Editor's

Desk

Chasing the Apocalypse

We live in strange times. Our culture has long been looking to Sodom and Gomorrah not as warnings but as models to emulate. We lived through a worldwide pandemic that we’ve since discovered originated not from nature but from man’s hubris…and there’s reason to suspect another “plandemic” might be coming. Technology threatens to blur the distinction between human and machine. And instead of being a light of the world, the Church herself staggers under the weight of confusion and apostasy. 

It’s no surprise, then, that some Catholics, especially those of a traditional bent, look at the chaos and whisper, “The End is near.” The Book of Revelation starts to feel less like a symbolic vision and more like a news ticker. I get it—believe me, I do. I’ve felt that same tug, that urge to connect the dots between our crumbling culture and the apocalyptic warnings of Scripture. But here’s the thing: obsessing over the imminent End of the world is a spiritual trap, one that can lead us away from the very faith we’re trying to defend.

Let’s be clear: the Church has always taught that Christ will return. The Second Coming is no mere metaphor—it’s a dogma etched into the Creed we recite every Sunday: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” The well-formed Catholic mind doesn’t shy away from eschatology; we know history has a climax, and it’s not a utopian dream cooked up by secular progressives. But there’s a vast difference between acknowledging the reality of the End Times and fixating on them as if we’ve cracked some cosmic code. Too many of us are falling into the latter camp, and it’s doing more harm than good.

This isn’t a new problem. Catholics have been here before. Back in the year 1000, some Christians—lay and cleric alike—were convinced the millennium marked the end. The Book of Revelation speaks of a thousand years, after all, and surely the round number meant something. Historians debate how widespread the panic was, but we know it existed. Rodulfus Glaber, a monk of the time, chronicled tales of apocalyptic fervor, with people hoarding food or abandoning their fields. Yet the sun rose on January 1, 1001, and the world kept spinning. The Church didn’t collapse; Christ didn’t descend. Life went on.

Fast forward to the 19th century, and you’ve got the Millerites in America predicting Christ’s return in 1844. When it didn’t happen—termed the “Great Disappointment”—some doubled down, birthing groups like the Seventh-day Adventists, who still carry an apocalyptic streak. Catholics aren’t immune either. These days you’ll find traditionalist corners of the internet buzzing with claims that the latest advancement in artificial intelligence or supposed alien sighting is proof of the imminent rise of the Antichrist. Or that the latest controversy coming out of the Vatican is “proof” that Christ’s return is right around the corner. The pattern is sadly the same: a fixation on the End blinds us to the present reality around us.

From a Catholic perspective, this obsession is dangerous not because it’s entirely wrong—Christ will return someday—but because it distorts how we’re meant to live our faith. The Church has never encouraged us to play eschatological detective. Our Lord Himself said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36). If the Second Person of the Trinity didn’t claim that knowledge in His human nature, what makes us think we can pin it down?

The first danger of this apocalypse-now mindset is spiritual pride. When we convince ourselves we’re living in the final act, we start to see ourselves as the elect, the remnant who “get it” while everyone else stumbles in darkness. It’s a short step from there to a kind of Gnosticism—a belief that we’ve unlocked secret knowledge unavailable to the average pew-sitter. Catholicism, however, has always rejected that Gnostic temptation. Our faith isn’t a treasure hunt for hidden signs; it’s a call to humility and holiness rooted in the sacraments, the liturgy, and the unchanging deposit of faith. The moment we trade public revelation for a conspiracy chart, we’ve lost the plot.

Another problem with an obsession with the End Times is that it blinds one to the good in this world. Good news in the Church or an exciting scientific or technological discovery are automatically seen in a negative light; such news is twisted into yet another sign of the coming cataclysm. Such a relentlessly negative outlook is not consistent with a proper Catholic attitude, which sees God still working in this fallen world of ours.

At its worst, this fixation can twist our view of God. If we’re always scanning the horizon for the apocalypse, we risk turning God into a cosmic killjoy, a deity who can’t wait to smite the wicked and wrap things up. That’s not the God who offers Himself daily in the Eucharist for our salvation. It’s not the God who invites us to meditate on His Divine Mercy. Catholics know (or should know) that God’s justice and mercy aren’t at odds—they’re two sides of the same divine coin. Obsessing over the End Times tilts the balance, making us forget the mercy that’s available right now.

If we’re always scanning the horizon for the apocalypse, we risk turning God into a cosmic killjoy, a deity who can’t wait to smite the wicked and wrap things up.Tweet This

Beyond the spiritual, there’s a practical cost. When we’re consumed with apocalyptic thoughts, we neglect the duties of the present. The father who spends his evenings decoding the latest apparitions might miss tucking his kids into bed. The mother stockpiling candles for the “Three Days of Darkness” might not notice her friend’s quiet struggle with faith. I’m not saying we ignore the signs of the times—our culture’s rejection of natural law and the Church’s internal crises are real—but we’re called to focus on those around us far more than potential “signs” around the world.

The Church, in her wisdom, has always steered us away from this trap. St. Thomas Aquinas warned against speculating on the timing of the end, writing that “The day of the last judgement is altogether uncertain… and it is not for us to know the times or seasons which the Father hath put in His own power” (Summa Theologiae, III Suppl., q. 88, a. 3). Even the great popes of the past, like Pope St. Pius X, who saw the storm clouds of modernity gathering, didn’t waste time predicting Armageddon—they fought for the faith.

So where does that leave us? In the here and now. I don’t deny that we’re in dark times—maybe even the darkest since the Arian crisis—but we shouldn’t leap to the conclusion that the credits are about to roll. Instead, we must cling to the Mass, the sacraments, and the daily grind of sanctity. We should pray the Rosary, not to ward off an imminent apocalypse, but to align our hearts with Our Lady’s. We should teach our kids the Baltimore Catechism, not because the world’s ending tomorrow, but because truth endures.

If the End comes in our lifetime, so be it—if we’re faithfully praying, doing penance, and following the precepts of the Church, we’ll be ready. But if the End doesn’t come soon, we won’t have wasted our days chasing shadows. The danger of thinking the apocalypse is imminent isn’t that we might be wrong; it’s that we might miss the real battle: the one for our souls, fought not in some future cataclysm, but in the quiet of this very moment.

The Catholic Aliens Are Coming…

I grew up a science fiction nerd. The first movie I ever saw in a theater was the original Star Wars. I loved watching reruns of Star Trek after school each day. (For those wondering my opinion on this important matter, I believe that Star Trek is far better than Star Wars. Of course, the 21st century versions of both franchises are trash.)

As a kid I would dream of aliens coming to earth and what that would be like. Even into early adulthood I enjoyed a good science fiction book or movie or TV show; without embarrassment I still consider Independence Day one of my all-time favorite movies. Although I don’t watch or read much science fiction anymore, I’ll never fully abandon my nerd roots.

As a kid I just enjoyed the stories and imagining what it would be like to travel the stars and meet alien races. But as I grew older and studied my Catholic Faith more, I began to consider the theological implications of intelligent alien life. Is it possible that God created intelligent life somewhere else in the universe? How does that impact our teaching on original sin and redemption? What would it actually be like, theologically speaking, if aliens came to earth? And, as Vatican Observatory Director Br. Guy Consolmagno asks, would you baptize an extraterrestrial?

These are serious questions and Catholics have rightly been debating them in recent decades. While there are real dangers in the modern UFO movement, an exploration of the ramifications of intelligent life in the universe only helps us to better understand our faith.

With all that being said, it should come as no surprise that I was delighted when I discovered a newly published science fiction book that tackles these questions. Pilgrims by M.R. Leonard is the story of first contact with aliens…who land at the Vatican, speak Latin, and are Catholic. It’s a fascinating premise, and I was curious how Leonard would work out the theological consequences of such an event.

However, to be honest, that wasn’t my first question. What I really wanted to know was, is this a good story? I’ve read and watched enough bad Christian fiction over the years to know that too often authors put “The Message” before The Story. Characters are one-dimensional, plot devices are contrived, and the dialogue is stiff, but Christians (including Catholics, who should know better) praise the work because it promotes a message that they agree with. Fortunately, this isn’t the case with Pilgrims. There are a few times in the book where it gets a little preachy, but those are exceptions, not the rule. Overall it’s actually a good story with interesting characters. 

The main character, Austin, is no stick figure; he has serious flaws, and those flaws drive the story forward. He’s a Latin teacher who finds his skills are quite in need now that aliens are using that language to communicate with the human race. We see things from his perspective, and we witness as he makes mistakes and is driven by all-too-human desires.

Leonard also does a great job of world-building. Mankind finds out about the aliens years before they actually arrive, and as the alien ship makes its slow approach our world receives no contact from the extraterrestrials. As such most people assume that their arrival will mean the end of the world, and Leonard deftly describes how that would impact day-to-day life as mankind awaits its presumed doom.  

So the story is good, but still…Catholic aliens? How in the world (or more precisely, worlds) can there be Catholic aliens? Did God reveal Himself to them? Did they fall like Adam and Eve did? I was intrigued to discover how Leonard would address these theological issues. I won’t give it away, but ultimately I was satisfied, even surprised, by how he tied it all together. It’s not that he directly answered every single possible objection to the idea of alien intelligent life, but his explanation of why the aliens are Catholic comes across as plausible and theologically sound. 

As I noted, I don’t read a lot of science fiction anymore, but I’m glad I made an exception for Pilgrims. It was not only entertaining but it made me think about deeper questions, which is what the best science fiction always does. At the end of the book it says that Austin’s story is not yet over, and I’m looking forward to Mr. Leonard’s next foray into the world of Catholic aliens. 

[Note: Due to some adult themes, including lust, violence, and alcoholism, Pilgrims is not appropriate for younger children, but should be fine for older teens and up.]

Confessions of a Catholic Fundamentalist

Apparently, I’m a Catholic fundamentalist.

At least, that’s the assessment of Boston College theology professor Fr. Mark S. Massa, S.J. In his recent book Catholic Fundamentalism in America (Oxford University Press), Massa warns of the threat of Catholic fundamentalists, who “combine a sectarian understanding of religion with an aggressive anti-progressive stance.” He highlights in particular seven individuals and movements “that embody the Catholic fundamentalist impulse,” and one of those case studies is me as the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine.

In a chapter entitled, “On the Dangers of Swimming the Tiber: Crisis Magazine and the Premillennialist Embrace of Catholicism,” Massa takes special chagrin at my Protestant background. Mind you, it’s been thirty-three years since I became Catholic (and I was only twenty-one at the time, so I’ve been Catholic much longer than I was Protestant), but that doesn’t stop Massa from suspecting that my conversion didn’t really take. In the best line of the chapter, he writes, “Sammons may have indeed swum the Tiber, but he did so in a Protestant wetsuit that left him untouched by Catholic holy water.” 

So why does Massa believe I’m still holding on to my Protestant faith, in spite of spending the last thirty-plus years working to bring people into the Catholic Church? My greatest sin apparently is that I actually believe that what the Church teaches is unchanging. Massa warns, “There is…a consistent argument in Sammons’s postings at Crisis that seems to presume that Catholic doctrine rests on an unchanging and propositional ‘deposit of faith’ almost exactly analogous to how Protestant fundamentalists understand the King James Bible.” My crime, according to Massa, is that I treat Catholic doctrine as if it were “static and unchangeable” and not “marked by development and evolution.”

Massa then invokes St. John Henry Newman to his defense, apparently assuming I’m unfamiliar with the 19th century English Cardinal. I have to chuckle, however, since as I write this I’m looking at a large portrait of Newman on my office wall, and if I turn my head I can see a whole shelf full of books either by Newman or about Newman. He’s one of my favorite saints, and I’ve read extensively about his life and his teachings. In particular, his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was instrumental in helping me understand how Christian doctrine develops over time, which in turn helped me see how what the Church Fathers taught was fundamentally Catholic, even if at times the trappings weren’t always exactly as they are today.

But because I understand Newman’s teachings on doctrinal development, I also know that the term “evolution,” which Massa uses, is completely contrary to Newman’s views on the matter. Evolution, as it is typically understood, can include the change of something into a wholly different species. The Darwinian theory of evolution, in fact, posits that a single-celled organism can eventually evolve into a fish, or a mammal, or even a man. Doctrine, however, can never change like this. Our understanding of a particular teaching can deepen and therefore develop over time, but the core doctrine remains intact. If this is “fundamentalism,” then Newman was a fundamentalist.

Massa also wants to be sure you know that I’m not as smart as him (which is likely true, to be honest). After all, for progressives, stupidity is a hallmark of fundamentalism. He writes, “Sammons…holds an MA in Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville. So, unlike previous editors [of Crisis], he was not trained in academic theology or philosophy.” Only holding a Master’s Degree in theology is not enough to protect you from fundamentalism, apparently. He later notes, in response to an old article in which I call his friend Fr. James Martin a heretic, “It is, of course, unclear how Sammons himself—lacking both ecclesiastical credentials like a Licentiate in Sacred Theology and hierarchical office—believed he possessed the authority to publicly declare anyone a heretic.”

Massa got me: I’m not able to make an official declaration to that effect. But then again, I doubt anyone will confuse an article in Crisis as an official ecclesiastical sanction. In truth, I rarely call anyone a heretic because it is a serious charge, but I’m comfortable using that label for Fr. James Martin, who devilishly hides behind vague comments to advance beliefs contrary to the Catholic Faith. Massa just wanted to use my article as an opportunity to remind readers that I am not as official as he is. Which is true: I’m just a Catholic dad trying to help people draw closer to Christ during this crisis in the Church; I’m not a professor of theology at a Jesuit college notorious for leading souls astray.

What really rankles Massa and so many progressive Catholics like him are converts like me who actually believe what the Church teaches and want others to embrace those teachings as well. They recognize that their life’s work of trying to remake Catholicism into the world’s image has failed, and in particular, has failed to produce any converts. They are a dying breed and they know it. So they hate actual converts with a deep passion.

Just look at how triggered they get when Vice President J.D. Vance, a Catholic convert, schools them on Catholic theology. It’s not that converts like me are better educated (although many—like Scott Hahn and John Bersgma—are just as educated); it’s that we are willing to accept all of Catholic doctrine as we’ve received it. We don’t feel a need to change it, for we believe it is truly the words of everlasting life. Massa and other progressive Catholics think Catholic doctrine is something to be shaped into their image of a liberal religion much like Episcopalism. 

To be honest, I’m honored that Fr. Massa picked me and Crisis Magazine as prime examples of Catholic fundamentalism in America. It must mean we are doing something right, for the label “fundamentalist,” when used by a progressive Catholic, just means “faithful.” Here at Crisis we will continue to preach a Catholic “fundamentalism” that is faithful to the Church’s perennial teachings, and unlike Fr. Massa, we are willing to proclaim those teachings even when they fall out of step with the latest progressive fads and trends.

Trump Looks to Correct a Disastrous 1990’s Mistake

This week, President Donald Trump took proactive steps to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia, actions that give me cautious optimism. Of course, his bold initiative has led the warmongers and TDS-sufferers to scream, “He’s a Russian agent!” However, Trump’s moves break through decades of neocon-inspired anti-Russian propaganda to strive for a lasting peace in the region. Essentially, Trump is arguing that Russia is more beneficial as an ally than an adversary and that America’s historical decision to promise NATO membership to Ukraine was a significant strategic error. Both these things should be simple common sense.

The geopolitical landscape post-Cold War presented the United States with a unique chance to redefine its relationship with Russia. But instead of fostering an alliance that could bring about long-term peace, the neocons in both the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations—supported by the military-industrial complex—wanted to keep the NATO bureaucracy alive. So they treated 1990’s Russia as a weakened enemy to be exploited. It was like kicking a dog that’s already seriously injured. Once the dog heals, however, it’s going to remember who kicked it. 

Why did the U.S. continue to treat Russia like an enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union? Every defense I’ve seen for this catastrophic policy usually boils down to soft racism against the Russian people—you can’t trust them; they will always be aggressive; it’s in the Russian blood to try to take over the world, etc. But our bellicose policy is self-fulfilling: by marching up to their borders, we make Russia more likely to be aggressive toward the outside world. Then the neocons can just say, “See? We told you so!” 

At that time, the U.S. should have begun the process of dismantling NATO, whose very reason for existence had disappeared, but instead it went in the opposite direction, beginning the push to expand NATO right to Russia’s borders. This policy continued in the 21st century, and George W. Bush even indicated that Ukraine would eventually be included, a decision that everyone in Russia—from the most hardline to the most liberal—viewed as a direct security threat. 

This is not just my opinion ex post facto, it was the view of high-ranking U.S. government officials at the time. In 2008, William Burns—then the U.S. Ambassador to Russia and now the Director of the CIA—wrote a document titled, “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” in which he argued that the entire Russian political class (not just Putin) saw NATO’s expansion into Ukraine (and Georgia) as a direct challenge to Russian interests. This was the brightest of red lines, but Washington ignored it.

This decision to expand NATO to Ukraine was not just a strategic blunder; it was the prime catalyst for the tensions we see today. For all the fevered talk of Putin wanting to recreate the Soviet Empire, the reality is that we are the ones who greatly expanded our sphere of influence, not them. The end of the Cold War could have marked the beginning of a new era where Russia and the U.S. worked in tandem on international challenges; instead it escalated into a new rivalry.

Trump is the first U.S. leader to recognize the idiocy of this antagonistic and disastrous policy, and to ask the obvious question: Wouldn’t it be better to have Russia as an ally rather than an enemy? If you haven’t been influenced by decades of neocon anti-Russian propaganda, the answer to this question is obvious. 

Trump’s recent diplomatic efforts, therefore, are an attempt to mend this historical rift. His push for negotiations between Ukraine and Russia is a recognition that peace benefits all parties involved, reducing the human and economic toll of conflict. Diplomacy, in this case, serves not only the interests of the involved nations but also global stability. By advocating for peace and a new relationship with Russia, Trump is attempting to rectify the mistakes of past U.S. policy. We need to stop asking Ukrainians to die for these mistakes.

Critics of Trump’s approach will argue that it rewards Russian aggression. However, this perspective ignores our past provocation and it overlooks the reality of international relations where peace requires concessions from all sides. Peace talks de-escalate tensions, potentially leading to a more stable Eastern Europe. The promise of NATO expansion into Ukraine was a direct challenge to Russian security interests, and while that does not justify Russia’s actions, it’s vital to understand the provocations that led to the current standoff.

Moreover, Trump’s strategy reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy where the end goal is not victory over an opponent but stability and cooperation. Too many people today take a comic book view of international relations, where there are only good guys and bad guys, and the good guys (us) have to completely and utterly defeat the bad guys (them). The real world isn’t like that. This isn’t about capitulation but about finding a middle ground where both nations can coexist without the threat of further conflict.

The Washington warmongers, of course, are not happy. They argue for a complete defeat of Russia, not because they think this is actually possible, but because they know that it will make war unending, and keep the funds flowing to their allies in the military-industrial complex. Their words might sound noble, but ultimately for them it’s about the bottom line: war has always been good for business. 

Trump must resist those forces and continue down his current path. Recognizing Russia as a potential ally rather than an eternal enemy will lead to a more cooperative international environment. The promise of NATO expansion to Ukraine was a grievous misstep that was a leading contributor to current tensions, and Trump’s efforts to reverse this narrative through diplomacy should be seen as a step towards rectifying past errors for the sake of peace. This approach, if successful, could not only benefit Ukraine and Russia but also contribute to a more stable global order, something we should all support.

For those more interested in what led to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I highly recommend Scott Horton’s magisterial work on the subject, Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.

The Sacred Order of Love: Defending J.D. Vance’s Ordo Amoris

I bet no one predicted that electing Donald Trump as President would lead to a vigorous national discussion involve St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and fundamental Catholic teachings about charity and our duties to others. Yet here we are. 

Last week Vice President J.D. Vance brought to the forefront a concept that should be common sense but in today’s inverted world is apparently highly controversial: the ordo amoris or “order of love.” Vance’s defence of this principle somehow stirred a significant debate, particularly in how it applies to immigration and national loyalty. Vance’s understanding of this concept, however, draws on the wisdom of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the broader teaching of the Church.

Firstly, let’s establish what ordo amoris means. St. Augustine, in his seminal work The City of God discusses the importance of ordering our loves correctly, suggesting that when we love things inappropriately or out of order, we sin. For Augustine, every love, even the love of neighbor, must be ordered beneath the love of God. This hierarchy extends to our human relationships where love for family, community, and nation should precede our love for the world at large, not in intensity but in priority of duty and responsibility.

Vance, invoking this tradition, articulated a sentiment that echoes St. Thomas’s teachings in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas, expanding on Augustine, specifies that our love should follow a certain order. First the love of God, then the love of neighbor, and within the love of neighbor exists an order of love according to the degree of nearness (II-II, Q. 26, A. 6). This isn’t about loving some people more than others in essence, but about recognizing the obligations that come with proximity and kinship.

Proximity matters when it comes to charity, simply because we are limited beings. If I’m walking by a burning building, then a child stuck in that building demands my charity more at that moment than my own child safe back at home. That’s what the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us. But if a child across the world is stuck in a burning building, then I have no obligation to help him, simply because I’m a limited being who can’t help everyone.

Proximity matters when it comes to charity, simply because we are limited beings. Tweet This

And not just physical proximity, but familial and filial proximity also matters. We are given certain people in our lives who are always “proximate” due to their relationship with us. So I’m obligated to help my own child who is suffering even if he is across the world, due to my familial proximity.

It’s simply impossible to act charitably in any other way, else we’d be guilty for not helping everyone suffering in the world.

Vance’s comments, particularly in relation to national policy and immigration, align with this Catholic tradition of ordo amoris. He states that one’s primary duty is to one’s family, then to neighbors and community, and then to the nation. Only after these obligations are met should one consider the broader world. This approach does not negate the Christian call to universal love; rather, it prioritizes responsibilities in a way that reflects the natural and divine order of relationships.

Critics cite the parable of the Good Samaritan to argue that Vance’s view contradicts the Gospel’s universal call to love one’s neighbor. However, this interpretation misses the ordered nature of Christian love. The Good Samaritan does not imply that we neglect our family or country for distant strangers. Instead, it teaches us to extend love beyond our immediate circle when the opportunity arises, without neglecting our primary duties. As St. Thomas notes, while we are to love all universally, “we ought to be most beneficent towards those who are most closely connected with us” (Summa II-II, Q. 31, A. 3).

Moreover, Vance’s stance is consistent with Catholic social teaching which acknowledges the legitimacy of nations and the duty of states to care for their citizens first. Pope Pius XII, in Exsul Familia Nazarethana, recognizes the right of states to regulate immigration in light of the common good. Similarly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2241) states, “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption.”

Catholics who label Vance’s views as “nativist” or “anti-Christian” are therefore rejecting the Church’s teaching. Catholic teaching does not advocate for open borders without consideration but rather for a responsible approach where the love and care for one’s own are foundational, not exclusionary of others. This is not about loving one’s own at the expense of others but about ensuring that love is given in the right order, reflecting the natural law and divine command.

Furthermore, Vance’s perspective is also a defense against the modern inversion of love where globalism trumps localism, leading to a neglect of one’s immediate community or family. This inversion, as Vance suggests, is indeed un-Christian when it leads to the neglect of those we are most directly responsible for. As St. Augustine warns, disordered loves lead to sin, and in today’s context, this could mean neglecting the poor within one’s own community (or even in one’s own family) for the sake of a more abstract, less immediate global community. 

From a practical standpoint, Vance’s advocacy for ordo amoris serves as a critique of policies that prioritize foreign interests over national ones. This inversion of ordo amoris helps explain why liberals love sending Americans overseas to die for other countries while doing nothing to protect us from the invasion at our borders. This isn’t about xenophobia but about prudent stewardship of national resources and responsibilities. The Catholic Church, while calling for global solidarity, also emphasizes subsidiarity and the principle that problems should be solved at the most immediate or local level possible.

Vice President Vance’s articulation of ordo amoris is not only defensible but laudable from a Catholic perspective. It echoes the teachings of the Church’s greatest thinkers and aligns with the social doctrines that balance universal charity with particular duties. In a world where love is often disordered by political ideologies or globalist policies, Vance’s reminder of the proper hierarchy of love is a call back to the roots of Christian charity: ordered, responsible, and reflective of divine love.

Vance, by invoking this ancient but timeless principle, invites us to consider how we love — not less universally, but more correctly, ensuring that our loves reflect the order God intended. This is not merely a political stance but a moral one, deeply rooted in the Catholic understanding of love as a reflection of divine order. Thus, defending Vance’s perspective is, in essence, defending the very structure of love as taught by the Catholic Church.

The Greatest First Week in Presidential History

We’re just a few days into President Trump’s second term and already we can say this is the best presidential term of the 21st century. It’s enough to make this political cynic giddy with excitement for what the next four years hold.

My political cynicism is deep and is based on long years of disappointment in our politicians and our political system. This cynicism began in force all the way back in 1996, when the Republican Party treated the presidential nomination like a retirement gift, handing it to the uninspiring and totally forgettable Bob Dole. His lack of enthusiasm for defending conservative principles helped shape my pessimistic political outlook.  

George W. Bush got me a little excited in 2000, but the eight years of his disastrous presidency (anyone remember his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?) only deepened my distrust of politicians. Other than Ron Paul and a handful of others, no politician has given me reason to change my pessimism, distrust, and cynicism; it has only been reinforced in the years since.

It was this cynicism that led me to strongly oppose Donald Trump in 2016. Yes, I was a “never Trumper” (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa). I didn’t fall into TDS after he was elected, but I fully expected him to be the worst GOP President of our lifetime, maybe ever. Since so many politicians had disappointed me, I couldn’t imagine this New York limousine liberal would do otherwise.

Obviously, Trump’s first term wasn’t anywhere near as bad as I expected, but if we are honest with ourselves it wasn’t great, either. Sure, in comparison to Obama’s three terms (if you include his shadow term from 2020-2024), it was admirable, and Trump’s Supreme Court picks were objectively excellent. But his presidency was a relatively standard GOP presidency; he didn’t really move the needle in our country much.

But now he’s back and things are much different now.

It’s clear that Trump learned from his first term, as well as from how he was treated by the government apparatus and its lackeys in media, the tech industry, academia, and other halls of power since he left office. The biggest flaw of Trump’s first term is that he didn’t recognize how deep the swamp was, as can be seen in his poor staffing picks throughout those four years. Even Trump himself—who almost never admits a weakness or mistake—confessed he wasn’t prepared to take on the DC Machine in 2016. 

However, it seems obvious that this term will be nothing like his first term. He’s got an edge to him. How could he not? This is a man who was literally shot at, who endured a years-long massive lawfare campaign against him, and who has been demonized like no one before him. How could this not affect his outlook? In retrospect, it’s a blessing Trump lost in 2020, since his defeat allowed him to see more clearly who his enemies were and how dead-set they were to destroy him.

It seems obvious that this term will be nothing like his first term. [Trump’s] got an edge to him. How could he not?Tweet This

Trump realizes he’s got nothing to lose this time, so he might as well try to truly drain the swamp this time. We can see this difference even comparing his official portraits from his two terms.

Let’s just look at what Trump has already done in this manic first week:

  • Issued an executive order that made it the policy of the United States to “recognize two sexes, male and female.” If you haven’t read this order yet, you should—it is a masterclass in combatting the insane gender ideology we face today. What is particularly wonderful is that the order does not say the government proclaims two sexes, but instead that it recognizes two sexes.There’s a humility to the EO in realizing governments can’t define reality, but can only acknowledge it.
  • Pardoned all the J6 protesters. The whole January 6th event was weaponized from the beginning to be a means to keep Trump from the White House in 2025 (as well as an attempt to put him in jail for the rest of his life). It is only right and just for Trump to pardon those who were caught up in this unholy jihad against him.
  • Issued an executive order to create a friendly regulatory environment for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, and, most importantly, to ban the possibility of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Many Catholics might not realize how important bitcoin is to our future freedom (or how dangerous bitcoin’s evil twin CDBC is), but understand that this EO is good for Catholics and all people of good will.
  • Pardoned all the pro-life prisoners. This action makes me the most happy. I personally knew a couple of the people who have been in jail the past year for peacefully protesting abortion. Their incarceration was an injustice, and every pro-lifer should be deeply grateful to President Trump for this wonderful act.  

This list just scratches the surface of what Trump has accomplished in his first week; he also pardoned Ross Ulbricht, withdrew the US from the World Health Organization, took concrete steps to secure our border, and declassified the files surrounding the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. He’s clearly on a mission to right many wrongs and get our country back on track.

Many of us were rightly distressed when Trump softened his pro-life positions during his campaign. His support for IVF was misguided and dangerous. His wife Melania’s support for abortion is reason for concern, and it’s an open question how much Trump himself opposes abortion. Yet it’s simply a fact that Trump is, by his actions, the most pro-life president we’ve ever had. Previous “pro-life” presidents talked a good game during the campaign but did little or nothing to advance the pro-life cause, but Trump has done the opposite. His campaign statements were not good, but his acts in office have been magnificent so far. I hope this trend continues.

On my podcast a few weeks ago I predicted that Trump would disappoint us at times as president. I’m sure that’s still true. Trump is not perfect and he’ll make missteps. But this first week has been magnificent and should give us all reason for optimism. As the Greatest Week in Presidential History nears its end, let’s pray that the second Trump term can be a time where order is restored in our country and America is made great again.

The Diminishment of the DC Archdiocese Continues Apace

Cardinal Robert McElroy, the bishop of San Diego who has enjoyed a meteoric rise through the hierarchy under Pope Francis, has been named the Archbishop of Washington, DC, succeeding Cardinal Wilton Gregory, whose resignation was accepted by the pope.

While any faithful Catholic will be dismayed by this news, it should come as no surprise. McElroy was always destined to leave San Diego for a more influential diocese. The very fact that the bishop of a suffragan diocese was made a Cardinal—while being under a metropolitan archbishop (Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez) who wasn’t himself a Cardinal—was unprecedented. He was clearly being groomed for greater pastures. The irony, however, is that McElroy’s appointment doesn’t increase McElroy’s influence as much as it diminishes the importance of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.

Recall the recent history of this archdiocese. This century began with Theodore McCarrick being named the archbishop of Washington, DC in November 2000, swiftly followed by his being added to the College of Cardinals a few months later. McCarrick was only archbishop in DC for five years, but his reign established the pattern for the archdiocese. He was particularly talented in two important roles of a bishop: raising money and recruiting priestly vocations. I lived in the DC archdiocese throughout McCarrick’s tenure, and I can confirm that, for all his significant faults, he was a genius at raising money and he did attract many priestly vocations (including many good men). It was these two talents, in fact, that made him one of the most influential men in the Church throughout his career, and that influence continues to permeate the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.

Of course, McCarrick was also a predatory monster. 

After McCarrick came two archbishops who followed in his ideological footsteps: Donald Wuerl and Wilton Gregory. Both are members of the progressive wing of the hierarchy, although Wuerl—who covered up McCarrick’s crimes—often fooled people into thinking he was a moderate or even a conservative prelate. Cardinal McElroy is firmly in this camp as well and so continues the progressive leanings of this office. He vigorously opposes withholding the Eucharist from obstinate public defenders of abortion such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, and he has often promoted false LGBTQ+ ideology, refusing to condemn acts that have always been considered sinful by the Church. He will likely be a vocal opponent of incoming President Donald Trump (as vocal as he was silent about President Joe Biden’s embrace of abortion and “gay rights”).

But McElroy is far more connected to McCarrick than just ideological agreement. He is, in many ways, a perfect successor to Theodore McCarrick, someone he worked to protect. Richard Sipe, an expert on priestly sex abuse, warned McElroy about McCarrick’s proclivities in 2016, two years before they became widely known, and as far as we know, McElroy did nothing beyond a bureaucratic paper-filing in response. Further, McElroy voted against the USCCB petition pressing the Vatican for more transparency and speed in the McCarrick investigation. McElroy also failed to act in an egregious case of priestly sexual abuse in his own diocese. With this past, McElroy not only shouldn’t be elevated to Washington, DC; he should be removed as bishop altogether.

Yet he is now the next archbishop of Washington, DC. While this is clearly considered a promotion by the Vatican, it diminishes DC more than it elevates McElroy. Catholic prelates have two types of authority: institutional authority and moral authority. It’s true that the holders of certain positions, such as the archbishops of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, enjoy certain privileges and are often called upon to speak for the Church. Institutional authority only goes so far, though; what is vastly more important is moral authority. Bishop Joseph Strickland, for example, is one of the most influential American prelates today, and he doesn’t even hold institutional office anymore. Most bishops, in fact, hold little moral authority due to their cowardice in opposing the evils of our age. Further, over time the diminished moral authority of a See’s occupants can in turn diminish the institutional authority of the office itself. And if there’s anywhere that’s happened, it’s Washington, DC, and McElroy’s appointment only accelerates that process.

In the end, Robert McElroy hasn’t been promoted as much as the Archdiocese of Washington, DC has been demoted. Pray for the good priests and people of that archdiocese that they may serve Our Lord faithfully in spite of the poor shepherd they have been given.

We Win in the End

As you’ve surely noticed, we’re in the middle of our twice-yearly fundraising campaign. We offer all of our content for free, but as the saying goes, it’s not free to produce. We incur costs bringing quality orthodox Catholic commentary to you every day, such as author stipends, website management and hosting, accounting services, and a salary for yours truly.

We take pride that we run on a shoe-string budget around here, far less than most of the other content providers in our space. I don’t have a huge staff (actually, I’m the only full-time employee of Crisis), and we don’t rent out fancy offices or studios (everything is done from my home office, so no rent costs). 

Further, we don’t have a single donor or two who payrolls everything (which means we aren’t beholden to such large donors). To give a sense of our donor base, our average donation in the past year is $31, spread across more than 7,500 donors. We truly appreciate every donor, no matter the amount they give. 

If you believe, as I do, that the work we do here at Crisis is important, please consider supporting us. You can make a tax deductible donation here: 

Crisis Christmas 2024 Fundraising Campaign

If you donate before the end of the year, your donation will be doubled thanks to the generosity of one of our donors. We especially appreciate monthly donations which allow us to budget going forward.

Speaking of donors, may I ask for your prayers for the soul of Annette, the wife of one our most faithful supporters? She passed away last week. Prayers for her husband and their entire family would also be appreciated. During this holiday season, keep in prayer all those who have lost loved ones in the past year.

One last thing. Our name is Crisis Magazine and so of course we focus on the crisis in the Church and in the world. But it’s important to remember that no crisis, no matter how severe or dire, can overcome the love of God that we see in the newborn babe of Bethlehem. God came down to us and became man so that we might be lifted up to Him and become like Him. This is the Good News that we must always keep in mind as we read the bad news each day. We need to fight for the Faith in the halls of Congress, the public square, and in the pews, but always knowing that as long as we stay on God’s side, we will win in the end.

Wishing all our readers a blessed Christmas season.

Trump Wins: Let the Work Begin

In spite of facing the most unhinged and vicious opposition from a plethora of powerful figures in government, media, academia, and other influential institutions in this country, Donald Trump has been elected to a second term as President of the United States.

From the moment he declared his initial run for the presidency in 2015, Trump has endured more attacks than any other candidate in memory. These attacks range from lies about his connections to Russia to literal attacks in the form of two assassination attempts, including one that left him bloodied on the ground (before he famously got back up and urged his followers to “Fight! Fight! Fight!”). The past eight years have been a steady drumbeat of accusations against him as being every form of evil, including “literally Hitler.”

But here’s a sobering thought: all those attacks will look like child’s play compared to what’s coming. Don’t for a minute think that Trump’s overwhelming victory—which proved that the American people decisively rejected the lies about him—will slow down his enemies. In fact, it will likely embolden them.

I predict that defeat will lead Trump’s opponents completely over the edge (if they haven’t already fallen over it). Every single day of a second Trump term will be filled with demented politicians and talking heads accusing Trump of the most vile evils. Every single governmental act by Trump will be compared to a Nazi pogrom. This is going to be ugly.

Fortunately, Republicans also won the Senate and will likely retain the House. This will at least allow Trump to enact some of his agenda (assuming the Republicans don’t fold in the face of opposition, as they have too often in the past). Hopefully congressional Republicans will finally realize that the attempts to demonize Trump by the Left are a failed project and they can be ignored without fear of losing the next election. You can only cry “Hitler!” so many times before people tune you out.

What I find most fascinating about the Trump victory, though, is the coalition he brought together to make it happen. This has been the most significant political realignment I’ve seen in my lifetime, even more so than the Reagan Democrats of the 1980’s. Trump’s win in 2024 does not look at all like his victory in 2016. While he retained his passionate base, his most prominent supporters this election cycle wanted nothing to do with him back in 2016. And I would argue we have Covid to thank for that.

Trump’s win in 2024 does not look at all like his victory in 2016.Tweet This

To be clear, Trump was bad on Covid when he was President. And he’s never apologized for that, or even suggested that he was anything but “the greatest” when it came to his response to the pandemic. Yet the people who were the best at recognizing and opposing the tyranny that grew out of Covid all coalesced around Trump: RFK, Jr., Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, J.D. Vance, and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Five years ago every single one of these people, with the exception of Tucker Carlson, were opposed—sometimes vehemently—to Trump. Now they are his biggest backers. They don’t have a lot in common with each other, either. Yet now they all see Donald Trump as the best hope to restrain the creeping totalitarianism in our country. They support free speech; they oppose the forever wars; they oppose government programs making our children chronically ill. Most importantly, unlike the Woke Left, they don’t hate you and me.

To be clear, this new political realignment is a cause for concern for conservative Catholics, for it has put social issues like abortion and homosexual “marriage” on the back-burner. This is where our work comes in. We must convince the Trump Administration that true prosperity cannot come to our nation if we continue to slaughter the unborn and discard the sacredness of marriage. But the good thing about the Trump Administration is that, unlike the Woke Left, they will at least give us a hearing. Now we have to work to make that hearing count and truly make America great again.

God’s Wake-up Call

As I noted in the Crisis Point podcast yesterday, we seem to be living in apocalyptic times. Every week brings some new and horrific disaster, whether that be a new war breaking out or a new cataclysmic hurricane forming. Combine that with the heresy and corruption rampant in the Church and the insanity of our current election (have we already forgotten that one of the candidates has faced not one, but two assassination attempts?), and it’s enough to make one wonder whether we are living in the End Times.

I can’t answer that question, but I do think these happenings are a wake-up call for Catholics; specifically, a call to wake up and pray.

There’s lots of theories as to why the practice of Catholicism has fallen so dramatically in recent decades, and why the Western world has degenerated into paganism (and of course those two are not unrelated). Many of those theories have merit, but I would argue that a decline in prayer is a major part of the problem—and therefore an intensification of prayer is a major part of the solution.

Here at Crisis, author and spiritual theologian David Torkington has recently written a number of articles on the decline in mystical theology over the past few centuries, which he argues has in turn has led to a decline in prayer among Catholics. I think he’s identified an important cause of our culture’s—and our Church’s—decline. When a people do not pray, they cannot expect divine protection.

Some might balk at that last sentence, but it is biblical to the core. Many would think it means God is a petty tyrant, punishing us for the least mistake or sin: “You aren’t praying? Then here’s a hurricane to punish you!”

That of course is ridiculous. But Catholics have long believed that prayer really does impact our world, and a lack of prayer can lead to negative consequences in our lives. This isn’t Prosperity Gospel nonsense, but instead an understanding of how a loving Father works. A loving Father doesn’t indulge his children constantly, and when he sees a child following a wayward path, he often allows that child to experience the consequences of his actions in order to turn the child around.

When God removes His protection from us, it’s not primarily to punish us; instead, it’s to jolt us out of our complacency. And if there’s one thing the Catholic world became over time is complacent. Dramatic and traumatic events in our lives should—and often do—send us to our knees. We realize how dependent we are on God for everything in life, and so we turn to Him and ask for His assistance. Like the wayward child, we realize how much we need our Heavenly Father at all times. Times of prosperity often lead us to forget God’s central place in our lives, and the Western world has experienced prosperity beyond imagination in the past century.

So, again, I think the current apocalyptic events are a wake-up call to prayer.

Of course there are many ways to pray and many good devotions. One, however, in my mind stands above them all: the Rosary. Many Marian apparitions in the past century and a half have urged us to pray the Rosary daily, and I would argue that the Rosary is the devotion that heaven itself wants us to prioritize in our day and age.

My friend Joshua Charles, host of the Eternal Christendom podcast, apparently agrees. He just began The Great Rosary Campaign, which is “a yearlong Rosary campaign for the conversion of cultural leaders who are fallen away Catholics and non-Catholic Christians.” What an excellent idea! I encourage you to sign up to this campaign.

But no matter what you do, pray more. Pray of course for those in the path of war or natural disaster, and pray for those suffering under the ideological evils of our age. But also pray for the conversion of sinners (another common request of Marian apparitions) and pray for the Catholic Church. At the end of every traditional Low Mass, we pray for “the conversion of sinners and the exaltation of our holy Mother the Church.” This is an excellent intention for our Rosaries as well.

God is sending us a wake-up call: Will we hit the snooze alarm, or will we get up and pray?

The Temptation of Boromir

My favorite character in the Lord of the Rings has always been Boromir (although sometimes Samwise vies for the crown). I consider the fall of Boromir as perhaps the most emotional and gripping scene in the entire trilogy.

Boromir represents the race of men, both in the book and in real life. He is strong and proud, able to do much good for those he rules and protects. He sees the One Ring as an opportunity; not for evil, as Sauron would, but for good. Its power, when wielded by the right man (Boromir considered himself the “right man,” and not without justification), could bring down Sauron and establish an era of peace for Middle Earth.

For those who aren’t familiar with the story, it sounds like a good plan. Yet those who recognize the corrupting influence of the One Ring know it is doomed to failure. Instead of establishing a reign of peace, a land ruled by Boromir and the One Ring would eventually end up exactly like one ruled by Sauron and the One Ring—just with different management.

Boromir’s temptation is the temptation of the Great Western Powers today, particularly America. Like Boromir, we represent the “good guys.” We’re not Mordor or the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. We’re Gondor. Being the good guys, we tend to think that anything we do, as long as it is for our cause, is just. We can and should wield powerful forces—often more powerful than we like to admit—to advance Democracy and Freedom.

We saw this temptation most clearly with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. You’ll find countless justifications for these immoral acts throughout the internet, but ultimately they come down to, “We were the good guys; they were the bad guys; we were therefore justified in what we did.” Yet Catholic moral theology makes clear that one cannot do evil—and dropping a nuke on a city filled with civilians is the definition of evil—that good may result.

Even if the dropping of those bombs shortened the war—a disputed point—what was the cost of those horrific acts? In the almost 80 years since the destruction of those two cities, many evils have been justified by American forces. For example, I’ve seen politicians recently argue that we should turn Palestine (and some include Iran) into a “parking lot”, and refer to Hiroshima/Nagasaki as a defense. Once you drop a nuke on a city, just about anything and everything is on the table, so to speak.

Even if the dropping of those bombs shortened the war—a disputed point—what was the cost of those horrific acts?Tweet This

But the implications of those evil acts can be more subtle. What happened to the American soul with those bombings? We were unquestionably on the side of Good in World War II; yet we committed a horrific act of evil to end that war. Like using the One Ring, embracing evil, even in the cause of good, takes its toll. I can’t help but wonder if the many evils that have arisen in our country since 1945—particularly abortion—have been at least partly due to a huge chunk of our soul being lost.

A more recent example of falling for the temptation of Boromir is the Israeli pager attack on Hezbollah. Thousands of pagers were exploded by remote control, injuring thousands and killing at least 32 people, including two children. I saw many conservatives cheering (and even laughing) at this attack, which cannot be considered just by Catholic morality.

Like the atomic bomb dropping, the pager attack takes another piece of the Western soul. Do we really want to live in a world where our wearable electronic devices are potential bombs? Where we justify setting off explosives in public areas, with no thought of collateral damage, all because we’re the “good guys?”

If an organization like Hezbollah carried out such an attack, is there any question we would quickly label it terrorism and self-righteously condemn it? But when “we” use the One Ring, all is justified. The indiscriminate way in which the “good guys” deal out death and destruction these days makes one wonder if in fact there are any actual good guys left.

In Tolkien’s epic masterpiece, Boromir is eventually redeemed. He recognizes the folly of his “logic” and ends up sacrificing his life for two hobbits. His redemption can be the story of each of us in the story of our own temptations, but I also pray that it becomes the story of the Great Western Powers, who have been using the One Ring so much in recent decades they are becoming gollumized. 

It won’t matter who rules us in the end if the rulers are using the One Ring to stay in power.

The Power of an Apology

Last week on the Crisis Point podcast Kevin Wells and I were discussing the response of the bishops to Covid back in 2020. Both of us felt that the fact that every single American bishops shut down the public celebration of the Mass for over a month is something the Church has yet to recover from.

Apart from the countless souls who didn’t return to Mass after the shutdown was lifted, there was the clear message sent by our spiritual fathers: Mass is “non-essential.” The most important activity on earth—literally!—was deemed not as important as shopping at Home Depot or getting an abortion at Planned Parenthood. At a time when spiritual assistance was most needed, most of our spiritual fathers checked out (listen to the episode to hear the story of a heroic and saintly priest who did not check out).

There’s simply no way to measure how that decision impacted the spiritual lives of Catholics throughout the country. Even before Covid Mass attendance was pitiful among self-identified Catholics; as low as 10% according to some estimates. But when the leaders of the Church say by their actions the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass isn’t that important, the consequences are dire.

Both Kevin and I suspect that many bishops now realize this. It’s likely one of the driving forces behind the 3-year Eucharistic Revival they planned. The bishops knew that belief in the Real Presence was low before Covid, and the Mass shutdown didn’t help.

But will the Eucharistic Revival be enough to turn things around? Perhaps, but I would argue that there’s one major thing missing from this multi-year event: an apology.

Imagine the power of the bishops saying: “We were wrong. We should not have locked you out of our churches. We should not have denied you access to the Sacraments. We realize now what a bad decision that was, and we promise not to do it again. Mass is essential.”

With that simple apology, the bishops would make abundantly clear that they truly believe the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our faith; that it is necessary for salvation; and that the Sacraments must always be available to the faithful, even when—especially when—we are living through a crisis like the Covid pandemic.

When we recorded the podcast last week, not a single bishop was on record with an apology. On Saturday, I posted on ????: “I wish our bishops knew the spiritual blessings that would be unleashed on the Church by a simple and sincere public apology for shutting down public Masses during Covid.”

I didn’t expect any type of episcopal response, and after posting I left to go pick up my daughter at a parish event.

Then I started getting text messages from friends directing me to an ???? post by Bishop Joseph Strickland. He had responded to my post with a heartfelt apology: “Eric, I offer my apology as you have requested. I was duped by the media hype and should have been stronger. Let us pray for all shepherds to have stronger supernatural faith as we face more challenges in the future. May Christ be our Light in whatever darkness we face.”

I was beyond grateful. Here was a successor to the apostles, who himself had shut down access to Mass during the Covid lockdowns, admitting he made a mistake. What a man of humility! I of course accepted his apology and thanked him.

Some might say, “Too little, too late.” But such people don’t understand Catholicism. It’s not about our falls, it’s about getting back up. We all are sinners, and it’s likely most of us, if we were in the position of the bishops in 2020, would have done the exact same thing. So it’s not about blaming bishops and pointing fingers at them. It’s about moving forward, which can only be done when we acknowledge our past mistakes. Repentance is the key to unlock revival, but repentance only happens after an acknowledgement of fault.

If we truly want a Eucharistic Revival in this land, we need apologies from the bishops for their actions during the Covid lockdowns. I call on all our bishops to join Bishop Strickland in apologizing. If you do, you will find Catholics ready to forgive, and spiritual blessings unleashed in your local churches.

The Trump Betrayal

The relationship between the pro-life movement and Donald Trump has always been a tenuous one. Trump has never spoken our language, and his opposition to abortion has always seemed pragmatic at best. Yet, unlike previous Republican presidents who did speak our language, he was primarily responsible for achieving the Holy Grail of the movement: the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Achieving that long-sought goal strengthened the bonds between Trump and pro-lifers, and it seemed that the bond could never be broken. Apparently Trump himself wants to test that assumption.

Since his 2024 campaign for re-election began, Trump has appeared more squishy on abortion than before. Perhaps he saw how the abortion issue hurt the Republicans in the 2022 mid-terms and wanted to avoid that result. Or perhaps he felt that pro-lifers were solidly in his base, so he could reach out to form a broader coalition this time around.

Whatever the reason, Trump is doing all he can to distance himself from the pro-life cause.

At the Republican National Convention, the abortion plank in the Republican platform was softened considerably. Pro-abortion figures were given prominent speaking roles. Abortion was barely mentioned in any of the speeches.

That alone was concerning, but somewhat understandable from a political perspective. No matter how much pro-lifers want it to not be true, the reality is that the pro-life position is a losing proposition in national elections, so downplaying it makes political sense.

But Trump has gone much further than just downplaying abortion. He seems hell-bent (and I use that word purposefully) to prove the Harris campaign wrong for arguing that a Trump Administration will make abortion illegal. Frankly, Trump appears weak, desperately trying to convince people he’s not the anti-woman mean ogre the Harris campaign makes him out to be.

Trump has gone much further than just downplaying abortion. He seems hell-bent (and I use that word purposefully) to prove the Harris campaign wrong for arguing that a Trump Administration will make abortion illegal.Tweet This

Last week he posted on Truth Social: “My Administration will be great for women and reproductive rights.” While some trumpsplainers tried to argue that “reproductive rights” doesn’t necessarily mean legalized abortion, all rational people know that’s exactly what reproductive rights means.

Then yesterday he dropped two bombs into the heart of the pro-life movement. First, he expressed support for Florida’s proposed amendment to constitutionally protect abortion, stating that the current law banning abortion after 6 weeks is “too early.” His campaign later backtracked a bit, but it’s clear Trump is opposed to any restrictions on abortion before at least 15 weeks.

But the final nail in the coffin was when Trump declared that his administration would have the government pay for IVF treatments or force insurance companies to pay for them. Let’s set aside the fundamentally anti-conservative notion that the government should be paying for optional services. This proposal not only would fund the destruction of human life; it would force Catholic institutions to pay for services they find deeply immoral.

During the Obama administration there was a part of Obamacare that would force companies to cover birth control. Catholics were rightly up in arms and many Catholic institutions fought against the mandate. Trump’s proposal is actually worse, as it would fund the destruction of human life on a massive scale.

At this point, it’s ridiculous to call Trump a pro-life candidate. He’s not. He’s pro-abortion by any reasonable definition. Perhaps not as pro-abortion as Harris, but pro-abortion, nonetheless. 

So does that mean Catholics should not vote for him?

Not necessarily. For years many Catholics have wrongly claimed, “No Catholic can vote for a pro-abortion candidate.” But this is not what the Church teaches. The reality is that a Catholic can vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil (as Trump does) as long as that’s not the reason he is voting for the candidate, and there are proportional reasons to support him.

In this case, while Trump is terrible on abortion, Harris is actually worse (although I don’t think she has called for government funding for IVF, at least not yet). And there are a whole host of other reasons to not vote for Harris. So a vote for Trump is morally acceptable (as is a vote for a better third-party candidate).

Yet we need to be honest with ourselves. The two major party tickets for president are both pro-abortion this year. That’s the country we’re living in. If you vote for one of them, you are voting for a pro-abortion ticket.

As I noted, this is allowed within Catholic morality, but there’s no point in pretending Trump is something he’s not. He is representative of our broader culture, which has become deeply pro-abortion. Until we change that, it’s likely we’ll be faced with this terrible choice for years to come.

Thank You, Elon Musk

I want you to take a journey with me back in time, deep in the mists of history, to a time when many little dictators ruled a land and the people were controlled in virtually every aspect of their lives, and they accepted this dictatorial control willingly.

Yes, I want you to go all the way back to 2020.

This was an era when almost every single Governor, whether Democrat or Republican, used a virus that for most people was little worse than a common cold as an excuse to decide what businesses were essential and thus could remain open (with all the useless restrictions such as masking and social distancing, of course). Any business that was not favored by the powers-that-be were deemed nonessential and shut down mercilessly. These Governor-Dictators also decided when you could leave your homes and where you could go when you did (no beaches for you!).

I realize most of you aren’t old enough to remember that time, so you might ask yourself: Why did the people accept it? After all, America is the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, is it not? Does it not have a history of resisting tyrants and being fiercely independent? So how did it happen that so many people went along with these clearly unAmerican actions?

While many things occurred in the decades leading up to Covidtide that laid the foundations for the people’s acquiescence to tyranny, the direct cause was the ability of government, both state and federal, to control the flow of information. Even though it was supposedly an era of unfettered access to media, in 2020 the Elites were able to control what information people saw to a great degree.

This control has always been a reality in traditional forms of media, such as radio and television, but what really made 2020 possible was the Elites’ control over social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. As someone who lived through 2020 (you young people wouldn’t understand), I saw firsthand how any deviance from the Official Narrative was quickly removed and the purveyor punished. Anyone who wanted to even slightly challenge the Narrative had to speak in code and carefully watch what he said. We know now that this censorship was directed by government officials through “suggestions” to social media operators (much like a Mob boss will “suggest” you pay him for “protection”). We also know that almost everything said about the virus was a lie.

This absolute control over the major social media channels allowed the Governor-Dictators to keep their grip on power, and had a significant influence on the 2020 elections as well. Without it, it’s unlikely they would have gotten away with it, at least not to the extreme they did. 

Fast-forward to today, four long years later, and things are different. Yes, the traditional media is still completely a propaganda wing of the Elites (notice how they turned a VP who was widely acknowledged just recently as an embarrassment to her own party into the Second Coming of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, and Susan B. Anthony rolled into one). Many social media outlets like Facebook are still monitoring your posts, Comrade, to make sure you don’t fall out of line.

But there is one major difference: Twitter. Or should I say, ????.

Eccentric billionaire Elon Musk purchased Twitter in 2022 in what appeared to be a fit of pique over how Twitter was censoring accounts like the Babylon Bee. Many left-leaning pundits predicted Twitter’s demise, especially after Musk eliminated 80% of Twitter’s workforce.

Well, it’s true that Twitter died. But its successor ???? is stronger than ever. Last night ???? hosted a “Spaces” interview between Musk and Donald Trump that at last count had over 1 billion people who listened to at least parts of it. The numbers dwarf anything that State Propaganda Outlet CNN could ever dream of.

The reach of ???? has gotten so significant that the democratic face the Elites show the public has started to disappear. Hours before the Trump interview, EU Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Thierry Breton sent a threatening letter to Musk (which Breton ironically posted on ????), warning the billionaire that if the interview in his view promoted “hatred, disorder, incitement to violence, or…disinformation,” then the EU would punish ????.

The reach of ???? has gotten so significant that the democratic face the Elites show the public has started to disappear.Tweet This

The response on ???? was incredible. Breton was severely ratioed and Americans in particular took affront to this obvious election interference by a foreign power (does anyone for a minute think Breton would have sent that letter if Musk were interviewing Kamala Harris?).

Musk, for his part, responded directly to Breton with an obscene meme, letting it be completely clear he wouldn’t comply.

While there’s a danger for those of us who are frequently online to exaggerate the impact of online actions in the real world, it’s hard to overstate how big a deal this is. Just a few years ago all the levers of power were in the hands of Elites who wanted to control our lives, and now, because a billionaire was fed up, there is at least one outlet where information can flow freely. (And note that Musk extended an invitation to Harris as well to come on Spaces with him. She declined.)

For years regular people have been increasingly controlled and manipulated into accepting insanities like abortion and transgenderism. And for years regular people have had no real power to resist that manipulation. But now two slightly-crazy billionaires—Donald Trump and Elon Musk—are representing those regular people and leading a resistance.

Don’t get me wrong: both Trump and Musk are not Catholic paradigms of virtue. Both have not always followed Catholic morality in their personal and professional lives. Both have policy ideas that do not conform to Catholic teaching. But both right now seem to share one thing in common: they are fed up with powerful people dictating reality for everyone else. And because they are themselves powerful people, they can actually do something concrete to fight it.

Elon Musk isn’t our savior, and he alone can’t make the world a better place. But he has done more than most to make it at least possible to resist tyranny and oppression, and for that, I say:

Thank you, Elon Musk.

War Must Become a Primary Issue for Catholics in Presidential Elections

I believe opposition to war is as important, or even more important, than opposition to abortion in presidential elections. I realize this is a controversial take to most readers of Crisis, but hear me out.

Let me first establish my pro-life bonafides. I believe every single abortion, without exception, is murder and should be illegal. Legalized abortion in this country is a holocaust crying to heaven for God’s vengeance. My modern-day heroes are the brave men and women who have been arrested for trying to prevent women from aborting their children. Every abortion doctor, and every abortion-mill worker, should be in jail.

For a long time I was essentially a single-issue voter, and that issue was abortion. On more than one occasion I didn’t vote for the Republican candidate for President because I didn’t think he was pro-life enough. Where a candidate stood on foreign policy and military conflicts wasn’t high on my list of priorities, but I generally favored the more interventionist candidate.

Now, in 2024, my voting calculus has changed (it has been slowly evolving for years, but this is the first year I’m concrete about it).

During my lifetime the United States has been involved in countless overseas conflicts, from outright wars to small-scale military operations. Vietnam War, two Iraq Wars, the occupation of Afghanistan, conflicts in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia, Syria, Yemen: the list goes on and on. In not a single one could America’s involvement be justified under Catholic Just War Theory.

We’ve also been heavily involved in provoking many more conflicts and engaging in proxy wars, most notably the current Russia-Ukraine war. Our neocon foreign policy has been a disaster for decades and has led to untold suffering and death, along with increased ill will and outright hatred for America around the world (thus creating the foundation for future conflicts).

I don’t think most American pro-lifers truly grasp the scale of the horrors our foreign policy has unleashed on the world. We often talk about the invisibility of the unborn, and how the fact that we can’t see the victim is a major reason abortion is accepted by so many.

The same is true for these foreign conflicts. Even though millions have been killed in conflicts involving the United States, and millions more have been horribly injured or had their lives otherwise devastated, we don’t see them. The dead Ukrainian or dead Yemeni or dead Palestinian are mostly invisible to the average American.

This is why neocon propaganda works so well. Politicians can engage in scaremongering about invented future dangers (“Russia will invade Poland!” “Iraq will nuke New York City!”) to frighten the public into supporting their latest war; meanwhile, no one sees or considers the eventual victims of their propaganda, the countless war dead in a far-away land.

So in terms of death and evil, the consequences of our foreign policy are nearly as destructive as the abortion holocaust. But voting calculus can’t be determined by numbers alone (abortion is solidly the greatest killer today), but by what can be done to stop it.

In the post-Roe world, the debate over the legality of abortion has moved mostly to the states. It’s true that the federal government still plays a role in abortion-related policies, but whether or not abortion is legal or illegal now falls on the individual states.

Foreign policy, however, is 100% in the domain of the federal government, and has increasingly become in the modern age mostly based on the whims of the president. (When was the last time the president asked Congress for a declaration of war? 1942, for those wondering.) The reality is that the president has far, far more impact on American foreign policy than he does on American abortion policy.

The reality is that the president has far, far more impact on American foreign policy than he does on American abortion policy.Tweet This

This is why I would argue that a presidential candidate’s positions on foreign policy (specifically foreign policy related to war and military conflicts) is as important, if not more important, than his or her positions on abortion. While a president can do little in our current environment to stop abortion, he or she can be extremely influential in minimizing or even stopping bloodshed around the world.

Note that I’m only referring to the presidential election. When voting for a state representative or governor, then abortion policy becomes paramount again, as these men and women can actually have an impact on making abortion illegal where you live (and they have no direct impact on foreign policy). When it comes to federal candidates like congressmen or senators, both foreign policy and abortion policy matter in that they may be voting for funding of both foreign wars and abortions. Again, the important variable in the voting calculus is the impact a politician can have on a specific issue.

I’ve always hated the “If you are really pro-life you would support my pet project” line, and so I won’t use it here. But I will urge Catholics, when voting for president,  to consider the death and destruction around the world brought on by our government’s horrible foreign policy.

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.

+ Load More
Continue Shopping →
Item added to cart.
0 items - $0.00
Checkout
Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMessengerMixPinterestPocketRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly