Antisemite: A Now-Meaningless Term That Should Mean Something

In the lexicon of worst things to be called in the second half of the 20th century, surely “antisemite” is at the top of the list (perhaps tied with “racist”). After the evils of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust were revealed to the world, no rational person wanted to be associated with that word.

That’s a good thing, obviously. Hostility and hatred toward a people is a sin and must be rejected. Yet, as often happens in this fallen world, people have thwarted something good for their own purposes. “Antisemite” has become a term used to silence discussion and defeat one’s enemies without troubling oneself with rational argument.

Did you say something critical of the modern state of Israel’s political policies? Antisemite.

Did you repeat publicly what the Bible clearly states, that Jews were instrumentally involved in the death of Jesus Christ? Antisemite.

Did you note that many Jews are influential in Hollywood (even without accusing them of any conspiracy)? Antisemite.

When someone with a foreign policy disagreement is labeled the same as someone who systematically butchered millions of Jews, that label no longer has any real meaning.

When someone with a foreign policy disagreement is labeled the same as someone who systematically butchered millions of Jews, that label no longer has any real meaning.Tweet This

There are two wrong reactions to this devaluing of the term “antisemite.” The first is to double-down on the term and continue to use it to label any opponent. This tactic has diminishing returns, emptying the term of any meaning. Because of this overuse, calling someone an antisemite just doesn’t pack much of a punch anymore.

The second wrong reaction is to pretend there is no such thing as an antisemite. Because “antisemite” is used so carelessly today, and most often incorrectly, it’s easy to reject the existence of antisemitism. “I was ridiculously called an antisemite for opposing American foreign aid to Israel, so there is no such thing as an antisemite.” That’s faulty logic.

There are still antisemites in the world, and it’s still a sin to be one.

What actually makes a person an antisemite? Dictionary.com defines it as “a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.” The problem with that definition is that there’s a lot of room for semantic games with the terms “discriminates” and “prejudiced.” Any action that is critical of a Jewish person or a Jewish group may be labeled as discrimination and prejudice, so this definition is no help.

How should the term be defined? I would argue that we fall into antisemitism, and thus into sinful territory, when we irrationally assign the wrong of an individual Jew, or even a group of Jews, to the corporate body of the Jewish people.

If a Jewish person wrongs you and you condemn him, that’s not sinful or antisemitic. But if you then argue that “the Jews are out to get Catholics,” you’ve gone astray. Even if a group of Jews is out to get you, a Catholic, you can’t then say that “the Jews” are at fault. No, individual Jews are at fault, not the corporate body of the Jewish people.

This even applies to larger groups of Jews. If you oppose the policy decisions of the Israeli government—a government elected by a large body of mostly Jews—that’s not antisemitism. But if you apply the bad decisions of that government to “the Jews,” then you are wrongly blaming a people for the sins of a group of individuals within that people.

Like many ethnic groups, Jews are disproportionately represented in certain industries. One example of this is the widely-recognized outsized influence of Jews in Hollywood. Because of this influence, some people posit that there is a Jewish plot to undermine our culture through that industry. That conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence. All that can be said is that some Jews are involved in promoting degeneracy, not “the Jews.”

Assigning corporate blame for the faults of a few is not only sinful, but counterproductive. Instead of targeting the actual individual perpetrators of evil, we waste time in conspiracy theories that do nothing to actually shut down the evil. Our time would be better spent evangelizing Jews to become Catholic.

Yes, there are antisemites in the world today. Sadly, however, since the term has lost its practical meaning, using that term to describe them, even if accurate, is probably an exercise in futility. Better to point out their sin and call them to repentance, rather than engage in semantic debates on what makes an antisemite. Because ultimately what matters is not dictionary definitions, but resisting hatred or animosity toward a people and bringing people to Christ.

Confrontational Catholicism

I’ve been publicly talking about the Catholic Faith for more than two decades. I’ve done this informally on a one-on-one basis as well as formally at parish and diocesan events. For the longest time I followed the primary rule established among public Catholics:

Above all, be nice.

Of course, the Nice Rule is not presented that way. It’s presented as being “charitable” and respecting each person’s “dignity.” Don’t get me wrong, we absolutely are called to charity, and each person does have dignity. But those were just code words for the actual underlying rule, to be nice. We don’t want anyone thinking Catholics are meanies, after all. We are obsessed, in fact, in how people perceive us, desperate for human respect from our opponents.

This attitude is based on the fundamental shift that occurred in the Church in the 1960’s, when Catholic leaders no longer felt we should proclaim the truth, but instead we should dialogue with error. If we all sit down at the table and hash things out, surely our enemies will come to their senses. But this can only happen if we are nice and polite.

The Nice Rule might have made some sense in the past. Although the culture was already deteriorating, basic Catholic beliefs were still considered socially acceptable and a legitimate option in the marketplace of ideas. Further, in the public mind there were still associations of Catholicism with the Inquisition and burning heretics (the historical veracity of which was irrelevant to the public imagination), so presenting a smiling front was seen as a way to disarm non-Catholics and advance the promulgation of the Faith.

But whether or not that was ever an effective strategy, it no longer makes sense in today’s world. The culture has radically changed in the past two decades, making the Nice Rule a defeatist strategy. Our opponents don’t want to sit at a table with us; they want to crush us. Yet I still see public Catholics continually stress that we must be charitable (read: nice) toward homosexual activists or that we must respect the dignity (read: downplay the insanity) of transgender people.

Our opponents don’t want to sit at a table with us; they want to crush us. Tweet This

Today we live in an era where powerful forces—in government, the media, academia, and other elite institutions—are actively working to eradicate our faith and groom our children for depravity. Applying the Nice Rule to these enemies is doomed to failure.

If someone supports a man shaking his bare ass in the face of kids at a Pride Parade, he is not a dialogue partner.

If someone labels Catholics as antisemitic or racist or misogynist or homophobic or transphobic, simply for believing Catholic teaching, he is not someone to debate.

If someone insists there’s nothing wrong with a man leaving his wife and family to find his “true self” as a “woman,” he is not someone to be reasoned with.

Most importantly, if any of these people support using State power to crush dissent from their views (and most of them do), then being nice just hastens the day faithful Catholics are arrested for their beliefs.

So what does this mean in practice? What does it mean to no longer be “nice?” It doesn’t mean we are jerks; but it does mean we stand up directly to evil, regardless of how our enemies may react. To put it simply, we are confrontational.

Let me give a recent example. Last Saturday, I joined a group of 100+ men who prayed the Rosary at the steps of our Cathedral church. This might not sound remarkable, but what made this different is that we did this while the city’s Pride Parade was starting right next to the Cathedral.

We held flags and images of the Sacred Heart and prayed in reparation to the Sacred Heart for the sins of the Pride participants. We asked God to convert the hearts of the unfaithful and have mercy on us all.

Now here’s the thing: I am sure that the Pride participants looked at us as if we were unloving, bigoted “haters.” One yelled out to us “Jesus wasn’t white!”, implying that we were all white supremacists. Our public image wasn’t “nice;” it was inherently confrontational.

I’m sure this is why many Catholics, especially public Catholics, don’t support such efforts as ours. Our event wasn’t advertised in any parish bulletins, and the Archbishop wasn’t endorsing us. Even if these Catholics oppose Pride activities, they don’t want to come across as uncharitable (i.e., not nice). Yet what we were doing was the most charitable thing possible: praying for their souls, proclaiming the true Faith, and directly combating the demonic forces present at the parade.

I saw a similar dynamic in the early 1990’s with the pro-life movement. Many of the respectable pro-life leaders opposed our direct action efforts at abortion clinics—sidewalk counseling, praying, and rescuing. They worried that it gave the pro-life movement a negative image; it was too confrontational. Yet that direct action was responsible for countless lives saved. We didn’t care that we didn’t look nice; we weren’t in it for PR, but for saving babies. Pro-abortion forces were going to hate us no matter what, so there was no sense in restricting our activities in order to get them to like us. 

Let me give another, albeit non-Catholic, example. Recently Tucker Carlson was at an event in Australia in which a liberal reporter started asking him questions that were set up to make Carlson look like a violent racist. 

Carlson masterfully turns the tables, refusing to accept the reporter’s false premises. He confronts her directly, even mocks her. Some might say Carlson was not being “charitable,” but his direct confrontation with her actually was charitable, for it revealed the truth for all to see. Catholics need to be just as confrontational when we are attacked and maligned.

Faithful Catholics today need to realize we have already lost the PR battle: our culture elites hate us and want to destroy us, no matter how nice we might try to sound. In that environment, we need to fight back and directly confront our enemies. We need to be praying at Pride Parades, directly opposing Drag Queen Story Hours, and urging our public libraries to not promote LGBTQ+ books. Yes, we’ll be seen as uncharitable and mean, but that’s our image anyway for simply not agreeing with their evil. So we might as well work against that evil.

We are the Church Militant, and we need to start acting like it again.

The Persecution of Donald Trump

Let me lay my cards out on the table: I don’t like Donald Trump. I never have. His faults are legion, and, aside from the significant exception of his Supreme Court picks, I was wholly unimpressed with his first term as president. He’s weak on abortion and gay marriage, he surrounded himself with swamp creatures while in office, and his actions in response to Covid were disastrous.

But do you know who I like far less than Donald Trump? His enemies. They are a veritable Who’s Who of the Worst People. From Deep State operatives to elite globalists to screeching Leftists, the people who hate Donald Trump are also the people who hate this country and hate me. The very fact that they despise Trump makes me pause in my own distaste for the man.

Since 2016, Trump’s enemies—and if you are a regular reader of this magazine, they are likely your enemies, too—have been hellbent (literally) to destroy him. At times I scratch my head as to why they hate him so much; contrary to what CNN or MSNBC will tell you, he didn’t rule as a dictator or try to “overthrow democracy.” He did post a lot of mean tweets, I guess. I suspect that much of the hatred toward him is that he didn’t have any interest in starting new wars, unlike almost every president for the past 60 years, and so the military-industrial complex and their friends in the Deep State wanted him out of the way.

So even before he stepped foot in the Oval Office in 2016 they have tried to pin the most ludicrous charges on him. He colluded with Russia (he didn’t). He attempted an insurrection (he didn’t).

Think about those charges for a moment. The sitting president of the United States was accused for both treason and insurrection, two of the worst possible crimes in any country. If true, he would deserve the death penalty in even the most civilized countries.

Of course, neither were true, which is why all the legal attempts to bring him down over the past few years have been unrelated to either of those serious charges. Instead, he has been charged with petty crimes based on novel legal theories (“Well, this isn’t actually a crime in the books, but if we look at the law while squinting and during a full moon, we might just get him!”). Now they have convicted him on 34 acts that are not even clearly illegal. It’s obvious this is a political witch hunt. Donald Trump’s crime is that they desperately don’t want him to be president. 

Now they have convicted him on 34 acts that are not even clearly illegal. It’s obvious this is a political witch hunt. Donald Trump’s crime is that they desperately don’t want him to be president. Tweet This

To be clear, I think all modern presidents are criminals. So I’m not pretending that Trump is innocent as a dove. But he’s no worse (and much better) than someone like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Those men, however, are feted and treated like royalty. They get to live off the riches that a life of “public service” now gets you. But Trump? He is treated as Hitler Incarnate while being prosecuted for petty crimes.

While I don’t know how this will impact the 2024 election, my first reaction is that the enemies of Donald Trump have overplayed their hands. I’ve already seen a number of people who either were undecided or were against Trump now leaning toward voting for him in November. I’m one of them. While I might not be convinced that Trump would be a great president, I am convinced that I don’t want to live in a country that uses the legal system like a third-world country, punishing political opponents under the guise of “justice.” If Donald Trump is in jail on November 5, I will vote for him even if I have to write his name in the ballot.

I do have two fears, however. The first is that this conviction will be used to keep Trump off the ballot, which would truly be a blow for democracy. For no matter what you think of Trump, he’s clearly the frontrunner to be the next president, supported by tens of millions of Americans. That leads me to my second fear. The justifiable frustration and anger among Trump supporters might lead a few of the less stable ones to do something stupid. This would then lead to January 6th type accusations and could even lead to canceling the election. If this sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory territory to you, then I’m afraid that you haven’t been paying close attention.

I do think there is a silver lining in all this. Our country has been living under an illusion for decades. That illusion is that our elected leaders look after our best interests, and that our justice system is unbiased and fair. I don’t think that’s been true for a long time, and now it’s abundantly clear to millions of Americans (as well as most of the rest of the world). By breaking the illusion, Trump’s conviction hopefully serves as a wake-up call. We don’t live in a democratic republic, a shining city on the hill. We live in a banana republic, a decaying country on its last legs.

The question remains: is it too late to save it?

What One Priest Had to Say About Crisis

Every spring, when we set out to raise the necessary funds to sustain Crisis Magazine throughout the rest of the year, I have an incredible opportunity to reflect on what it is that makes this publication so important. 

As donations come in (and they are coming in, alright! We are now almost 50% of the way towards our crucial $100,000 goal. Will you join the campaign now if you haven’t already?), I often receive thoughtful comments and emails from readers. It occurred to me that though I see these heartfelt notes all the time, you may not know just what a strong community you are a part of. 

So I want to give you a quick glimpse behind the curtain today. 

Many of our readers are mothers and fathers concerned about how the movements of the Church will affect their children; professors shaping young minds who need to be able to thoughtfully respond to the issues of the day on the fly; and parishioners who seek to understand what’s going on beyond Sunday Mass.

And some — a larger number than I would have guessed, based on the concentration of readers in Vatican City — are members of the clergy, the faithful men making decisions about how to lead their flocks. Not a few of these clergy are bishops, successors of the Apostles.

Just last month, I received an email from a priest letting me know he had just made a $100 donation and started a new monthly gift. Why?

He shared, “As a priest, I find your podcasts extremely helpful in writing my homilies. You are the best “Homily Service” without intending to be, bar none. Today’s podcast about AI is just one more example. Please continue the great work and service you are doing.”

Will you join the Spring Crisis Campaign with a gift in the amount that’s right for you today?

As you well know, and this reader comment confirms, the Catholic world needs a daily news website offering orthodox commentary on the issues afflicting the Church and political sphere today — but we simply cannot keep this service strong without you. 

Thank you to all who have given so far. If you haven’t yet made your Spring contribution, time is running out!

I hope you’ll join us. I mean it when I say every gift counts. Whether you can set aside $10 or $15 a month, toss an additional $50 in the Crisis basket, or even cover the cost for other readers through a $500 or $1,000 gift, your support matters.

Thank you, again, to all of you who are already supporting Crisis as donors and especially to all of you who are supporting this mission through prayer.God Bless You,

Eric Sammons
Editor-in-Chief

P.S. Remember, our Spring Crisis Campaign ends on midnight this Friday! Donate today to join the crucial $100,000 Spring Crisis Campaign before the deadline >>

Harrison Butker for President

Three-time Super Bowl Champion Harrison Butker is the latest target of the Woke Mob. His offense? Butker, a Catholic, spoke about Catholicism at a Catholic school’s graduation ceremonies. Clearly he now must be canceled.

Of course it’s more complicated than that. Butker specifically spoke of those aspects of Catholicism that we’re not supposed to talk about—such as a woman’s primary vocation to motherhood, the horror of abortion, and the evils of our degenerate culture. As long as Catholics speak only on “safe” Catholic beliefs, like kindness toward our neighbor and care for the poor, we’ll be left alone, but if any Catholic dare—and Butker dared—to publicly speak about Catholic beliefs that contradict our current zeitgeist, well, then we can’t have that, can we?

Here are some of the “controversial” things Butker said:

  • “Abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values and media all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder.”
  • “Our own nation is led by a man who publicly and proudly proclaims his Catholic faith but at the same time is delusional enough to make the sign of the cross during a pro-abortion rally.”
  • “To the gentleman here today, part of what plagues our society is this lie that has been told to you that men are not necessary in the home or in our communities. As men, we set the tone of the culture. And when that is absent disorder, dysfunction and chaos set in this absence of men in the home is what plays a large role in the violence we see all around the nation.”

And most offensive to modern, feminist-tainted ears:

  • “I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you, how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.”

These plain statements of Catholic belief are now controversial, but the reason they are controversial is because Catholic leaders, by and large, have been silent about these hard truths for over a generation. In the eyes of the world—and in the eyes of the average Catholic—Catholicism consists mostly of being nice and getting along with others. Deep truths about mankind which the Church offers the world, such as the humanity of the unborn and the fundamental differences between men and women, have been kept under a bushel basket while the world around us crumbles under its system of lies.

This strategy of silence on the part of our Catholic leaders is due to what I call “ghettoitis.” It is an affliction held by many bishops and priests for decades now. Catholic leaders are so desperate to be accepted by American society—to get out of the Catholic ghetto—that they will downplay any Catholic teachings that might offend the world’s ears. So they have played nice, all in an effort to get a seat at the table.

But the strategy backfired. Instead of getting a seat at the table, we became the lapdog, begging for scraps while our worldly masters pat us on the head as they go about their diabolical business. Playing nice has led to us becoming irrelevant; we are only allowed to speak on “safe” topics and are forbidden to preach the hard truths of Catholicism. We have gone from self-silencing ourselves to being forcibly silenced by the Woke Mob. Yet, as Butker said, “if we are going to be men and women for this time in history we need to stop pretending that the ‘Church of nice’ is a winning proposition.”

Playing nice has led to us becoming irrelevant; we are only allowed to speak on “safe” topics and are forbidden to preach the hard truths of Catholicism.Tweet This

The efforts to silence Harrison Butker are escalating—the NFL has condemned his remarks and a petition has started to demand that his team, the Kansas City Chiefs, cut him from their roster. He is only facing this cancellation because our shepherds have been silent for so long. Their silence has led to demands that a faithful Catholic be silenced for saying Catholic things. While we can’t go back in time and change the failed strategy of silence, we can, going forward, speak out. Now is the time for all faithful Catholics—bishops, priests, religious, and lay alike—to stand behind Harrison Butker and say to the world that full unadulterated Catholicism will not be silenced.

All that being said, do I really think Harrison Butker should be president? Lord, no, I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy. But I do think we need leaders willing to speak out on the deep truths about humanity, opposing the lies of feminism, the homosexual/transgender movements, and the woke mob. Sadly, too many of our leaders, both religious and political, are unwilling to do this, but thank God at least one public figure, a football kicker no less, is willing to do so.

God bless Harrison Butker.

Why I Didn’t Sign the Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis

Last week a group of 17 prominent Catholics released a “Call for the Resignation of Pope Francis.” In the lengthy statement, they claim that “the words and actions of Pope Francis have caused an unprecedented crisis in the Catholic Church.” The statement details a laundry list of alleged crimes—against canonical, civil, natural, and divine law—committed by Pope Francis during his pontificate, as well as alleged heresies he has promulgated.

Due to these crimes and heresies, the signatories call for Pope Francis to resign the papal office. If he refuses, the signatories request that cardinals and bishops ask Francis to resign. If Francis still refuses, the signatories finally ask the cardinals and bishops to declare that he has lost the papal office. So you see this statement is more than just a call for the resignation of Pope Francis; it is a call for his deposition.

In most times in Church history, such a statement would be shocking and scandalous. But we don’t live in “most times;” we live in an unprecedented time in which the holder of the papal office is a source of division and confusion, rather than one of unity and clarity, as is intended by Our Lord. Desperate times lead to desperate measures, as they say, and calling for the resignation and even deposition of the pope is clearly a desperate measure. But that does not necessarily make it a bad measure.

Prior to the statement’s release, I was asked to add my name but I declined. I have signed similar public statements in the past, but I did not feel comfortable adding my signature to this particular one, and I’d like to explain why.

I should make clear first that while I don’t know all the signatories, I do know a few, and I have a deep respect for two in particular, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and John-Henry Westen. I do not doubt the sincerity of their motives, and I know they have thought through this statement in prayer and even trepidation. It was not a rash decision made out of human frustration that led them to sign it, but instead a deep love for the Church, for the office of the papacy, and for souls.

Further, while I have not fully researched every claim made in the statement, on the whole I essentially agree with their analysis of the Francis pontificate. This pontificate has been deeply scandalous, and this statement will be a useful resource for historians when writing about this black mark in the history of the papacy.

This pontificate has been deeply scandalous, and this statement will be a useful resource for historians when writing about this black mark in the history of the papacy.Tweet This

So why did I not sign it myself?

First, I think these public statements have diminishing returns. When the first ones were released a few years ago, it was a real story: distinguished Catholics willing to publicly criticize a pope’s actions. But it seems to me that most Catholics now take a “ho-hum dog bites man” approach to them. It’s no secret that many Catholics have serious concerns about Pope Francis and are willing to state them publicly, so another statement isn’t really that newsworthy or effective in moving the needle in the discussion.

Second, it seems a bit unseemly to me for lay people to be calling for the pope to resign. The papacy isn’t a political office in which we start impeachment proceedings when we don’t like what the office-holder is doing. Calling for the resignation of the pope comes across a bit like Republicans trying to oust Bill Clinton or Democrats doing the same to Donald Trump. While the papacy has always been surrounded by political machinations, public calls for the pope to resign or bishops to pressure him to resign is a step too far, in my mind.

There’s also the problem that Francis is the immediate successor to the first pope to resign in eight centuries. To have two popes resign, in succession, gives a strong impression that the papacy is just another political office that can be manipulated and controlled by political factions in the Church. This was the impression of the papacy during the 10th century pornocracy, and it led to an extreme diminishment of the office.

But I have a deeper concern. Note that both of my concerns thus far are prudential matters. I understand that Catholics of goodwill might disagree, and feel that the harm done by this papacy far outweighs the harm that might result from a statement calling for the pope’s resignation. My last concern is more pressing, for it is theological in nature.

The statement declares, “If Pope Francis refuses to resign, the duty of the bishops and cardinals is to proceed to declare that he has lost the papal office for heresy.” This is a daring claim, for the fact remains that it is a debated point in Catholic theology how a pope can be deposed, or even if it is possible. Theologians have debated this in the past with no definitive resolution (despite what that anonymous Catholic account on Twitter might insist). Yet this statement declares that it is the “duty” of the bishops and cardinals to do so.

Can cardinals and bishops declare that a sitting pope has lost his office? If so, how many prelates does it take to make it legitimate? A majority, more than 25%, or something else? What if other cardinals and bishops reject that declaration? What if the pope refuses to accept the declaration?

These are all questions without definitive answers. A number of years ago I wrote an article arguing that a pope cannot be deposed, a position shared by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. Since writing that, however, I have become less sure of that viewpoint. History is messy, including papal history, and I think a good argument can be made that past popes have been deposed on rare occasions, typically by emperors. That being said, there’s still no clear mechanism today for deposing a pope (other than perhaps to have an emperor again!).

To me, then, a statement calling on cardinals and bishops to depose a pope is putting the cart before the horse. First there would need to be agreement on whether such a deposition is possible, and if so, the mechanism to make it happen. Until then, such calls are premature.

My heart is with the signatories of this call, and Catholics must come to grips with the depths of scandal of this papacy. We need to pray for the pope and the Church, and expose the errors and crimes of Pope Francis. But calling for his deposition just adds to the confusion of our times instead of helping relieve it.

Should We Have AI Doing Catholic Apologetics?

Catholics Answers just announced the release of the “Father Justin” interactive AI app, which will “provide users with faithful and educational answers to questions about Catholicism.”

I have to admit, I have a lot of conflicting thoughts on this.

As a former tech geek, I still get excited by advances in technology. On just that basis, it’s amazing what these apps can do. I took “Father Justin” on a test drive, and “he” did a good job of answering even difficult questions. I asked about abortion, homosexuality, the traditional Latin Mass, the legitimacy of Pope Francis, and many other topics. Every time “Father Justin” gave a solid, faithfully-Catholic answer (he almost even sounds like Jimmy Akin at times). There’s no comparison between this AI and something like ChatGPT when it comes to receiving truly Catholic answers.

I’m also a fan of Catholic Answers, so I’d rather see them develop something like this than, for example, the National Catholic Reporter or Catholics for Choice. Interactive AI apps are the rage right now, so having a solid Catholic organization dipping its toe into that space is probably needed.

But…(you knew there would be a “but,” didn’t you?)

I can’t help feeling some trepidation about this foray into artificial intelligence. As I noted above I’m a former tech geek, and there’s a reason for the “former” part. I’ve become more wary over the years of the negative impact of modern technology on our lives, so I don’t embrace every new “advance” as an unqualified good, or even as something morally neutral. Modern technology impacts us in ways we don’t fully understand, and in ways, I would say, that make us less human. There’s real concerns with AI beyond sensational claims of robot overlords, and I fear that the blurring of AI with “real life” could have long-term negative consequences on society.

Further, and I’m sure Catholic Answers would agree, apologetics is much more than just answering questions correctly. There’s always a relational element to both evangelization and apologetics. For example, someone is going to hear an apologetic answer differently from a close friend than from someone they don’t like, or from a stranger. Who knows how they will receive it from a computer pretending to be a priest? Human society is made to be modeled after the Trinity, which is an eternal relationship of Three Persons, and AI in many ways breaks that model. I understand that the Internet already started this process, but that doesn’t mean every step in that direction must be taken.

Another concern with the “Father Justin” app is the decision to make the AI character a priest. Not only is “Father Justin” dressed as a priest, but in one answer “he” gave me, “he” actually started his answer with, “As a Catholic priest…” I understand this was done to give “him” a certain air of authority; as Catholic Answers said, “We wanted to convey the spirit and nature of the responses users can expect—authoritative yet approachable.”

But there’s a reason impersonating a priest is a serious canonical crime: a priest is sacramentally “another Christ” and gets his authority not from knowing the most Catholic theology, but from his ordination. Having a lay person as the AI character would definitely make it seem less authoritative and less distinctly Catholic to the average user, but I’m not sure making “him” a priest was for the best.

None of my concerns are meant to question the motivations of Catholic Answers, of course. I understand that the reality is that we live in a world where many people engage in question-and-answer exchanges with AI, so having a faithfully Catholic option is an understandable desire of many Catholics. Yet I can’t help but think that there’s deeper issues here, ones that threaten to undermine a Catholic incarnational understanding of the world, all while sincerely trying to advance Catholicism.

Call me an old fogey (I’ve been called worse), but at least for me I’ll continue to consult and recommend real people, not computer simulations of them, for better understanding the Catholic Faith.

Have You No Decency, Holy Father?

Ideology is not the same thing as religion. Most religions, even though often wrong about many things, seek to better the person practicing it; they have similar moral codes, which typically include kindness to those less fortunate and decency toward others. Ideology, on the other hand, cares little for individual persons and focuses completely on the goals of The Cause. Things like kindness and decency are jettisoned in pursuit of those goals. Think of the difference between a Quaker and a Communist: which would you rather have as a neighbor?

I bring this up because of the recently released memoirs of Pope Francis. At one point in the included interviews, the subject of the Covid vaccines came up. I’m not here to re-litigate either the morality and effectiveness of the vaccines. We covered this topic in-depth here at Crisis, and to be honest, what we said back then has turned out to be completely true. In short, the vaccines were tainted with abortion and the morality of taking them was at the very least questionable. No one was morally required to receive the vaccines, as even the Vatican acknowledged. As to effectiveness, only the most hard-core ideologues still think the vaccines were able to stop or even substantially slow the spread of Covid. People of good will now recognize the vaccines at best simply lessened the symptoms in some people, and at worst caused more injuries than they prevented.

Sadly, Pope Francis appears to be one of those hard-core ideologues, not a person of good will. And like most ideologues, he is happy to deny reality and to demean and disparage any who might disagree with him. He stated that “being against the antidote [the Covid vaccines] is an almost suicidal act of denial.” Considering the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the Covid vaccines prevented deaths on any significant scale (and likely caused deaths in some who took them), this statement is itself an “act of denial:” a denial of reality. But this is the way of the ideologue: reality and facts don’t matter; all that matters is The Cause.

But it gets worse. Francis then made a veiled—and disgraceful—comment about Cardinal Raymond Burke, who opposed the vaccines and almost died of Covid. The pope said, “There were even a few anti-vaxxers among the bishops: some came close to death.” This was the second time Francis made such a jab at Cardinal Burke. He describes Burke as an “anti-vaxxer” when he knows that neither the Cardinal nor most opponents of the Covid vaccines were against all vaccines, and he implies that Burke almost died because he didn’t get the vaccine when those who didn’t get vaccinated didn’t have higher death rates than those who did get vaxed.  

To be honest, my first thought upon reading the pope’s comments was, “Is he really so petty?” Not only are his statements not very Christian, they are not even decent. I wouldn’t expect such a low remark from a good-natured atheist, much less a Catholic, much less the leader of the Catholic Church. Even if the pope were right about the effectiveness of the vaccine (but again, he isn’t), to treat someone’s serious illness as a means to promote one’s viewpoint is despicable.

Unfortunately, though, we’ve come to expect this from our current leader. Like the ideologue he is, Pope Francis treats his perceived enemies with contempt. It’s no secret the pope doesn’t like Cardinal Burke and so he is an obstacle to be overcome in Francis’s drive to achieve his goals. What’s amazing is how much both the mainstream and Catholic media still carry water for Francis, claiming he’s about “mercy.” Perhaps for those who don’t dare raise their voices against his Program, but not to any who put the Faith (or medical safety) before obeisance to the Pope’s Program.

While this behavior from the Supreme Pontiff is disappointing and discouraging, it’s no longer surprising. Just yesterday the Vatican News website featured an image created by the monster Fr. Marko Rupnick on the front page. This is a man who has done such horrific and blasphemous acts I don’t want to even list them here. Yet Pope Francis’s Vatican has such contempt for Rupnick’s victims that they still treat the disgraced priest with respect and even admiration. Why? Because Rupnick has been an ideological friend, and ideologues are as forgiving of their friends as they are ruthless to their enemies.

I realize bad news related to Pope Francis has, at this point, become wearying. We don’t cover every single uncharitable act or confusing statement made by Francis. Yet it is important to periodically note that, like some popes before him, this pope is not a good man, much less a good pope. As we near the end of Lent, let us offer prayers and penances for Holy Mother Church, and pray that she be blessed with a good and holy pope, or even a decent one, very soon.

The Interview That Could Reshape the World

How often does an interview with a nation’s leader become a 1,000-year history lesson? If you live in America, never. Can you imagine an American politician being asked a question and beginning his answer, “Well, in 1842 we saw…” Heck, our current president can’t even remember what happened yesterday, much less in 988. But if you are interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin, such a discussion is at least a possibility, as can be seen from his interview this week with Tucker Carlson. (One has to wonder how much of this extensive history lesson was simply a flex; a demonstration that the Russian President can mentally run circles around the American President.)

The 2-hour-long interview was a fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Russian leader, something we rarely see here in the censored United States. It likely came across as boring to a lot of Americans (a Daily Beast headline read “Putin Nearly Bores Tucker to Death with 2-Hour History Class“), but that’s because our collective memories barely go back a few months, much less hundreds of years, and our attention spans are limited to 280 characters and edgy memes. Yet a deep understanding of history is essential to understand our current world geopolitics.

In fact, it is Americans’ ignorance of history that allows the propaganda machine of our Political Class to operate successfully. For the past two years, these Elites and their flunkies in the Corporate Media have pretended that history began on February 24, 2022, the day Russia invaded Ukraine (or, as Putin puts it, when Russia “intensified” the conflict that he says began with the Ukrainian coup d’état in 2014). This ignorance allows flaks from Hillary Clinton to George Weigel to present a cartoonish version of what is happening there: Putin=Hitler; Russians=bad, Ukrainians=good; Putin only invaded because he has imperial designs on all of Europe.

Knowledgeable analysts have always known this was a ridiculous and dishonest assessment, but it was necessary for the military-industrial complex here in the US to sell our role in the conflict to the American people. Sending billions of dollars to Ukraine (much of which actually goes to American military contractors) is only palatable if it is sold as an existential threat to our country, which it never was.

Putin’s long history lesson was full of gaps, of course, and purposefully only included events that make Russia look favorable. Of course, that’s how most political leaders tell history: in a favorable light to their own country. Yet the history he told since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 is essentially correct, and knowledge of this time period is vital to understanding today’s conflict.

The United States and the West repeatedly broke promises made in good faith to Russia, and has repeatedly provoked Russia over the past 30 years by consistently moving the NATO border—along with our military bases and missiles—closer and closer to Russia’s border, against the clear warnings of Russia’s leadership (Putin is not alone in Russian leadership in decrying this expansion).

To be clear, “provoked” is not the same as “justified.” Noting the factualness of Putin’s account of recent history is not a defense of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But it’s necessary to acknowledge these realities if peace is ever to be achieved. We must recognize that Russia will defend its own interests, and demanding its complete capitulation is a fool’s errand.

Thus, if we insist on the cartoonish representation of Putin as a modern-day Hitler, we’ll never be willing to sit down and negotiate an end to this bloody conflict. Sadly, this is exactly what happened in March 2022, one month after the invasion, when British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (clearly in union with the Biden Administration) forced Ukraine to reject a peace initiative, an initiative Ukraine itself was ready to sign.

If we insist on the cartoonish representation of Putin as a modern-day Hitler, we’ll never be willing to sit down and negotiate an end to this bloody conflict.Tweet This

Yet my purpose here isn’t to re-debate U.S. involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict (I’ve already commented on it here, here, here, and here). Instead it’s to note how important Tucker Carlson’s interview was for promoting peace, and how it reflects the changing landscape in media, a change I believe is vital to the cause of peace and freedom.

The Corporate Media is happy to caricature Putin as a thuggish dictator, just as they caricature Donald Trump as a wannabe dictator. This satisfies their masters in the Political Class, and so they do all they can to censor their targets. It’s easy to caricature someone if you never allow him to present his own point of view. But with the rise of alternative media, the Corporate Media’s ability to engage in such censorship is weakening.

(I know that CNN and others say they repeatedly asked for a Putin interview and were refused. Do you blame him? In just the past few months, the media has refused to broadcast some of Trump’s speeches, and cut out sections of an interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. that they claimed was “false information.”)

Fortunately, people are waking up to this game. As just one indicator of the Corporate Media’s decline, it would take 226 days for CNN to have as many cumulative viewers during prime time as Carlson’s interview with Putin received in its first 17 hours. More and more people are rejecting the sound-byte-driven, Narrative-pushing Corporate Media for the long-form, open-to-different-views alternative media. This terrifies our ruling Political Class, because they know the more knowledgeable the populace, the weaker their grip on power.

Getting to hear from Vladimir Putin directly is a good thing, period. That doesn’t mean we must embrace his narrative any more than our own President’s (Putin’s claims about wanting to “denazify” Ukraine, for example, seem to be cynically driven for propaganda purposes). Hearing from the “other side,” however, does allow us to realize that in every conflict there are multiple points of view, multiple grievances, and each side has its own perspective of what led to the conflict and what continues it. Recognizing that fact is the first step toward peace, and for interviewing Vladimir Putin, we should all thank Tucker Carlson. 

Let’s Pray That Texas Doesn’t Blink

The years-long showdown between Texas and the Federal Government over the Texas-Mexico border took a dramatic—and potentially dangerous—turn this week. The Supreme Court (with Amy Coney Barrett as the deciding vote) ruled that Texas could not prevent the Federal Government from taking down the barbed wire fence that Texas installed along part of the border. In turn, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered the Texas National Guard to defend the barbed wire fence (and thus the border), saying that it was a matter of the state’s self-defense that supersedes the Supreme Court ruling.

The stakes were raised even higher when 25 Republican governors signed a letter in support of Governor Abbott. Some governors also pledged to send their own national guards to support the Texas resistance to the Federal Government. Not surprisingly, many now speak of a potential civil war brewing.

While a civil war would be horrific, I believe all right-thinking Americans should support Texas in this fight, and in fact should support more states standing up to the Federal Government, even to the point of considering secession.

I’ve made clear over the years my own support for secession. I think our country is simply too big to succeed. Our political system has gotten progressively more and more oppressive over the years, and our current Federal Government makes many past empires seem like subsidiary dreamlands in comparison. We need to break up into multiple nations, and hopefully this Texas resistance is a step in that direction.

When I first argued for secession back in 2015-2016, I knew it was a fantasy, and most people regarded the idea as quixotic at best, treasonous at worst. But then 2020 happened. The different responses taken by states to the Covid pandemic reminded Americans that states do matter; they are not just cogs in the Federal Machine. Millions moved as a result, and a certain patriotism toward one’s state rather than the country as a whole was strengthened. Now people started to wonder if their state would be better off outside of the Federal Government’s control.

National Divorce is part of the national conversation, and it’s being taken more seriously by more people. Good. But there’s still so many false assumptions made about a potential National Divorce, most of them stemming from public school indoctrination about our nation’s history.

National Divorce is part of the national conversation, and it’s being taken more seriously by more people. Good.Tweet This

First, a breakup does not automatically mean a civil war. Many nations around the world have broken up over the years without a shot being fired. The most obvious example is the Soviet Union, but there are others as well. The current situation in Texas, for example, does not have to escalate into violent bloodshed: the Federal Government could just back down and recognize Texas’s right to defend itself. Bloodshed will only happen if the Federal Government wants it to happen.

Another false assumption is that a National Divorce would result in two and only two new nations. It must be North/South or something simplistic like that. But a National Divorce could lead to three, four, or even more new nations. There’s no natural law that requires a certain minimum size of a nation (see: Europe). While the Corporate Media likes to separate us into Blue States and Red States, the reality of our differences is far more complex. While Montana and Alabama might both be Red States, how they want to govern and live can vary widely. Why force them together?

It’s also believed by many that a national divorce must follow current state lines. The reality is that we are mostly divided between city and rural areas—Chicago is as unlike parts of southern Illinois as many European countries are from each other. A National Divorce could include many state divorces.

This might sound like chaos. After all, why would anyone prefer the uncertainty of shifting borders over a unified, peaceful nation? When that “unified, peaceful nation” uses its power to trample on individual’s rights, shoves cultural degradation on its citizens, creates money out of thin air to further enrich the Elites, and spends more money protecting Ukraine’s borders than our own, then uncertainty becomes much more attractive. Or at least becomes the better of two bad choices.

National Divorce, if it is to happen peacefully, would not happen overnight. In fact, it already began in 2020 with the flight of many people to states that were better on Covid policies. As states make clear where they stand on the issues that matter, citizens will continue to vote with their feet—the only vote that really matters. Florida and Texas have already seen massive immigration from other states in the past few years and there’s no reason to think that will slow down.

That immigration will strengthen leaders’ resolve to stand up to the Federal Government. Look at Ron DeSantis. He barely won in his first run for Governor of Florida, but won reelection by a landslide, helped partly by new Floridians who came due to his strong leadership during Covid. If Governor Abbot doesn’t fold, look for more people to move to Texas as well. 

This internal immigration is a good thing, as it makes National Divorce more inevitable, and more peaceful. At some point, most people will wake up and realize that it’s easier to go our separate ways rather than fight to control each other. 

Let’s pray that Governor Abbott and the people of Texas continue to stand strong, and that one day we look back at this conflict as but one step to a peaceful National Divorce.

There’s Some Good in This Church and It’s Worth Fighting For

It’s been a month since the release of Fiducia Supplicans, and faithful Catholics can be forgiven if that scandalous document put a damper on their Christmas spirit. After all, it’s yet another scandal coming out of a Vatican full of them lately, and it’s easy for Catholics to become demoralized in the face of this reality.

The possibility of demoralization and even despair among faithful Catholics today is the reality behind the most common question I receive from readers: How do we live joyfully as Catholics when from all human appearances the Church seems to be self-destructing? How can we remain faithful to God’s promises when we see millions of souls—including the souls of loved ones—being lost every year?

I won’t pretend to have the definitive answer to these tough questions, although I do try to address them in a recent podcast. I can say what I personally do, what I would call “detached monitoring and response.” What I mean by that is that I monitor what is going on at the highest levels of the Church, for I know those activities have a real impact on people I care about—my family, my friends, my fellow parishioners. Of course, this is the purpose of Crisis: to inform readers of the crisis in the Church and help them navigate through it.

I also, when necessary, respond to the various scandals happening in the Church. We are sometimes criticized here at Crisis for supposedly rejoicing in scandal so that we can have more click-baity articles to publish. Nothing could be further from the truth: I’d love to shut Crisis down tomorrow, because that would mean there is no great crisis in the Church to which to respond. However, there is a crisis, and so we will continue to respond to it. Each person of course has a different sphere of influence and so each person’s response will be different. But we can’t put our heads in the sand and act like everything is awesome. Souls are too valuable.

So I monitor and I respond to today’s crisis. But it’s a detached monitoring and response. By that I mean that I don’t obsess about the latest news from Rome (or from Washington); I don’t spend all day doomscrolling my social media feeds to see the latest scandal and the reactions to that scandal, and the reactions to those reactions. That’s not healthy, spiritually, mentally, or even physically.

But just resolving to not do something usually doesn’t work long-term: the pull of social media and its algorithms is strong. So we must replace that activity with others. And here is where I think we open our eyes to see the good that God is doing in the world. These things are usually not “news-worthy” in the sense that they won’t make the front page of the New York Times or even Crisis Magazine, but in God’s eyes they are likely vitally important.

For example, just since the release of Fiducia Supplicans, at my parish alone the following has happened:

A recently-married young couple, who met through our parish, announced that they are expecting their first child.

Another young couple, who also met through our parish, was married in a beautiful ceremony.

Yet another young couple (this time, my own son and his fiancée) celebrated the mostly forgotten but still beautiful Rite of Betrothal.

This is God working in my own little corner of the world, and I’m sure He’s working in yours as well. We just need to raise our eyes from our devices to see it. And over time, these small activities will make a large impact on the Church and the world. They are the mustard seed which grows into the beautiful and fruitful tree.

Beautiful acts of faith are happening all over the world as well. I’m honored to be part of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima and one of our current projects is building well-constructed chapels in parts of rural Philippines to replace chapels that are little more than a few bamboo poles and a steel roof.

Note the condition of the old chapel in which these wonderful Catholics are standing.
The new chapel, almost completed.

These faithful Catholics, who often only are able to hear Mass once a month or less, will now have a beautiful—and more permanent—place of worship, all because of the charity of other faithful Catholics.

I don’t want to give the impression that I’m advocating a pollyannaish view of the Church. I know we’re in a crisis and to ignore that reality is to reject Our Lord’s call to live in this time of trial. Yet in the midst of these trials God is still pouring out His graces, we just need to look up to see it happening all around us.

(And yes, I’m currently re-reading The Lord of the Rings [which is also a great way to keep a good perspective on today’s crisis], thus the title of this article. Be like Sam!)

The Dangerous Hope for an Empty Hell

Yesterday Pope Francis said, “This isn’t dogma, just my thought: I like to think of Hell as being empty. I hope it is.” As often happens following a controversial papal statement, debate broke out online as to whether this is a legitimate—i.e., an orthodox—viewpoint for a Catholic.

While that’s an important question, especially when speaking of the pope, it actually misses a more important point—the impact of hoping that Hell is empty.

But let’s first address whether or not this comment is orthodox. The pope’s first part, “I like to think of Hell as being empty,” isn’t really a dogmatic statement, as he himself notes. It’s just how he imagines Hell. I can imagine Heaven as a suburban country club—kinda like The SimpsonsProtestant Heaven“—and that isn’t heresy; it’s just my imagination. If the pope were to argue definitively—or attempt to define dogmatically—that Hell is empty, then we would need to argue about whether it was orthodox or not (spoiler: not).

And then Pope Francis goes beyond his imagination to his desires: “I hope it is [empty].” Again, this is not a dogmatic statement. I hope that the Cincinnati Reds will win the World Series this year, and I can have that (somewhat unlikely) hope if I want. Likewise, if the pope desires that Hell is empty, he can do so if he wants.

Of course, the pope’s hope that Hell is empty isn’t as harmless as my hope for a World Championship for my favorite baseball team. Our hopes very much shape our actions and our beliefs: my love for the Reds leads me to attend their games and emotionally invest myself in their success (and, too often, failure). Likewise, a hope that Hell is empty has a huge impact on how we live as Catholics. This, in my mind, is the more important question, rather than more endless debates on the orthodoxy of the pope’s off-the-cuff statement.

As I detail in my book, Deadly Indifference, there’s been a huge emphasis shift in how Catholics view the salvation of non-Catholics in the past century. Until the middle of the 20th century, it was assumed by most Catholics that most (if not all) non-Catholics were destined for eternal hellfire. Yes, the Church long taught that one could be saved by a baptism of desire, but this teaching was something relegated mostly to theological debate among scholars and churchmen. The common view—and the common teaching heard from the pulpit—is that Catholics should assume that non-Catholics were very likely going to Hell.

This common assumption had massive implications. The most vital being that Catholics felt a duty to work for the conversion of non-Catholics, whether that be by supporting missionary works or by urging non-Catholics to become Catholic. It also meant that Catholics were wary of becoming too culturally close to non-Catholics. “Mixed marriages” were verboten, and Catholics tended to live together in small neighborhoods (the Catholic “ghetto”) in order to protect the faith of their impressionable children. And finally, most Catholics doggedly remained Catholic, knowing the alternative could be unthinkably horrible.

Once that emphasis shifted, however, and Catholics began to expand the application of baptism of desire to its breaking point (a majority of Catholics now believe other religions can lead a person to Heaven), then how Catholics lived and interacted with non-Catholics dramatically changed.

Missions collapsed. Catholic neighborhoods disappeared. And Catholics left the Church by the millions.

This is not a coincidence. If you don’t believe you need to be Catholic to get to Heaven—or, more radically, you believe everyone is getting to Heaven regardless of how they live here on earth (“Hello, Mr. Hitler! Good to see you here in Heaven!”)—then the importance of both practicing the Faith and sharing it with others collapses. Catholicism is reduced to something that makes you feel good; a social club with some cool-looking ceremonies.

Now, one could spin the pope’s comment that “I hope [Hell] is [empty]” by saying that the Catechism itself states that “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved'” (CCC 1821). But there is a big difference between hoping Hell is empty and hoping and praying for the salvation of each individual soul.

By this author:

To return to my baseball analogy, before each Reds game next season, I will hope that the Reds will win. However, if you asked me if the Reds will win every game next season, I know they will not. Losing some games is just the reality of a 162-game baseball season, no matter how much I hope for victory.

Likewise, if you ask me if I hope for the salvation of any specific person—my wife, my kids, President Biden, Elon Musk—I will answer in the affirmative. However, I know—because Christ has made it clear that this is the reality—there are people in Hell. As the Catechism states, 

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” (CCC 1035)

An empty Hell undermines the entire purpose of Catholicism, and makes a mockery out of the words of Jesus, who warned us to avoid Hell and talked of people being thrown into the eternal fire (cf. Mt. 25:41). Jesus, in fact, talked more about Hell than he did about Heaven. Why bother if no one is going there? In fact, if Hell is in fact empty, that makes Jesus a deceiver, for his words assume people have gone—and will continue to go—there.

So we can see that Pope Francis’s hope that Hell is empty is not harmless wishful thinking. It leads people away from a serious practice of the faith, and it leads them away from bringing others to a serious practice of the faith. 

Ironically, a hope that Hell is empty will do much to help fill it up.

An Urgent Note

“There are decades in which nothing happens, and there are weeks
in which decades happen.” 

I don’t often quote Lenin, but I feel like decades of change have happened in the Catholic Church over the past several weeks.

When historians look back on our time, they will undoubtedly see it as one of upheaval and confusion.

Just in the past month or so:

● Bishop Joseph Strickland, one of the most faithful and beloved bishops in the U.S. episcopate, was ousted as the head of the Diocese of Tyler, TX for reasons that remain unpublished.

● The Synod on Synodality resurrected for debate, yet again, topics that have been authoritatively declared settled Catholic doctrine.

● Pope Francis has kicked Cardinal Burke out of his papal apartment and revoked his stipend.

● Five prominent Cardinals have had to again challenge the Pope by issuing a new dubia requesting clarification on his positions on homosexuality and female ordination — and being ignored.

● No investigation is being launched into accusations of vile serial abuse by Father Marko Rupnik, and despite being expelled from the Jesuits, he was made a diocesan priest by his home bishop.

Mankind is under staggering attack and disoriented like never before.

A burning wind is blowing yet a shocking number of Church faithful seem not to even notice. Our ways and our devices are bringing terrible misfortune upon us, yet Holy Mother Church seems to sleep! Where are the decrees, the warnings, the corrections, the fullness of Truth being proclaimed? 

A stunning transformation of society is taking place right before our eyes:

A preposterous climate alarmism is being foisted upon us by craven elites.

Men pretending to be women are shattering athletic records and invading women’s restrooms, locker rooms, and prisons.

The traditional family is being undermined. Our economy is being destabilized, seemingly intentionally. 

Rather than shaking slumbering souls awake and leading them by word and example to the joys of living in freedom and Truth, too many Church leaders have averted their gaze.

Now more than ever, mankind needs to live in the might of God’s power. We need to put on the Lord’s armor to withstand the deceits of the devil.

Our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of darkness and the spirits of wickedness in the high places. 

Where can one find this armor of God, this breastplate of justice that enables us to resist in the evil day? Where can one gain the spiritual nourishment we all need to fight back vice and temptation and stand in all things perfect?

Where can we find the shield of faith that extinguishes the fiery darts of the wicked one — and take up the sword of the Spirit to engage in the battle that’s raging all around us?

At Crisis Magazine, each and every day. 

We are keeping the millions who read our incisive commentary each year tethered to the barque of Peter as we navigate these treacherous waters together.

Crisis awakens the hypnotized.

Crisis covers the issues and tells the truth. 

Crisis amplifies those voices within the Church that need to be heard. 

Crisis brings intellectual force to the theological and cultural battles of our time. 

Crisis is unique and desperately needed in today’s world.

Which is why “the world” wants it to go away. 

There is a price to pay for confronting totalitarian Leftist thought both within and outside the Church. Major advertisers will not buy advertising space on Crisis Magazine, and many of our articles continue being removed from Google for violating their policies. 

Ever since Facebook launched its crackdown on so-called “hate speech,” the shares and likes on our social media postings have plummeted. 

Yet, by the grace of God, our readership continues to grow — now into the many millions! 

But we’ve come to a critical point where the expenses of operating Crisis at peak efficiency are overwhelming our revenues and cash reserves. 

So I am again turning to you and asking if you will please make a tax-deductible gift to support, sustain, and grow Crisis Magazine by making a tax-deductible gift of $25, $30, $50, $100, $500, $1,000, or more today.

We can become an even stronger and louder voice for orthodox Catholicism in 2024, but we need your help.

So will you please make your tax-deductible gift today?

Any amount you give will be welcome, whether it is $25, $50, $100, $250, $1,000, or even $5,000 or more.

If you are able, will you sponsor Crisis for a week with a gift of $2,000? Or a full month for $8,000?

The most important way you can give:
If you are able to become a monthly contributor to Crisis Magazine you will be giving us the clearest path to the stability and predictability we so desperately need.

You can become a monthly contributor by clicking it on our form here.

We also accept Cryptocurrency donations
Bitcoin is pumping just in time for our fundraising campaign, so if you want to avoid paying capital gains tax, you can donate your Bitcoin or other crytocurrencies to Crisis Magazine.

To do so, visit our main donate page here and click on “Donate Crypto.” Below that icon you’ll see the various cryptocurrencies you can donate to support our work.

We can accept additional cryptocurrencies as well, so if you don’t see what you want to donate listed, send me an email.

*      *       *

Please help us broaden and intensify the most resounding voice speaking up for the Church and its people in the current CRISES we are facing. Please consider supporting Crisis Magazine with the most generous gift you can afford this Christmas season.

And of course, remember us in your prayer and sacrifices. Beg the intercession of the saints, particularly our patron, St. Francis de Sales. Pray that the optimal words, themes, and voices be given to us so that we can continue enlightening people’s understanding of reality, making known the mysteries of the gospel, and boldly speaking truth to power.

God Bless You,

Eric Sammons
Editor-in-Chief


Donate online
HERE


Donate by Mail:
Crisis Magazine
PO Box 5284
Manchester, NH 03108

Donate Cryptocurrencies
HERE

Donate appreciated stock:
Email me at [email protected]

Does Pope Francis Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt?

One of the most common statements I’ve heard from Catholics over the past decade is, “We should give the pope the benefit of the doubt.” When someone criticizes Pope Francis for a questionable statement or action, you inevitably see some Catholics jumping in to say we need to give him the “benefit of the doubt.”

The most recent case was the sacking of Bishop Strickland. No official reason was given, but we are supposed to give Francis the benefit of the doubt and assume there’s a just reason for this shocking papal act. Why? Because he’s the pope, that’s why.

But is this a legitimate frame of mind for Catholics? After all, what does this mean, to give someone the “benefit of the doubt?” Does it always apply in every situation, to every person, in every act? Or do unlimited benefits of the doubt apply only to the pope? Can a pope exhaust how many benefits we give him before we no longer extend to him this courtesy?

First, what does it mean to give someone the benefit of the doubt? Simply put, it means that something a person did or said is unclear—of doubtful meaning—and so we assume the best (most charitable) interpretation of their actions and words.

If your husband leaves you a message saying, “I’m going to be late coming home today,” there are a million ways one could interpret what is meant. In a marriage rocked by infidelity, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the wife to assume that he was meeting with a girlfriend, i.e. the wife would not give her husband the benefit of the doubt.

In a strong, stable marriage, however, the wife likely will assume her husband just has some work to catch up on, or he is stopping on the way home to pick something up. She extends to him the benefit of the doubt and doesn’t assume the worst interpretation of his statement. There is of course a spectrum of possibilities between these two extremes: if a husband previously cheated but repented, there’s reason to at least be somewhat doubtful, and so giving the benefit of the doubt might be more difficult.

If, on the other hand, a wife catches her husband in the act of adultery, there’s no benefit of the doubt to be given, because all doubt has been removed. What is happening is all too clear.

So there are two factors when giving the benefit of the doubt. First, what do you know about the person doing the action or making the statement? Is he trustworthy? Has he ever broken trust in the past?

Second, what actually is being done: is there actually doubt about the meaning behind it?

In general, we always give the benefit of the doubt to loved ones who have given no reason to doubt them. We also should give the benefit of the doubt to those we don’t know at all. To default to assuming the worst of strangers isn’t a good way to live. Only those we have given reason to distrust should we be hesitant to grant the benefit of the doubt.

Admittedly these are subjective standards and everyone will vary in how quickly they extend the benefit of the doubt and how quickly they will assume bad intentions. But overall these are the parameters.

Then what about Pope Francis? Does he deserve a blanket benefit of the doubt? Is there anything that can break that benefit?

Some Catholics would argue that he deserves it by virtue of his office. In a maximalist interpretation of Lumen Gentium 25, which states that we must give “religious submission of mind and will…to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff,” these Catholics would say that essentially every action, every word, of the pope must be assumed to be in accord with Catholicism and for the good of the Church. But this flies in the face of reason, as well as Church history.

We know, for a fact, that popes in the past have acted under bad intentions. We know that popes have personally erred in their understanding of the Catholic faith. We know popes have been corrupt and immoral. We know that if this is true of past popes it can be true of current or future popes as well.

To say, then, that Catholics are required to always assume a pope’s words and actions are blameless and consistent with Catholic teaching would be asking Catholics to deny at times the reality right in front of them. St. Paul didn’t follow that advice, nor did St. Polycarp, nor did a whole host of Catholics throughout history when faced with popes behaving badly.

But at the same time, respect for the papal office and a general inclination to offer the benefit of the doubt when possible does mean that Pope Francis should be given that benefit if at all possible. The problem is that Francis has done so many problematic things over the past decade, that it’s difficult to argue that he still deserves a blanket benefit of the doubt.

Francis has done so many problematic things over the past decade, that it’s difficult to argue that he still deserves a blanket benefit of the doubt.Tweet This

Let’s just list a few examples of papal actions that have eroded trust in this pope:

  • Promoting many clerics, such as Fr. James Martin, who undermine Church teaching on homosexuality.
  • Gutting of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family
  • Honoring of abortionists
  • Bringing Theodore McCarrick out of retirement into the pope’s inner circle
  • Attacking the traditional Latin Mass, and traditional Catholics in general
  • Suggesting that God wills multiple religions
  • Changing the Catechism to say that the death penalty is against human dignity
  • Allowing Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics

And of course the list could go on, and on, and on. Now some will argue that if we always give Francis the benefit of the doubt, then all of these actions can be explained in an orthodox light. But that’s denying the cumulative effect of doubtful actions. Trust might not be lost in a single doubtful action, but many doubtful actions added together can surely weaken and even break that trust.

What if a husband continues to tell his wife he’s going to be late from work, over and over, without giving any reason, and then the wife starts to hear from friends that her husband is seen out at restaurants with his secretary? And then when the wife confronts her husband to explain his actions, he just ignores her, or gives a non-answer? Should the wife continue to give the benefit of the doubt to the husband? It’s possible that the husband is innocent of infidelity, but the evidence points in another direction. Eventually the wife’s benefit of the doubt is going to be exhausted, even if absolute proof of infidelity is never produced.

That’s our situation today with Pope Francis. He’s done a myriad of problematic things, and time and time again makes no effort to clarify them. Sure, one could say that the pope doesn’t have to answer to Catholics (although that’s not being a very good “servant of the Servant of God”), but at the same time, it’s reasonable for Catholics to in turn construct a picture that isn’t favorable to the pope’s intentions due to all the outstanding evidence.

The pope’s refusal to clarify his doubtful actions contrasts with the actions of Bishop Strickland. One of the biggest criticisms of the former bishop of Tyler is that he read a letter that appeared to espouse sedevacantism last month. So many of his enemies immediately assumed the worst and argued that he was removed for rejecting not only the pope’s authority, but the legitimacy of the Francis pontificate as well. But many of his supporters, including me, were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn’t agree with all the contents of the letter he read.

And Bishop Strickland, upon realizing the confusion, clarified that he was not a sedevacantist and that he accepted the pope’s authority. In other words, he understood there was a doubt, and he cleared it up. Pope Francis does not do this.

All this doesn’t mean we must give the worst interpretations to the pope’s actions. I’ve seen that happen as well, where fed-up Catholics assume that Francis is intent on destroying the Church—that he’s actively working for its downfall in every action he takes. I think that’s unfair, as a more reasonable interpretation is simply that his view of Catholicism is at odds with what the Church has traditionally taught and practiced. To give the worst interpretation of every action and statement of the pope is just as bad as a blanket benefit of the doubt, as both deny reality.

Catholicism does not require that we check our reason at the door. We don’t have to pretend that an action or statement means something it clearly doesn’t mean. If Pope Francis does something egregious—and the sacking of Bishop Strickland is a perfect example of such an action—we don’t have to assume the best intentions on the part of a pope who has continually fallen short of earning our trust.  

Bishops Are Doing the Wrong Job

This month saw one of the most demoralizing events of my life as a native Ohioan. On November 7, a majority of voting Ohioans enshrined in our state constitution abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy. This was a gut punch to all pro-lifers in the state.

I know a lot of people who were involved in the effort to defeat Issue 1, and they did heroic work. Likewise the Ohio Catholic bishops, who also labored to defeat the amendment. Here in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, I saw “Vote No on Issue 1” signs in every single Catholic parish I passed. The Ohio bishops made it clear that a No vote was the right vote.

However, I think the bishops still dropped the ball. The problem isn’t that they did a bad job; it’s that they didn’t do their job. This is something we’ve seen for decades from the bishops when it comes to various political and social issues, so much so that I wonder whether the bishops even know what their job is.

In general the Ohio bishops acted as a political action committee. They worked to explain the details of the amendment—what it would do and what the impact would be if it passed. They focused on how it would lead to the deaths of many unborn children, and how it would harm vulnerable women. All well and good, but that’s what lay activists working against the amendment were already doing.

What the bishops did not do is focus on the spiritual ramifications of the amendment. First, how it would spiritually harm many souls, particularly the mothers and fathers who would decide to abort their babies due to abortion’s easy access. And, to my knowledge, they didn’t even mention the spiritual impact on Yes voters.

Yes, voting has spiritual dimensions that can impact the voter. While there can be debates about the morality of voting for this particular politician or that particular politician, Issue 1 was straightforward. A Yes vote was direct participation in making abortion legal for all nine months of pregnancy. There were no mitigating factors to potentially justify a Yes vote. As such, it was a grave matter, and if carried out with full knowledge and consent, a Yes vote was a mortal sin. Yet the bishops never mentioned this in their campaigning before the election.

Likewise, after the results were tallied, the bishops lamented the amendment’s passage and the impact it would have on the unborn and on mothers just as every pro-life PAC did, but they said nothing about the consequences for those who voted Yes.

Why didn’t the bishops publicly announce that every Catholic who voted Yes on Issue 1 should confess that sin in the Sacrament of Confession before receiving Communion? Yes, many Catholics would ignore the directive, and the bishops would have been ridiculed in the press, but isn’t their primary job the salvation of souls?

Why didn’t the bishops publicly announce that every Catholic who voted Yes on Issue 1 should confess that sin in the Sacrament of Confession before receiving Communion?Tweet This

And although this might sound crazy, there is recent precedent for it. In 1962, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated three Catholics who publicly and vehemently opposed his efforts to desegregate Catholic schools in his archdiocese. Rummel understood that this wasn’t just a political issue, to be debated in political halls and the public square. No, it was a spiritual issue, and those who opposed his efforts were harming their own souls. Thus he applied the harsh medicine of excommunication in an attempt to spiritually wake up these three Catholics and to make clear to all Catholics the seriousness of their actions. (Two of the three ended up retracting their views and were reconciled to the Church.)

Sadly, there are few Rummels in today’s episcopate. But I don’t think it’s primarily because bishops aren’t pro-life or even that they are cowardly. Nor is it that they don’t want to push too hard against a government from which they receive many financial benefits. I think they honestly don’t understand their role in these debates.

Vatican II famously encouraged the laity to be engaged in the temporal order: “The laity must take up the renewal of the temporal order as their own special obligation” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 7). It is the laity’s job to fight against evil amendments like Issue 1—to canvas, to educate, and to work for its defeat. And the laity, on a whole, does a good job of this in our time. I saw it first-hand in the case of Issue 1, and we can see it around the country on a whole host of political issues.

However, there is something the laity can’t do, which is to be spiritual leaders in these fights. It is not the laity’s role to hold prayer vigils and call for days of prayer and fasting. They cannot withhold the Sacraments from those who publicly advocate and vote for evil. That’s the role for the bishops and priests. (I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that there were some priests who did heroically declare the spiritual dimensions of this battle. Sadly, they were too few and they did not receive any public support from their bishops on that score.)   

This problem is not something limited to the Ohio bishops or to Issue 1. It is pervasive in how American bishops have approached political issues for more than a generation. Just read most USCCB statements about any political issue, from abortion to the death penalty to immigration, and you’ll see they are fundamentally no different than something a generic PAC would churn out. Perhaps they might be fluffed up with some Catholic terms, but they do not address the underlying spiritual issues involved.

We don’t need another political action committee. We need spiritual leaders. Every bishop is a successor to the apostles, given the responsibility from Jesus Christ himself for the salvation of the souls in his diocese. As such, bishops need to focus less on the political and social impact of various bills and amendments and laws (let the laity do that), and instead focus on the spiritual impact to the individual souls under their care.

In other words, the bishops need to do their jobs and let the laity do theirs.

Will Lay People Vote in the Next Papal Conclave?

Just when you thought (and hoped) that Pope Francis was finished remaking the Church, more news breaks to show he’s not slowing down. This time, as reported by respected Vatican journalist Diane Montagna for The Remnant, the pope is considering radically changing how future popes are elected.

The draft document, which Francis has not yet approved, consists primarily of three changes. First, Cardinals over the age of 80, who are already prevented from voting, would not be allowed to participate in the important preparatory phase, which often sets the table for determining who are the most likely papal candidates. It’s no coincidence, I’m sure, that these non-voting Cardinals happen to be dominated by men not appointed by Francis.

The second change would be to revamp the General Congregations during the conclave, when in the past all Cardinals convened as a body; instead, small working groups would gather, similar in style to the recent Synod on Synodality.

The third proposed change is the most explosive. Instead of the voting body consisting of all Cardinals under the age of 80 (and only consisting of these men), the voting body would be broken into two groups: 75% of the vote would be these voting Cardinals, then 25% would consist of laymen and laywomen and religious sisters, who would be appointed by Francis before he dies or resigns from office.

Make no mistake, changing the electors of a papal conclave would be the most radical change of the Francis papacy, and one of the most significant moves in Church history. 

Changing the electors of a papal conclave would be the most radical change of the Francis papacy, and one of the most significant moves in Church history. Tweet This

Before I detail why I think this is a bad idea, let’s get one concern out of the way. If Francis were to approve this change, it would not, I repeat not, invalidate future conclaves. The reality is that there is no single divinely-instituted way in which a pope, or any bishop, is chosen for office. Church history has demonstrated that bishops, including the bishop of Rome, have risen to office in a variety of ways, from casting lots (Acts 1:26) to bribery and nepotism.

During the “pornocracy” of the 10th century, popes were essentially hand-picked by the ruling families around Rome. These selections were made for purely political reasons, and while there might have been the appearance of an election, there were no truly free papal elections during this time.

In the 11th century, Pope Benedict IX obtained the papal office through bribery, and then he himself actually sold the office, not once, but twice! 

It’s not just scandal that led to popes being elected via irregular ways. Arguably the greatest pope outside of St. Peter, St. Gregory the Great, was voted into office by acclamation. When Pope Pelagius II died of the plague that was raging through Rome, the people—both clergy and lay—demanded that Gregory take office, which he did.

It is partly because of the irregularities in the 10th and 11th centuries that the college of Cardinals, which had been first created in the 9th century, was eventually given sole responsibility for electing popes in the 12th century. But note that the popes who obtained their office previously through irregular or even unseemly means are still considered valid popes by the Church. Look at a list of popes and you’ll see Pope Benedict IX listed three separate times.

So the papacy does not require a specific voting method in order to be valid. Over the centuries there have been various modifications to conclave rules; most recently Pope John Paul II allowed a majority vote (rather than two-thirds majority) to prevail after 33 votes, but then Pope Benedict XVI rescinded that rule in 2007. Thus, it is well within the authority of a pope to change how a conclave operates.

In the midst of these various methods of electing a pope it’s important to remember that essentially all papal elections are by acclamation, in the sense that if the Church accepts an election as valid, then it’s valid, no matter how it came about.

However, just because a revamped papal voting system is valid doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, and in the case of the changes being considered by Francis, it would definitely not be a good idea.

First, it would be another example of Francis causing unnecessary confusion and scandal. Because most Catholics are poorly catechized today, we already have a situation in which a small but significant number of Catholics don’t believe Francis himself is a valid pope, either because Pope Benedict XVI didn’t resign properly, or the 2013 conclave was invalid, or some other reason. Including non-Cardinals in a future conclave, while technically legitimate, would only lead to more speculation that we don’t have a legitimate pope in the future. 

That being said, it’s not the inclusion of lay people that’s the fundamental problem. Heck, I would love to give a conclave vote to a TLM-attending homeschooling mom rather than most of today’s Cardinals. In fact, I’ve argued elsewhere that the laity should be involved in the selection of bishops around the world. 

No, the problem isn’t the inclusion of the laity, the problem is that this is another example of using the guise of “synodality” (which is promoted as ecclesiastical democracy) to put a vise-grip on the levers of power by Pope Francis and his progressive flunkies.

Why, for example, should the pope be the one to pick the lay people who will participate in the next conclave? He’s already selected the Cardinal-electors—wouldn’t true “synodality” allow for some process by which the laity select these lay electors? We saw how the pope picked members of the recent synod: there were no representatives from Courage or TLM communities or more orthodox groups. Instead, we got the likes of Fr. James Martin and other Francis sycophants.

It’s highly likely then that Francis picks would not include members of the four groups Leila Lawler noticed missing at the Synod: “first, devoted wives and mothers seeking only “the noble office of a Christian woman and wife” (in the words of Pius XI) in the home; second, strong fathers who sacrificially take on the role of sole providers of their families; third, piously cloistered nuns; and fourth, committed pastors of parishes.”

To be honest, I’m all for those groups voting for a pope!

Everyone knows that these proposed changes are being considered to ensure the continuation of the Francis Revolution. And the Vatican knows we all know this, but at this point, they don’t care because they know there is not enough courage in the Church to truly challenge these changes. 

That being said, I feel like this is another example of Francis acting as an insecure man desperately clinging to power as he sees his end is near. Those who only look to this world, instead of the next, are consumed with trying to establish a “legacy.” Yet the saint cares little about his own legacy, or of human machinations to retain power and influence the future. The saint has faith in divine providence and leaves it to God to determine the path forward.

God laughs at our plans, and I think He laughs at these papal plans as well. While Francis might try to stack the deck to ensure a “Francis II,” we can take comfort that we follow a “God of surprises” and the best-laid plans of men do not always come to fruition.

The Great Sifting

This past weekend I attended a Men’s Eucharistic Procession in downtown Cincinnati with about 800 men (including almost 100 priests and seminarians). I first attended this annual event seven years ago, when about 200 men processed through the streets of Cincinnati. The 300% increase in attendance during that time is encouraging, to say the least.

I’m under no illusions, of course, that the Church is growing right now. In fact, over the past few years here in Cincinnati the Archdiocese has been implementing a radical reduction in the number of parishes due to falling numbers of priests and laity. And Cincinnati’s shrinking is not the anomaly; it is the norm. The Catholic Church, at least in the Western world, is in an era of steep decline.

Yet I see little signs of growth, like the local men’s procession. I don’t think this growth is primarily about numbers, however, but instead about a growth in faith and a growth in a desire to more radically follow our Lord by those remaining in the Church. Alongside the increased attendance at the procession, I also see it in the increase in faithful bishops willing to speak out for our faith. I see it in the flocking of many Catholics to more reverent Masses, particularly the traditional Latin Mass.

This mustard seed growth is happening in the midst of massive apostasy within the Church—an apostasy that is not just happening under the noses of our Church leaders who are busy meeting about meetings, but is often encouraged and promoted by those leaders. 

How do we make sense of these contrary signs of both growth and apostasy?

I would argue that we are witnessing a Great Sifting. Things are becoming clearer now. For a long time modernism has infiltrated the Church, and one of the hallmarks of modernism is that it hides in the shadows. It speaks with an orthodox vocabulary, all while quietly but systematically undermining orthodox doctrine. This allows heresy to fester and grow in the Church with little opposition, for whenever someone tries to call out the heresy, there’s an orthodox useful idiot whiteboarding how what was said can actually be interpreted in an orthodox manner. Meanwhile, more and more souls leave the Church and are lost.

But in the past few years the mask has been lifted and people are starting to be clear as to what they mean. Bishops want to rewrite the Catechism regarding homosexuality. Priests speak out against “homophobia” while ignoring (or denying) the sinfulness of homosexual acts. And last week at the Synod German Bishop Franz-Josef Overbeck stated that “clinging to habits and traditionalism…have no priority in the hierarchy of truth;” it keeps us from putting Jesus at the center of faith according to Overbeck. Vatican reporter Diane Montagna then asked him to clarify if he meant Apostolic Tradition when he condemned “traditionalism.” Yes, he responded, that is what he meant.

For decades the apostates within the hierarchy have demeaned Catholic tradition in their efforts to remake the Church, but when cornered would always claim they just want to “develop” past teaching, not jettison it. Now that charade is no longer necessary: it’s now acceptable to simply reject Apostolic Tradition and recraft Catholicism however one wants. It’s as easy as editing the Catechism!

Obviously this rejection of Catholicism by those who are charged by our Lord to defend it is horrific and tragic. Yet it can serve a good purpose: it makes clear what had been muddled for so long. Instead of pretending everything is awesome while souls are lost, many Catholics—including many bishops and priests—now see with clarity that we are in an open battle for the Church and one has to choose sides.

I’m not under any illusions that we will see a widespread revival in the Catholic Church, with millions returning to the faith. Yet I do think that many of those who might have been content to practice their faith lackadaisically now recognize that’s no longer an option. One must either embrace the faith with enthusiasm and boldness, or allow the apostates to take over.

Souls are being sifted. Through this great apostasy that is all around us, some are standing up and responding to our Lord’s call to faithfulness and orthodoxy. Will you be one of them?

Remembering a Good and Faithful Servant

I think most Catholics realize that we live in troubled times, both in the world and in the Church. It seems as if the troubles are increasing exponentially, and the latest news out of Rome and the Middle East only fuel more anxiety. It’s enough to make one wonder where is God in all of this?

Lately, however, I’ve come to realize that God is responding to today’s crises—He is aware of what’s going on and is actively working for our salvation. It’s just that His ways are not like our ways: He responds not through geo-political moves or by wielding power in the Church, but by raising up individuals to live lives of holiness that have a lasting impact on many others. One example of this is Sister Wilhelmina, who Timothy Flanders and I talked about in yesterday’s podcast.

Another example was Fr. Al Lauer. It’s likely you’ve never heard of him, unless you are from the Cincinnati area. Fr. Lauer was the pastor of Old St. Mary’s Parish in downtown Cincinnati from 1998 until his untimely death at the age of 55 on October 13, 2002—21 years ago today.

Fr. Lauer was a dynamic and charismatic priest who was passionate about evangelization. He founded Presentation Ministries, an Association of the Laity under the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, as well as a religious community of priests and brothers called the Brothers and Fathers of Pentecost.

I first encountered Fr. Lauer soon after I decided to become Catholic in the early 1990’s from reading his “One Bread, One Body,” which included short mediations on each day’s Mass readings. For someone who was just learning what it meant to be Catholic—and to read the Bible as a Catholic—I found Fr. Lauer’s writings extremely valuable.

I also encountered Fr. Lauer in front of an abortion clinic. One summer during college I would pray weekly in front of the local Planned Parenthood, and often I would see Fr. Lauer there, praying and counseling frightened mothers in crisis pregnancies.

When Fr. Lauer was named pastor of Old St. Mary’s in 1998, the parish was on the brink of closure. It is located in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood of Cincinnati, which during the 1980’s and 1990’s was ranked as one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. Most folks would avoid the neighborhood if at all possible for fear of carjackings or other acts of violence.

Yet Old St. Mary’s was a beautiful church with a rich history—it is actually the oldest church in Cincinnati. But almost no one wanted to attend Mass in such a neighborhood. In 2001 the area was home to massive race riots. During the height of these riots, Fr. Lauer stood outside Old St. Mary’s praying the Rosary for the protection of the church and for the troubled souls surrounding him. The church was unharmed.

The riots occurred during Holy Week, and Fr. Lauer told parishioners that if they attended Easter Vigil that year, they would need to spend the night in the church, for fear of late-night violence. A few hearty souls spent the night with Fr. Lauer in prayer and celebrating the Resurrection of Our Lord.

Fr. Lauer kept Old St. Mary’s going when it made more sense, at least in the eyes of the world, to shut it down. Yet since Fr. Lauer’s death (and likely due at least partly to his intercession), both the neighborhood and the parish are now thriving. Old St. Mary’s has grown significantly in recent years, and it is now well-known in the area for reverent and beautiful liturgies with incredible music. People drive from all over the Greater Cincinnati area to be parishioners at Old St. Mary’s. But without Fr. Lauer being faithful during its darkest days, none of this would exist today. So many souls impacted by a priest long-dead but who was faithful to Jesus Christ.

This is how God works in the midst of crisis: not through powerful men or influencial institutions, but through simple men and women who are faithful to him. Countless souls today are closer to Christ due to Fr. Al Lauer, including me.

This morning I attended a Requiem Mass for Fr. Lauer at Old St. Mary’s. We prayed for his soul, as is fitting. However, I believe it also fitting to ask for the intercession of this good and faithful servant:

Fr. Al Lauer, pray for us!

Identifying the Problem is Only Half the Battle

Three weeks ago Fr. James Altman released a video titled, “Bergoglio is not the Pope.” In it, Altman goes through a litany of complaints against the Francis pontificate, from scandal to corruption to promoting heresy. He then concludes that because of this evidence, Jorge Bergoglio cannot be the pope. When Catholics, including me, disputed this conclusion, the most common response online from his defenders was, “Why don’t you show where is he wrong in his analysis? You can’t, can you?”

Now in his most recent video, Altman says that the “best thing we could do would be to throw the great millstone around Jorge Bergoglio’s neck and throw him into the deep blue Mediterranean sea.” Unlike some other commentators, I don’t think Altman is actually calling for the murder of Pope Francis. I think he’s recklessly using Biblical language to make his point. It’s a sensational statement made for effect and to generate controversy. Yet, again, when many Catholics pushed back against this latest video, Altman’s defenders responded, “But where is he wrong in calling out the problems of this papacy?”

This response confuses the issue. We need to note that Altman has done two separate things: (1) he’s identified a problem; and (2) he’s offered a solution. And there’s a long history of people correctly identifying a problem, but being wrong—even wildly wrong—about the solution.

For example, Martin Luther was correct about the corruption of the Catholic Church in his time, but wrong in his solution to break away from the Church. More recently, Bernie Sanders has often been right in identifying the problems in our country, but is usually incredibly wrong in his proposed solutions. Diagnosing a problem is relatively easy; offering a good solution is hard.

Today every Catholic instinctively knows there is a disconnect in how things should be in the Church and how they actually are. You can’t see millions of Catholics leaving the Church without realizing there’s a problem. Progressives see this exodus as evidence that the Catholic Church needs to be more like the Episcopal Church. They are correct to recognize a problem, but their solution would only make things worse.

Fr. Altman is far better than progressives in understanding today’s crisis in the Church. When one listens to his litany of complaints against Francis, a faithful Catholic can’t help but mostly nod his head and say, “He’s right.” (Although I think Altman often engages in over-the-top hyperbole and emotional manipulation in his diagnosis, giving the worst possible interpretation to anything and everything Francis has done.) But, again, being right in identifying the problem doesn’t guarantee that he’s right about his solution.

In a nutshell, Catholics today have three options for how we respond to the troubling Francis pontificate—our “solution,” so to speak, to the problem.

Option 1 would be to believe that the Francis pontificate disproves Catholic claims about the papacy. In response, one would become Eastern Orthodox or Protestant or an atheist. Sadly, I know Catholics who have chosen each of these.

Option 2 would be to try to square the circle by claiming a pope simply can’t be wrong. Choosing this option has two separate paths that appear diametrically opposed, but are based on the same presuppositions. The first path would be the hyperpapalist route: accept whatever this pope says and does as true, regardless if it contradicts previous popes. This path contradicts reason, for it says no pope can be wrong, although popes can contradict each other. The second path would be the sedevacantist route (Altman’s choice): posit that popes can’t contradict each other, and therefore conclude that Francis can’t be a pope since he contradicts previous popes. This path contradicts faith, for it extends the Church’s teaching on the papacy far beyond what the Church herself has taught.

Option 3 would be to recognize that Francis, in his words and actions, sometimes does contradict Church teaching, but realize that this does not mean previous teaching was wrong, nor that he’s not the pope, nor that this invalidates Church teaching on the papacy. Choosing such an option can be messy admittedly, but it charts the path between the scylla of rejecting the papacy and the charybdis of warping the Church’s teachings.

I sympathize with Fr. Altman’s frustration with the Francis pontificate. But that sympathy does not extend to endorsing a path that leads right out of the Church, even to the point of happily calling for the death of the pope.

If Fr. Altman thinks the man that almost everyone on earth believes is pope deserves to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around his neck, he should be doing penance in sackcloth and ashes, not producing emotion-manufacturing videos with a smile on his face.

The Lies of Synodality

Two recent news stories expose the lies that make up “synodality,” that vaunted effort of Church leaders that has been called the “modus vivendi et operandi of the Church.” Before we get to the lies, let’s first review what the Vatican claims “synodality” is:

Synodality denotes the particular style that qualifies the life and mission of the Church, expressing her nature as the People of God journeying together and gathering in assembly, summoned by the Lord Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel. Synodality ought to be expressed in the Church’s ordinary way of living and working. Synodality, in this perspective, is much more than the celebration of ecclesial meetings and Bishops’ assemblies, or a matter of simple internal administration within the Church; it is the specific modus vivendi et operandi of the Church, the People of God, which reveals and gives substance to her being as communion when all her members journey together, gather in assembly and take an active part in her evangelizing mission.

If you look behind the jargon that would make any corporate marketing exec proud (“How to promote something without saying anything!”), you see the key points (which are repeated for emphasis) are the related concepts of “journeying together” and “gathering in assembly.” Yet each of these were dealt a serious blow in the past week.

First, open communication is vital on any journey. In the sport of ultra-running, an athlete runs an obscene number of miles (usually 100 or more), but he has a whole crew that helps him during the race—they provide aid at various points and inform him how he’s doing. Also the ultrarunner tells his crew if there is anything wrong—a blister, lack of water—so they can assist him best. Imagine if the crew and the racer never communicated; if they kept secret what each knew from the others. It would be a disaster.

Yet apparently the Vatican believes that “journeying together” should be done in secret, with stricter rules about communication than a CIA operative stationed in the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. The Pillar recently reported that debates at the upcoming Synod on Synodality will be covered by the pontifical secret—meaning that any participant who reveals what was discussed at the debates will be subject to excommunication. I’m not sure exactly how I can “journey together” with our bishops when I can’t even know what their directions are. It’s a clear effort to hide any debate from public view, so that their pre-planned objectives can appear to have full support from every quarter.

The other pillar of synodality is to “gather in assembly.” Many have criticized this concept as exalting meetings for the sake of meetings (even the Synod’s definition of synodality recognizes this criticism—”much more than the celebration of ecclesial meetings and Bishops’ assemblies”). But even if these “assemblies” are more than the glorified bureaucratic meetings they appear to be, an underlying assumption is that everyone is allowed to take part in these assemblies. How can you gather if some aren’t allowed to come? Yet the other news of the week—that Pope Francis will likely ask for Bishop Joseph Strickland’s resignation soon—exposes that as a lie as well.

Since the beginning of the synodal process under Francis, it’s been obvious to any objective observer that the deck is stacked. Sure, a few “conservative” voices are included at the official synod meetings, but these meetings are largely dominated by pre-picked bishops (and now priests and lay people) who will rubber-stamp the progressive agenda already decided upon. But this alone isn’t enough for Francis and the Vatican. They want to stamp out any and all opposition to their agenda, and so anyone who speaks up too much—and Bishop Strickland has definitely spoken up “too much”—must be pushed aside and excluded from the “assembly.”

It’s become increasingly clear that “synodality,” as practiced and preached by the Vatican, is not only foreign to Catholicism, but antithetical to it. It’s a smoke screen for pushing an ideology contrary to Catholic tradition, and history has shown that most ideologies can only be imposed by secrecy and eliminating opposition by any means necessary. As the Synod of Synodality approaches, Catholics should be aware of the reality behind the sweet-sounding words, knowing that this “journeying together” to “gather in assembly” is actually an attempt by a small, secretive cabal to impose new teachings and practices on the Church.

Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00

Orthodox. Faithful. Free.

Signup to receive new Crisis articles daily

Email subscribe stack
Share to...