If you were in a Catholic Church yesterday, one of the readings you would have heard would have been Ezekiel 33:7-9:
You, son of man—I have appointed you as a sentinel for the house of Israel; when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them for me. When I say to the wicked, “You wicked, you must die,” and you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood. If, however, you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, but they do not, then they shall die in their sins, but you shall save your life.
Ezekiel 33:7-9 NABRE
Today, many Christians, especially Catholics, think that they should not evangelize. Since becoming Catholic, I’ve also noticed an apathy among my own Protestant friends and family saying things like, “It doesn’t matter what church you attend.”
This is a blatant expression of indifferentism and/or willful ignorance, both of which, if habitually practiced, can lead one to commit mortal sins. One of my favorite saints is St. Maximilian Kolbe. He loathed indifference and is on the record saying, “The most deadly poison of our times is indifference.”
This idea that all Christian denominations are equally true in their teaching on morality and theology is plainly false. Keep in mind that we are not talking about nuances in the Trinity when we refer to moral and doctrinal distinctives. What one Church calls good, another calls it evil. What one Church calls worship, another calls idolatry. In the words of George Bailey, passages like Ezekiel present us with a “very interesting situation,” to put it mildly.
Catholics Must Evangelize
The passage in Ezekiel demonstrates that not evangelizing can lead us to condemnation. Before I came into the Church, a Catholic told me, “One of the best parts of being Catholic is that we don’t try to convert people.” After being Catholic, another Catholic told me that many Catholics thought that it was safer not to evangelize non-Christians and non-Catholics because the Church taught it was safer for them to remain in their ignorance. The Church does not teach this. In fact, she condemns these attitudes.
In the Vatican II documents, in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium), after having discussed the salvation of those outside the Church, She turns to the “Catholic faithful.”
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation…Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved…
The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.
Lumen Gentium (14).
Later on in the document, the Church acknowledges that it is possible (this does not mean probable) that one outside the Church could be saved. But many Catholics stop reading at this point. After acknowledging the goods of those outside the Church — I’ve replaced “them” with “outsiders” in the following paragraph for clarity — the Church exhorts her members to evangelize because to be outside the Church is to be a lamb outside the fold, vulnerable to attacks from the World and the “Evil One”.
Whatever good or truth is found amongst [outsiders] is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”, the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
Ibid. (16).
There should be no question in the minds of the Catholic that they are exhorted to evangelize the world, precisely because those outside the Church are more vulnerable to sin and therefore more likely to die in the “final despair.” Recall the St. Michael Prayer,
Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
Satan is really seeking souls to devour, and the Church provides human souls with the greatest spiritual weapons. Those deprived of them are unlikely to make it. Hence our Lord’s words, “Narrow be the way, and few there be that find it.”
The Wicked Ways
When we consider the challenge that Protestantism has, it is far greater than that of Catholics.
Catholics are known for saying everyone is wrong, except them. To reject their teachings is to be considered a heretic. To reject their authority is to be considered a schismatic. Therefore, all heretics are schismatics, but not all schismatics are heretics.
But Protestants have a significant dilemma because they endorse and permit what the Church considers grave moral evils like IVF, Surrogacy, and Contraception. This means that, if the Catholics are correct, these institutions are actively encouraging and permitting their congregants to commit potentially damnable sins.
On the other hand, if the Protestants are correct, then Catholics are just a bit too legalistic at worst, and at best, just a little stupid.
Here is the position of four mainline Protestant Denominations:
The United Methodists:
We support the use of a variety of reproductive strategies for those desiring to have children, including fertility treatments, in vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo or sperm donation, surrogacy, and others. We believe the decision whether to use reproductive alternatives is best left to those considering the use of these options, in consultation with their health care providers. In all instances, the use of reproductive alternatives should be in keeping with the highest ethical standards, prioritizing the health and well-being of both women and children.
UMC, Social Principles1
The Episcopal Church
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Lambeth 1930, Resolution 15.2
In the mid 1980s, the Episcopal Church affirmed outright the use of IVF, and by extension, Surrogacy.
Resolved, That this 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church gives approval to usage of so-called "in vitro" fertilization for the purpose of providing children in a marriage.
Episcopal Church, GC 1982-A0673
The PCUSA
In an official resolution, the PCUSA both affirmed the use of contraception, “No law should prohibit access to, nor the practice of contraceptive measures,” and condemned the prohibition of abortion:
No law or administrative decision should provide for a complete ban on abortion.
No law or administrative decision should
(i) limit access to abortions;
(ii) limit information and counseling concerning abortions;
or (iii) limit or prohibit public funding for necessary abortions for the socially and economically disadvantaged.
220th General Assembly (2012)4
Consider the Catholic Church’s position on IVF, Surrogacy, and Contraception. To participate in these “technologies” is to indulge in grave sin. To do so knowingly and freely is a mortal sin.
The Baptists and PCA
These denominations are more implicit than explicit. In 1971, they officially endorsed abortion, and it’s not pretty. It was phrased in the language of eugenics, and it’s a mark on the denomination to this day.
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.
SBC 1971 Resolution On Abortion5
Regarding PCA and Baptists on IVF, they have not officially condemned it. They acknowledge in their documents that life begins at conception. The SBC did take strides towards a more morally correct view of the practice, but continues to encourage the “limited” use of IVF so that parties involved consider the number of embryos produced in ART (Artificial Reproductive Technologies). But, as we will see later this week, this statement is going to be outdated as AI is ushering in the possibility of artificial gestation outside the womb entirely.
The Catholics
The Catholics, as the most prominent Christian authority on the planet, has set the bar for bioethics. There is no question on which denomination is the most philosophically rigorous and uncompromising institutionally on moral issues around life and marriage.
Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other.
Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children…
A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."
CCC, 2376-78
The fact that all of these denominations disagree on this practice, that it clearly has severe moral consequences — over ~100 million babies killed over the last 50 years making the Nazis look like a badly run hospice — is saying something.
If you total the casualties of WWI and WWII, you get approximately 100 million dead soldiers, according to Grok Ai. The merely hand wave the fact that many mainline Protestant institutions not only were silent on the issue but endorsed it and encouraged its practice is no small theological error.
Our institutional loyalty is no trivial matter, and that is evidenced by the moral challenges that technology has brought to bear to Protestant and Catholic leaders alike. Its just that Catholics are the only ones who appear to have not wavered institutionally on the issue of abortion and Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART).
Watch this video of Bishop Fulton Sheen, knowing that at the time, many Protestants would have been critical of him since most of the Protestants had sided with the eugenicists and Planned Parenthood.
Conclusion
Venerable, soon-to-be Blessed, Bishop Fulton Sheen said, “People are turning away from Christianity today not because it is too hard but because it is too soft.” We lost a love for the truth. St. Paul said that if you preach without love, you’re a clanging gong. The obvious other side to that analogy is that if you preach with love but you lack truth, then you are a teacher of lies.
If there is not one authoritative teacher for the entire Christian faithful, then passages like Ezekiel 33:7-9 are not capable of being lived out in a Christian context. One would have to appeal to some vague form of Natural Law, but then accept that this passage has no bearing on theological obligations like “not forsaking the brethren.” Furthermore, passages on false teachers by both Jesus Christ himself and his apostles are also meaningless.
Consider this passage from St. Paul. It is from his 2nd Letter to the Corinthians. In it he points out that people are pretending to be apostles and spreading their own teaching. He says that their end will “correspond to their deeds.” This presumes that there is a “right way” to do Christianity and a “wrong way to do it” and that the apostleship of a man is greater than even an “angel of Light.”
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Now, many people will object by pointing out that every church is “pursuing right doctrine, so who are you to say your Church is right?” But this reduces the pursuit to a rational one. As we pointed out in the article “No One Cares About Doctrine,” it is not enough to be smart or be a profound exegete. Both doctrine and heresies come formally through authorities (e.g., the Trinity was not developed by a man quietly learning Greek and Hebrew and exegeting the text very, very carefully).
The fact that many individuals break off because they “think they're right” is a standard the objector must apply to himself. Should we follow him? If not his doctrines, then whose?
Inevitably, such individuals will say “Jesus.” But this only leads us to the same place we started. Which Jesus should we follow? The Lutheran Jesus, the Baptist Jesus, the Presbyterian Jesus, or the Jesus who's made in the image of the non-denominational megachurch pastor?
Furthermore, this dodges the question of doctrine. When Jesus breathed on the apostles, it wasn’t that they were just supposed to get people to say “I believe in Jesus.” It was that they were to bring people into the Church, which St. Paul described as the “Pillar and bulwark of Truth.” The first missionaries were sent out to bring people under the Authority of Jesus by submitting themselves to the teachings of the apostles. The reason we have so many denominations is that we don’t agree on the “teachings of Jesus” as handed down.
This means that the teachings were lost, and we don’t really have any way of knowing what is or what isn’t the fullness of Christianity, or we can know the teachings, but we are too afraid to start pulling on that thread.
These objectors to the Catholic Church amount to, “Well, everyone says they are right, so why should I think your Church is right?” This only points out that finding the truth is difficult, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that it is impossible to find. This is why grace is necessary for us to discover the truth and submit to it.
That grace may be found in arguments from Church history.
It might be found in the moral wisdom of the Church as the only one that held its ground on moral issues like divorce, abortion, IVF, etc.
It might be the grace that comes through the miracles of saints and Our Lady’s apparitions (e.g., Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc).
It might be the superior theological intellects of saints like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas, whose writings we would have lost were it not for the Church being preserved by the Holy Spirit.
God has made each individual unique. The grace that attracts them and calls them to the Church will be unique to all of them.
Some are attracted to the Church through Truth, others through Beauty, others through Goodness and her moral courage, still others may be attracted to her through the Unity of the Church exhibited in her liturgy. But when they embrace one, they receive all of them.
The fact remains, either Christianity can be known by its teachings, of which there is one that is primary among all other versions, or Christianity is a religion of relativism, and we have no objective assurance this side of heaven that we are secure in our faith. But it’s clear from Scripture, history, and the miraculous that God does intend for us to know the truth and, through submitting to it, set us free.
—DR
UMC, Social Principles: The Social Community (BoD 2020/2024), “Reproductive Health,” https://www.umc.org/en/content/social-principles-the-social-community
Lambeth Conference 1930, Resolution 15, https://anglicancommunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/1930.pdf
Episcopal Church, GC 1982-A067, https://episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/acts/acts_resolution.pl?resolution=1982-A067
PCUSA, 220th GA (2012), Resolution on Reproductive Health Care Access, https://pcusa.org/sites/default/files/res_on_reproductive_health_care_access.pdf
Southern Baptist Convention, “Resolution On Abortion,” Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, June 1, 1971, https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-abortion-2/.