positions he changed. I suspect he would have rejected some and only slightly modified others.

The Question

How is it that Protestants not only permitted but also adopted and encouraged evil behavior among their members? Whether that be chattel slavery for the SBC in the 1800s, abortion and contraception which saw widespread support from the 1930s through the 1970s, or the most recent moral collapse among evangelical and historical Protestants, artificial reproductive technologies (ART), these conservative denominations have caved on one or all of these major moral issues each of which all involve the termination of an innocent child’s life, or the enslavement of their neighbor.

When you have a pattern like this, you have to stop and ask, “Is there something about Protestantism that leads them to adopt liberal ideas first, and then reform later?”

In 1986, there was a paper published by the Lutheran Seminary of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, by Roy J. Enquist, professor of Theology and Ethics. He was not an abortion absolutist like the Catholics, but was a “moderate” on the issue. But even in his analysis, every major denomination had a “qualified position” on abortion, with two exceptions: the Catholics and the Orthodox.

Enquist evaluated approximately 17 major denominations and found that all the Protestant denominations had a qualifier that permitted abortion of an innocent child. The conservative denominations at this point were much closer to the Catholics, permitting abortion only when the mother’s life was at risk. But even in 1986, everyone knew what the Catholics taught because they had reaffirmed their teaching at Vatican II.

In 1965, Vatican II concluded and made definitive statements on when life began. Dr. Enquist writes about and cites the Catholic position as stated in Vatican II:

The Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to induced abortion is well known. The most succinct modern text was given at the Second Vatican Council: “From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” “Since the fetus is regarded as a human being from the moment of conception, its destruction is a mortal sin and, in fact, ought to be declared illegal by governments.”8

(emphasis mine).

When we consider the fact that Catholics had settled the abortion issue in the 1960s, that is nearly prophetic in the Biblical sense of the term. In the meantime, mainline Christians and American Democrats were wrapping up their political rallies to make abortion and contraception mainstream in the United States. But some might argue that even the Church was late to the discussion on abortion, considering Margaret Sanger and her efforts began in the early 1900s.

But Daniel K. Williams, author of the book The Defenders of the Unborn, shows us that even as early as the 1930s, the Catholic Church was already condemning contraception and abortion. The Church’s prophetic voice to the world was already preaching, but Protestants ignored the warnings.

It was thus not surprising that when Pope Pius XI issued his landmark anti-contraceptive encyclical Casti Connubii in 1930, he coupled his condemnation of artificial birth control with an injunction against “the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother’s womb.” While most of the encyclical was devoted to the issue of contraception, which he viewed as the more immediate threat, he also believed that abortion was merely a more extreme manifestation of the same impulse: a general attack on the family.9

Again, we ask, “How is it that the Catholics got this right, but the Protestants got it wrong?” The answer, I think, lies in the principle of Scripture Alone and the ideas that flow from it.

Scripture Alone necessarily acts as a blinder to the historical Christianity that we are indebted to. It’s also a blinder to the Catholic Church and her teachings; from a Protestant view, the Catholic Church is the last one they should consult, and even if they wanted to, they should probably spend more time in Greek and Hebrew before they get involved in the latest “political” issue of their day.

Finally, this leads the Protestant to foster an entire “Christian worldview” on the ideas of skepticism of anything not scripture, except, of course, their own faculties and motives; this includes any Protestant creed or teaching that came before them. They are not in constant reform; they are in constant revolution.

Protestantism and Semper Reformanda

One thing that Protestantism has in common with Marxism is the idea that barriers should be removed through reformation or negation of the status quo. The idea that the revolution never stops is a Marxist idea and concept that we all recognize leads to political death and destruction. According to R.C. Sproul— though I think he and his followers would object profusely — this concept is also part of the Protestant idea of Scripture Alone. In a lecture on Scripture Alone, R. C. Sproul said the following:

[In] the Protestant heritage the principle of semper reformanda is embraced by virtually all Protestants. That is, the church is always called to undergo reformation and always called to check her own creeds and confessions to make sure that they are in conformity to sacred scripture…there is only one authority that can bind the conscience, and that authority is Sacred Scripture.10

It’s this idea of “constant reformation” that comes out of Scripture Alone and leads people to question authority, look down on ancient Christians as pagans, and see themselves implicitly as the “authors of their faith,” rather than the receivers of the Faith.

When we survey the historical record, we see that the Protestant Reformers were not only aware of what Scripture Alone might do, but that they were willing to accept it, regardless of the evils, heresies, or distortions that might come from empowering every man and woman to be their own interpreter of Scripture. R.C. Sproul, in the same lectures, says:

“When Luther talked about getting the Bible to the laity, the church said, ‘If you do that it will open up a flood gate of iniquity, because people will start creating all kinds of horrible distortions.’ — which is exactly what happened. But Luther said, ‘If that is the case, and if a floodgate of iniquity is opened by opening the pages of the Bible to people, so be it…but the message that is clear is so important. It contains the message of our salvation. It is so important that we’ll take the risks of all the distortions and all the heresies that go with that to make sure that the central message of Scripture is heard.”11

This, of course, leads to the question: “How will the message be discerned if heresies and distortions abound?” To be clear, I’m not saying that the Church should have locked up the Bible, nor is Sproul entirely right about the context of this quote from Luther. But what does matter is R. C. Sproul’s acceptance of the “floodgate of iniquity,” in other words, I will accept any kind of evil and sin in the world, if it means I can interpret the Bible for myself.

When we combine the numbers from abortion and IVF, we begin approaching a number that is north of 100 million dead babies. That sounds like a “floodgate of iniquity to me.”

Are Protestants really going to look at that number and say, “Yes, my ESV was worth it”? I don’t know, but I know what I would have done as a Protestant. I would have argued that “It’s not my version of Protestantism that caused it,” or I would have said, “Yep, but God knew, and now I have to ask myself, what am I gonna do about it today?” Some of them will just deny it. They will deny that their beliefs, their history, and the history of the Abortion movement are intimately connected. And I can’t blame them. I would have probably made that argument at one point, too.

When we talk about Communism today, we are baffled by how people could fall for its poison and false promises. This is because we have seen the fruit of it. I think it’s the same with Luther.

If he could have looked into the future and seen what moral evils would have come about, I like to think he would have probably rethought his position. But we are not permitted to know the future. We are expected to live by faith in the teachings of the Word of God, both written and spoken.

The Word and His Mother

A wise man once told me that in order to conquer sin in my life, I had to replace that sin with something good. The reason, he said, “Is because emptiness needs to be filled. If you remove the sin, but don’t fill the void with something good, then, like a black hole, the sin will find its way back into your life.” Or as another wise guy said, “Nature abhors a vacuum” — not to be confused with the kind that cleans your carpet; nature loves those vacuums.

This is relevant to the Protestant-Catholic dialogue because both have a tendency to elevate their distinctive dogmas to the exclusion of other important dogmas. On the one hand, the Protestants emphasize 2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

While the Catholics tend to emphasize 1 Timothy 3:15,

…You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Here we have the two pillars of the Christian life, the scriptures and the Church. Just as Christ was the Word made flesh and was born from the Blessed Virgin, so the Church, pregnant with the Word of God, birthed the scriptures. To separate them would be to orphan the Word of God and put it into the foster care system, where it moves from house to house, but never puts its roots down morally or doctrinally. And as R.C. Sproul implied, this constant reforming and challenging of doctrines is a feature, not a bug.

This usurping tradition by the individual rather than a valid authority creates a vacuum that is either filled by individual pride that refuses to submit to any church, or it is filled by false teachings like “Abortion is not murder.”

God in His grace has still worked through many Protestant communities to help spread an understanding of the importance of scripture, the ever-popular “Bible Study,” the Christian’s relationship with God, their need for a savior, and many other great things— even, dare I say it, Contemporary Christian Music (CCM). One thing is sure: Protestantism is a much safer route into the fullness of Christianity than the alternatives: paganism or atheism. Protestants are also incredibly valuable allies in the political fight for Pro-Life legislation today, despite them being a catalyst for it in the past.

On the Catholic side, a vacuum can form when individuals elevate Church authority to the exclusion of scriptural authority or the teachings of the Church. In other words, they believe they don’t need to learn anything about what Christianity teaches or what the scriptures teach because, after all, the Bishops and Pope will take care of it. The filling of this scriptural void is seen when Catholics debate about what the Pope said to a group of reporters.

Depending on which side is affirmed, they all act as if his comments from the microphone were from The Chair, also known as Ex Cathedra. Catholics are expected to know their faith and the scriptures so that they can better receive the sacraments, honor their Blessed Mother, worship Christ in sacrifice, and ultimately obtain eternal life —fun fact, a major part of Vatican II was exhorting the laity to take responsibility for their faith and evangelize more.

Catholics definitely have not had a spotless past, but one of the miraculous things about her is that she has endured trials and tribulations, both from within and without. She is only around because she has been preserved. As one Cardinal said to Napoleon, “Your Majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best for the past 1,800 years to destroy the Church. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

It is a fact of history that the Church has, in its various nations, states, provinces, parishes, and whatever other level of geography you can think of, committed violence and evil against people both within and outside her walls. This is largely due to the Church ignoring and/or violating her teaching, and/or getting too cozy with state power. But even still, the Church has never affirmed something like abortion as morally permissible. It is the Protestants who have done this on virtually every issue: from divorce to abortion, they have made exceptions that ultimately lie with the individual, not with the ecclesiastical authority.

History is complicated, and I’m not going to defend the idea that the moral distinctions between Protestants and Catholics have always been this clear. But it does seem like we are living in a time where we are privileged with a perspective that lets us see clearly that the morally safer Church to submit to today is the Catholic Church.

Killing babies for any reason should always raise alarm bells, but it seems that when Scriptura Alone is operating, the Natural Law written on our hearts is ignored, and our conscience is seared. This manifested itself in the 1970s most clearly when the voices of the unborn were stifled by the preaching and teaching of prominent Christian teachers and denominations. To be sure, some stood in the breach. R.C. Sproul was one who apparently was strong on abortion from the beginning, and another was John MacArthur.12 When it comes to denominations, the strongest position I found was in 1978, and it was the PCA.

God is using Protestantism, despite their failings, to highlight the path to the one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism of Christianity, only found in the fullness of the Catholic faith. We share our Lord, we share our Baptism, but we do not share all of our faith: that is the praxis and teachings we submit to.

Every aspect of a Protestant experience can find its way back to Catholicism, even smoke machines (incense smells so good!). But we also can’t downplay the fact that, if the Church’s teaching on mortal sin is true, then moral teachings like we have discussed today are not only leading to the death of babies, but it is also leading souls who commit these mortal sins to Hell.

If “once saved always saved” is true, then nothing I’ve written here matters. But if “once saved always saved” is false, then the consequences of these ideas are not just life or death; they are Heaven or Hell.

Thanks for reading.

— DR

Pious Reflection #1

I have had the privilege of meeting many people who have survived Communism. Their stories are very moving. Some are Christians, others are not.

Often times English is their second language. When we start to discuss Communism, and they start to share their wisdom with me, it’s obvious I would gain so much more if I knew their first language the way they know English as a second.

This is what it is like reading the Bible. It is pregnant with wisdom, but it is from another time, culture, and people that is thousands of years “ahead” of our own in terms of wisdom. This is why scripture is still effective, but not perspicuous (clear). Like my friends who have survived Communism and are willing to share, I lack both the experience AND the linguistic tools to understand fully what they went through.

It is the same when we approach the scriptures. We must remember that these authors were writing from a totally different culture (e.g., Jewish Tribes, Queen Mothers, Roman Oppression, etc., ) as well as being witnesses to God’s power and might (e.g., The Parting of the Red Sea, The Virgin Birth, Jesus walking on water, Transfiguration, etc).

This does not mean that we can’t know some things from scripture. For example, “Do not be afraid,” has an obvious meaning. But, “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood...you do not have eternal life” is not. This leads to two different questions:

For the Protestant, “Where does doctrine come from?”

For the Catholic, “Why don’t you read the scriptures more?”

Can we really understand by scripture alone how to describe the Trinity? Why even accept the formulation of the Trinity or the Incarnation, especially if its possible the Church got this wrong?

If Mass is boring, is it possible it’s because you lack an understanding of the scriptures? The rubric for how the Church wants you to live and worship is contained in these pages, but you do not study them?

In the end, I think its a lot like speaking with my friends who endured Communism. I need to keep going back to them and learning from them, but I also need to keep learning about the cultures that Communism oppressed, and the ideas that people adopted that made it possible. This is what makes for a substantive dialog, and I benefit from what my friends are trying to help me understand.

Similarly, we need to do the same thing with the Bible. We need the Church to help us understand how the doctrines we are obligated to believe are affirmed by scripture, and by reason, other wise we will error and error greatly. Similarly, if we do not love the scriptures, then we will not love their mother, the Church, who gave them to us for our benefit.

As St. Paul said, the “Church is the foundation of the truth.”

God bless.

🔗☕Enjoy coffee with your favorite saint or thinker: https://saintsandthinkers.com/

🔗 📝 Read & support articles at https://piousreflections.com

🔗📖 Nights Bright Darkness: https://a.co/d/eV4HjXB

Episode Description:

Cristina Genung should not be alive today. If it were not for a miracle, Cristina would have been one of the 60 million lives lost to Roe v. Wade. Listen to our interview to hear how her mother choosing life has impacted Cristina’s Christian life, and how it led to my wife, kids, and I becoming Catholic. This work incorporates excerpts or elements from copyrighted materials pursuant to the fair use doctrine under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which permits limited use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is not my intention to infringe on anyone’s copyrighted material, and if requested by the copyright holder, I will remove such content immediately.

Chapter markers

0:00 - Intro

01:17 - Opening Prayer

02:07 - Cristina’s Pro-life Testimony

04:01 - Family Background and Catholic Upbringing

07:05 - Mother’s Pro-Life Decision

13:07 - Charismatic Catholic Community

29:11 - Evangelism and Modern Catholic Movements

43:39 - Impact of Liturgical Music

53:33 - Parents and Faith Formation

57:35 - Pro-life Advocacy and Testimony

01:21:37 - The Catholic Response to Suffering

01:26:28 - The Role of Experience in Conversion

01:31:50 - Sally’s Journey to Catholicism

01:48:26 - Final Thoughts

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church and attended a private Southern Baptist school, both of which I’m deeply grateful for. There, I was taught that suffering is something to endure, pray through, or, if possible, escape. It was often presented as a consequence of the Fall, a curse brought into the world by sin, and we were encouraged to pray for deliverance from it.

While it was acknowledged that God could use suffering for our growth or for His glory, it sometimes seemed that prolonged suffering pointed to a lack of faith or trust in God’s plan. This emphasis, while well-intentioned, can unintentionally lead to guilt, confusion, spiritual passivity, or the feeling that suffering is a sign of God's displeasure or distance.

Now, however, my answer is very different, and perhaps a bit paradoxical. Catholicism has changed how I view pain, hardship, and loss. I now see suffering not as a meaningless burden, but as something that can be offered, transformed, and even embraced.

A quote often attributed to St. John Vianney captures it beautifully:

“Suffering is the greatest treasure on earth; it purifies the soul.”

A New Purpose For Suffering

Catholicism radically changed how I understood suffering. As I investigated the Catholic faith, I came to see that suffering is not simply something to be endured or escaped, but something that can be offered, transformed, and even shared with Christ. Providentially, my investigation into the Catholic Church’s teaching on suffering coincided with several unexpected crosses that God has asked me to bear. The Catholic Church teaches that while suffering entered the world through sin, it was redeemed by Jesus through His Passion and death:

“By his Passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion.”
— Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1505

Just as was prophesied in Isaiah 53, Christ, as the atoning sacrifice, bore our griefs and carried our sorrows. He took on the worst of human suffering and made it a means of grace, not just a sign of the Fall. Because of Him, suffering is no longer pointless or merely punitive; we can participate in His redemption by uniting our suffering to His.

“Offering it up” is a new idea for me, but one I am happy to embrace. It brings me joy to know that what I endure can be offered to God for the good of others, for their salvation, for the conversion of sinners, for the Church, and for the souls in purgatory.

This gives suffering so much meaning and purpose. Even the smallest of sufferings, I can give to Him for the sake of others and as a means of becoming more like Christ.

The Cross: Death Transformed

I had my doubts about the Catholic Church’s claims on suffering. But when I did what any good Protestant would do, and turned to my Bible, I found that these claims are present throughout Scripture, especially in the letters of Paul, who certainly understood what it means to suffer.

Saint Paul affirmed this mystery when he said, “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Colossians 1:24).¹

Without the belief that suffering can be joined to Christ’s Passion and offered in love for others, suffering was merely something I had to endure, rather than something I could offer up to God and use to be more united with him. Without this understanding, I often wondered if my suffering was a sign that God was disappointed or distant. And when prayer didn’t bring relief, it sometimes felt like I had been abandoned.

Now, I see that I had missed the depth and dignity of suffering and the invitation to participate in it with Christ. The Church does not romanticize suffering or seek it for its own sake; rather, she recognizes that Christ has redeemed it and now invites us to share in His love through it.

In a world that runs from discomfort and numbs itself to every inconvenience, Catholicism teaches us not to flee from the Cross, but to carry it. What once symbolized defeat is now the sign of redemption and love. Through the Cross, Christ has transformed even our darkest moments into opportunities for grace.

It is amazing to contemplate that at the center of our faith lies a profound paradox: the Cross. Once a tool of torture and shame, the Cross has become the world’s greatest gift. It is both death and life, suffering and joy. Christ did not come to remove all death and suffering, but by entering into them, He redeemed them for our good.

The Cross is what makes suffering, when united to Him, the greatest treasure on earth: it becomes a way to love more deeply, to grow in holiness, and to draw nearer to the heart of Christ.

No one ought to desire suffering, and the Church does not ask us to seek it, but when it comes, and it always does, we are no longer helpless in its shadow. We are invited to unite it to the Cross.

Final Thoughts

In our suffering, we are not alone. In Christ, our suffering matters. When received with love and offered in faith, suffering becomes sanctified. It is my hope that others, too, would learn to rejoice in their sufferings, so that together we may take our place in Christ’s afflictions, for His sake, and for the sake of His Church. Over the last year, I have had my own share of suffering. I can honestly say, I would not have chosen this suffering for myself, but now I see the blessing and opportunity my Lord has given me through it.

Footnotes:

¹ See also 2 Corinthians 1:5-7; Philippians 3:10; Romans 8:17.

The entire episode is linked at the end of the article, but the relevant clip for our discussion is here 👇

I want to talk, not so much about the issue of infant baptism, but rather the reason Craig gives for “advising” the Church to abandon its practice.

Now, I’m fully aware that Dr. Craig was in a friendly conversation, not a formal debate. So we should take his words with a grain of salt. However, I think that we can observe a few things before we begin:

1. Craig is a highly influential public figure, and so what he says has more influence in the Christian world.

2. Many Christians outside the Church will say that they agree with Dr. Craig’s statements.

3. Craig has done a lot of good things for the issues around important philosophical and historical claims of Christianity, like the existence of God and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, in light of those observations, I want to offer some friendly pushback on Craig’s advice, specifically the notion that the Church ought to abandon a doctrine for pragmatic reasons.

What did he say?

Dr. Craig recommends that the Catholics need to get rid of infant baptism because it leads to unregenerate cradle Catholics in the Church — in other words, people give Christianity a bad name because they think that once they get the dunk, their soul will never be sunk; or if they get the sprinkle their, soul will never have a wrinkle; or once they splashed their soul will never be…ok I’ll stop.

In short, Craig’s assumption is that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not essential to the faith because people misunderstand and/or abuse it. Trent rightly responds by saying that a doctrine that is abused does not mean that the doctrine is false or should be rejected. Rather, the truth is that people everywhere misunderstand or abuse the religious teachings they claim to adhere to, including Protestants from the faith background of William L. Craig. I can think of many Protestants who have engaged in a variety of sinful practices surrogacy, abortion, IVF, divorce, have sex before marriage, and the good ole fashioned ones like stealing, gossip, and lying. All of them would say that they are “saved” because they prayed a prayer at one point in their life. But if Craig is right than this leads to some weird takes on sin found in the Bible.

For example, King David is someone who was circumcised (a prefigurement of baptism) and was “a man after God’s own heart.” He has all the qualities of a sincere believer; he’s living according to God’s commands, and he writes beautiful and heartfelt words about the Lord. Then he messed up. He committed adultery, and then used his position as the King to have the woman’s husband murdered through a government conspiracy. Pretty bad stuff. He’s not exactly repping the Kingdom of Israel in way that will have the men lining up to buy books and coffee, not to mention, getting circumcised.

Imagine going back and time with Craig during David’s encounter with the prophet Nathan. “You are the man!”, shouts Nathan, and it echoes throughout the throne room. After their exchange, Nathan walks out and Dr. Craig says “Excuse me, can I give you some advice…have you thought about just getting rid of the whole infant circumcision thing? It doesn’t seem to be working for you.”

The truth is that man’s will is fickle, and while grace is what man needs, eternal life is not about faith in a moment, but a persevering faith that endures to the end. In order for man to inherit eternal life, he must submit to the teachings that Christ himself associated with eternal life: belief, (Jn. 3:16), baptism (Jn. 3:5), forgiveness of sins (Jn. 20:22), and the receiving of his body and blood (Jn. 6:53-66).

If we took Dr. Craig back to Christ’s ministry days, many of Christ’s own teachings would have had to be thrown out or “reworded” since they were causing people to walk away. For example, when Jesus says “eat my body and drink my blood,” he lost nearly all of his disciples, with the exception of the twelve (Jn. 6:66).

Another example where this principle of pragmatic theology would lead people astray is Marriage. For example, like Baptism, Marriage is also a sacrament. Given that many Catholics suffer divorce in their marriages, should Catholics abandon this teaching as well? Are we supposed to imagine God up in Heaven holding his chin saying, “Hmmm…I really thought that these sacraments were gonna perform better. Guess we need to look for some different ways to send grace to these poor souls.”

The truth of the matter is that salvation is not a moment, but is received when we persevere in the faith. Personal conversions centered around something like the Sinner’s Prayer “work”, but only in so far as that believer is ignorant of the need to be Baptized. This exception should not be confused with the ordinary way that God has revealed himself to work in the lives of the sinner. Furthermore, scripture condemns mere belief, and so if another Christian exhorts a believer to be baptized, and they refuse, that individual’s salvation should be questioned. Otherwise salvation becomes something that is merely adopted intellectually or emotionally. Pragmatism cannot be the hinge on our theological “door”, so to speak, or we will end up believing all sorts things. In fact, we could find ourselves duped by false teachings or demonic experiences, just like Diana Helmuth.

Sacraments and Magic

We believe that the sacraments confer a real grace, not merely for pragmatic reasons, though those do exist, but because this is what Christ instituted. The sacraments are not magic, but Craig seems to be interpreting this Christian teaching as if the sacraments were magical, not from an academic perspective, but because of confused Catholics who treat the sacraments like magic. The sacraments are meant to strengthen the will, not make us heavenly automatons who never sin. Obviously, this is not the proper way to view any of the sacraments, but especially the sacrament of baptism, otherwise the Church would not have another vital sacrament, the Sacrament of Confession (Jn. 20:22).

But things get even worse if we consider the implications of appllying a “pragmatic” view to experiences with the Occult. Below is a story of a former atheist who recently rediscovered her desire for the divine through a particular set of “religious practices.”

If I'm being really honest, I was tired of God being dead. I didn't want to feel like I didn't care about the divine anymore. I wanted to admit to myself that I did care, that I did want to feel held by the divine, but getting through the shame of that is something that is interrogated throughout the book. Like, why was that so hard for me to admit?

I'm sitting in front of an altar that I've made out of a cardboard box. I have a stranger's playlist going on Spotify. My cat is on the other side of the door staring at me, and after about an hour, something happened. I just suddenly felt flooded with bliss. And after that experience, it became very difficult for me to continue to make fun of this part of myself that wanted to be connected with the divine. Shame just wasn't involved.2

Those quotes are from an article written by National Public Radio (NPR) by Mallory Yu. She was interviewing a former atheist named Diana Helmuth. Diana is a convert from atheism to witchcraft. Diana continues,

I think increasingly we find ourselves facing things that really affect us deeply that we have very little control over: climate change, housing prices, health insurance bills, pandemics, who's going to become the president. And here's this religion — this spirituality — that says, "You can have an effect on these things that feel so much bigger than you. You just need a couple of candles and some willpower."

Diana’s engagement in the occult reignited — no pun intended — her desire to encounter the divine. The only problem is, she is encountering the power of Hell rather than the power of Heaven. But if we view her experience through the pragmatic lens, we would have to concede it “worked for her.” But any respectable Christian knows that most doctrines, for the most part, are not practical. Christians practice the faith the way they believe to practice it, primarily because its true, not because of its practicality. The doctrinal truth precedes the pragmatic way in which it should be practiced; once the doctrine is established, how will certainly have to take into account the practicality of the practice.

Pragmatic Protestant Practices

You gotta love the alliteration there…

Finally, if we apply Pragmatism to Protestantism, Christians might have to abandon the entire Protestant Project altogether. For example, many “well intentioned” Protestants sided with Margret Sanger and her push for contraception, which would become the catalyst for Planned Parenthood and the infanticide that has eclipsed the Nazi Holocaust in its evil.

According to Daniel K. Williams in Defenders of the Unborn, Sanger targeted Protestant pastors to help her promote her new organization, the “American Birth Control League.”

In the early 1920s, Margaret Sanger and her American Birth Control League (which later became Planned Parenthood) challenged [contraception], and quickly won widespread acceptance among middle-class Protestants for the use of contraceptive devices. The Anglican Communion reversed course in 1930 and declared that Christian married couples had a right to use artificial birth control, and other Protestant Church bodies quickly followed suit. The Federal Council of Churches’ Committee on Marriage and the Home issued a report endorsing contraception in 1931. By the late 1930s, national committees of the American Episcopal, United Methodist, United Presbyterian, and Congregational Christian Churches had officially endorsed birth control.

…Though many Protestant fundamentalists continued to oppose contraception for several decades, liberal Protestants and Jews embraced it as a progressive humanitarian measure. By 1946, 3,200 ministers were members of Planned Parenthood’s Clergyman’s Council.3

Approximately 3,200 protestant ministers helped to get Planned Parenthood off the ground. Today, conservative evangelicals who will rail against evolution, while simultaneously requesting prayer requests for their Chrsitians, pastors and laymen, who are participating in IVF and surrogacy because they mistakenly believe they are being “pro-life” in doing so.

Had the Protestants held their ground on abortion and contraception, our nation would look very different today. Many Protestants want to say that these Christians were “confused” and “misguided”, but the only problem with this theory is that it neglects to account for the fact that there was a voice “crying in the wilderness,” trying to get American Christians to reject Sanger’s ideas. It was the Catholic Church.

As is often the case, the Church is the voice of conscience to the world, not because her clergy or laity are perfect, but because her teaching calls man to God’s divine plan. Infant baptism is part of this divine plan, not because it “works”, but because, just as the Church preserved the scriptures, so too she has protected the sacrements. So my advice to Protestants is to answer the question, “What is the purpose of Doctrine, if no one can agree on what doctrine Protestants ought to have?”

Closing Thoughts

“pragmatism” is a bad basis for whether a doctrine should stay or go. This is why I did not contend the issue of infant baptism directly. Instead, I wanted to point out that pragmatism may be a tool that leads us to be more curious about the basis for doctrines of other denominations, but it cannot be the sole basis for our rejection of those doctrines.

In the end, the reason a Christian submits to the Church of his choosing is because he believes what the Church teaches is true, whether that doctrine “works” for him is a secondary issue.