A friend of mine has been developing a project through Genesius Films, and it just hit a significant milestone: a producer is now attached and they’re actively seeking investors for Phase 1.

They will be making a graphic novel and an animatic, which hopefully will be picked up by Angel Studios as a feature film.

I’ve read the Episode 1 script. It’s good. I do not say that merely to be supportive of a friend; I say it because I was genuinely pleased by the quality and would not be writing this if I weren’t.

If you’re someone who invests in independent film, or you know someone who does, this is worth a look: genesiusfilms.com/invest.

When the Pope says something true, nobody seems to know what to do with it.

When Pope Leo XIV, during his eleven-day African pilgrimage, declared that “a handful of tyrants are ravaging the world” and warned that those who “manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain” are “dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” the American media responded as it always does: it converted theology into a personality conflict. The headlines read Leo vs. Trump, the Vatican vs. the White House — not an argument but a perosnal feud. President Trump felt personally slighted, called the Pope “weak on crime and terrible at foreign policy,” and briefly posted an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ. The spectacle was complete. The substance was buried.

What got buried was old and precise. The Catholic moral tradition has long identified three classical sources of temptation: the world, the flesh, and the devil. These are not decorative categories. They name three distinct modes by which the human person is drawn away from its proper end — disordered attachment to created goods, disordered desire within the body, and a personal malevolent intelligence that specializes above all in division. The press has been living in the third category without knowing it. The pope has been speaking against the first.

The mundus — the world in the sense of St. John and St. Augustine — does not mean creation as such. God created the world and it is good; by Christ it has become the theater of redemption. What the tradition means by “the world” as a source of temptation is a particular orientation of desire: the love of worldly power, prestige, and security treated as ultimate goods. It is the temptation to measure success by dominion, to read divine favor in military victory, to confuse the blessing of God with the approval of the strong. Augustine saw it at work in the ideology of Rome. Pope Leo XIV is seeing it at work now.

President Trump is not the devil, nor is he the world. He is a particularly vivid instance of a temptation that precedes him by millennia and will outlast his administration until Christ comes again. When a sitting president posts an image of himself as Christ, however briefly, he is not making a political statement. He is making a theological one, and a disordered one: he is identifying earthly power with divine authority, which is precisely what “the world” as a moral category describes. That Trump apparently believed the Pope was referring specifically to him when he spoke against tyrants is either revealing or darkly comic, depending on your patience.

Leo was quick to clarify that his Bamenda address had been prepared two weeks before Trump’s remarks about him. He was not responding to any man. He was discharging his office as Pope. The job of the Pope is not to debate presidents but to speak the Gospel into the actual conditions of human history, which have always included the temptation to sanctify power. Pope Leo XIV does not want a feud. He wants to insist that peacemakers are blessed and that those who exploit faith for military ends drag the sacred into darkness and filth. That is not foreign policy commentary. That is moral theology.

The tragedy of the current coverage is not that it gets the politics wrong, though it does. The tragedy is that it has no grammar for what the Pope is actually doing. A press corps fluent in approval ratings and diplomatic protocols is constitutionally unable to hear a claim made in the register of the eternal moral order. The result is translation into the only language available: Leo becomes a liberal critic, Trump a conservative target, and the exchange becomes another episode in the culture war where everyone goes home having understood nothing.

The three temptations are useful precisely because they refuse that translation. The devil causes division; the last two weeks have been diabolically effective at producing it, sorting Catholics along political lines and reducing a papal pilgrimage to a social media dispute. But underneath the noise, the Pope is doing something quieter and more serious: insisting that power is not providence, that strength is not sanctity, and that no flag has ever been a halo.

The Catholic tradition calls this fighting the mundus. It still does.

Pope Leo’s clarification that the speech predated Trump’s remarks: https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-leo-says-remarks-world-ravaged-handful-tyrants-aimed-trump-report.amp

Vatican News (official transcript of the Bamenda address): https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-04/pope-bamenda-woe-to-those-who-manipulate-religion-military.html

Taking the Schism Out of Criticism

In the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul recounts that he “opposed [St. Peter] to his face, because he stood condemned.” (Galatians 2:11ff). The theological issue was clear: St. Peter was wrong to require converted Gentiles to follow the Jewish law. St. Paul was right. St. Peter was wrong. Yet the dispute did not rupture communion. It was resolved within it.

This classical category of fraternal correction is largely forgotten. Strong opinions about authority abound, but without a shared framework for what legitimate criticism looks like. This episode presupposes a shared grammar of correction that is largely absent today.

Aquinas on Fraternal Correction

In the Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 33, St. Thomas Aquinas asks about the nature of fraternal correction. The first, and most important, reality about fraternal correction is that it is a “spiritual almsdeed… an act of charity.” (ST II-II, q.33, a.1, sc.) Therefore, correction is not a judgment; it is the fruit of a desire to remedy the sinner himself. In this way, it is to wish the good of the other. As an act of charity, St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, treats correction as a precept: “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.” (Augustine, De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4; ST II-II, q.33, a.2, sc.) However, if someone is correcting another in order to satisfy themselves, this is not charitable and therefore is not fraternal correction.

St. Thomas distinguishes between correction rooted in charity, which belongs to all, and correction rooted in authority, which belongs to those charged with the common good and may include punishment (ST II-II, q.33, a.3, corp.). Even so, those in authority remain subject to correction when they err.

The subordinate has no competency to administer a correction or punishment to those in authority, but he is duty bound, out of respect and charity, to correct the person in error, ordinarily through private admonition before any public rebuke (see ST II-II, q.33, a.7). People have a right to a good reputation.

Fraternal correction does not imply that the critic thinks himself better than the one being corrected. Due respect must always be given to the office of those in authority, even as the one with authority is being corrected of their error or disorder.

St. Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius

This same grammar can be seen with particular clarity in the encounter between St. Ambrose of Milan and the Emperor Theodosius I after the massacre at Thessalonica in 390. In response to a riot in which a Roman official was killed, Theodosius ordered a brutal reprisal that led to the death of thousands of civilians. St. Ambrose, though a subject of the emperor, did not respond with public agitation, but with a direct and pastoral correction ordered to the good of the sinner. He wrote to Theodosius, naming the act for what it was, and refused him admission to the Eucharist until he had repented. This was not an act of defiance but of charity: St. Ambrose neither denied the emperor’s authority nor usurped it, but exercised his own office for the sake of the emperor’s salvation. Theodosius, for his part, did not treat the correction as a rupture, but submitted to public penance and was reconciled. Here, correction does not produce schism but communion, precisely because it is governed by truth, charity, and a shared recognition of the moral order to which both superior and subordinate are accountable.

What This Rules Out

There are two main obstacles to applying fraternal correction appropriately: the uncritical loyalist and the uncharitable critic.

The uncritical loyalist conflates the person with the office. To criticize the evil or erroneous act of a person in power, in this distortion, is to attack the authority itself. By definition, this would make fraternal correction impossible.

The uncharitable critic conflates correction with condemnation. Without the end of the sinner’s amendment, and without deference to the office, then criticism becomes a weapon rather than a remedy.

Fraternal correction in the classical sense is a discipline, not an instinct. True correction requires the courage to speak and the charity to speak well.

The past week handed Catholics a moment they likely weren’t prepared for. The sitting president of the United States attacked the Holy Roman Pontiff with political campaign rhetoric. Trump called Leo “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy” and said he is “a very liberal person” who should “stop catering to the Radical Left.” He claimed Leo only became pope because the Church thought an American pontiff would be “the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump” — and went further: “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” Asked about it on the tarmac, he was unequivocal: “There’s nothing to apologize for. He’s wrong.”

The media are covering it as a political feud. Most Catholics likely consumed it in this same way. There are key clergy who are speaking out against Trump’s rhetoric in the American Church. One of those voices is my own local ordinary, Bishop John Dolan. He issued a statement which you can read below.

Bishop Dolan Letter

96.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

April 13, 2026 Statement

Download

The real story here is not what Trump said. The real story is not what Pope Leo XIV said. The story is that Catholics in the United States largely lack the framework to process it as anything other than politics.

The Catholic Social Teaching of the Church has a 135-year tradition of thinking precisely about the relationship between political authority, the common good, and the Church’s prophetic role. Catholic Social Teaching exists exactly for this moment.

Pope Leo XIV is consciously invoking the legacy of Pope Leo XIII. His choice of name is not political branding, but is making a theological claim about the continuity of teaching and moral clarity. Rerum Novarum (1891) by Pope Leo XIII is one of the keys to unlocking the present age. All of the encyclicals which comprise the social doctrine of the Church flow from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, authentically guarded by the Magisterium of the Church.

The antidote to our present situation is not a better “take.” It is formation.

If you want to join me in diving into the Catholic Social Teaching of the Church afresh, I invite you to sign up for the three upcoming seminars I am leading. Rerum Novarum was not just about the proper ordering of the work and the worker, it showed us how the Church has something relevant and perennially applicable to say in every age. The Church has something to say to you, to me, to Donald Trump. What is it? The Church is Mother and Teacher; do we let Her speak to us today? These seminars are where that happens.

Register Today

The Pope vs. the Secretary of War: A Theological Collision

On March 25, 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth prayed at the Pentagon a prayer previously given by a chaplain before the Venezuela covert ops mission:

Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation … Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.

Four days later on Palm Sunday, Pope Leo XIV (also an American) responded directly to ongoing conflicts and provided a foil to Hegseth, quoting Isaiah 1:15:

“[God] does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.’”

These two positions embody incompatible theologies of war. One of them is right. The rest of this article is about which one. This collision demands resolution for Catholic Americans and natural-law conservatives. While I am writing these words from my own perspective, it is these two main groups that I am addressing: Christians and conservatives.

Trump’s Own Words Reveal the Absence of Just Cause

President Trump on April 1, 2026, in what I hoped was a disgusting April Fool’s Day joke said of the war with Iran:

“We don’t have to be there. We don’t need their oil. We don’t need anything they have. But we’re there to help our allies.”

I’m glad he’s finally being honest about the supposed “imminent threat” to the United States that was bandied about as a casus belli. As a History teacher, the argument did not hold any water from the beginning.

Just cause in war requires self-defense or protection of innocents, not regional power politics. To be clear, I think that Israel does have a good cause for a defensive war with Iran given decades of Iranian belligerence, state sponsorship of terrorism, and abject hatred for the nation of Israel. Alliance solidarity is not the same as self-defense. The tradition permits war to defend the innocent, but the United States is not defending Israeli civilians. Some will argue that preventing a nuclear Iran is itself protecting the innocent—not just Israelis, but the entire region—and that this constitutes a just cause. The argument has force, but it was the justification for “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025. The nuclear sites were already struck. What we are doing now is something else.

As far as the United States is concerned, the President confirmed that this is a war of choice, not necessity. “Operation Epic Fury” is prosecuting an independent air campaign against Iranian infrastructure on its own strategic timeline. Trump’s own language confirms this: we are there “to help our allies,” not to protect the innocent. This violates the foundational just-war criterion. For more on Just War Theory, please reference this little article I put together last year:

Last Resort was Never Attempted

In his April 1 address, the President said:

“My first preference was always the path of diplomacy, yet the regime continued their relentless quest for nuclear weapons and rejected every attempt at an agreement.”

Then, in the same speech he said:

“In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

So, which is it? The stronger point is not the rhetorical contradiction — a president can claim diplomacy failed and still talk during a war. The stronger point is the timeline. Iranian negotiators reportedly presented a proposal favorable to U.S. interests the week before Operation Epic Fury launched, and talks were expected to continue. Trump attacked anyway. “Operation Midnight Hammer” struck nuclear sites in June 2025, then full-scale war came eight months later with no evidence of sustained diplomatic effort between the two operations. If last resort means anything, it means you do not launch a war while your adversary is still at the table.

Legitimate Authority Has Been Bypassed

There is another just-war criterion that conservatives especially cannot ignore: legitimate authority. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the authority to wage war belongs to the sovereign charged with the common good (ST II-II, q. 40, a. 1). In American constitutional order, that means Congress. Article I, Section 8 is unambiguous. The War Powers Resolution permits presidential action without a declaration only in response to an attack on the United States and requires congressional authorization within 60 days.

Trump launched “Operation Epic Fury” on February 28 without a declaration of war and without authorization under any existing authorized use of military force (AUMF). The 2001 AUMF covers September 11; the 2002 Iraq AUMF was repealed in 2023. Neither authorizes a full-scale campaign against Iran, and no new AUMF has been passed. The administration has invoked Article II authority and self-defense, but the President himself gutted the self-defense rationale when he told the nation “we don’t have to be there.”

This is not a technicality. The just-war tradition requires legitimate authority precisely because the decision to spend human lives must not rest with one man. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood this. St. Thomas Aquinas understood it centuries before them. Conservatives who claim to value constitutional order and the constraint of executive power cannot simply wave this away.

Proportionality Has Been Abandoned

The criteria above concern the decision to go to war. The criteria below concern how it is fought. This war fails both tests. Also in his speech, Trump said:

“We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages, where they belong.”

When did this war become a war against the people of Iran? Trump’s own language answers the question. Unless we think the Stone Ages comment to be ambiguous, he also said:

“If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously...we could hit [their oil] and it would be gone.”

Destroying the civilian infrastructure of 88 million people is not proportionate to any military objective and is wrong. This is total war against a civilian population, not constrained military action. It is reprehensible and gravely evil.

Discrimination Between Combatants and Civilians Has Been Obliterated

President Trump is increasingly treating the entirety of Iran as a unified enemy, not distinguishing the regime from the people. And to be clear, the Iranian regime is evil. This attitude is further evidence of a mindset shared by Trump and Hegseth. Hegseth’s prayer at the Pentagon does not distinguish between combatants and civilians. It sees the Iranians as not deserving of mercy. The way this war is being carried out violates a fundamental principle that non-combatants may not be targeted in war and civilians should be protected. Israel’s ongoing campaign in Lebanon, which has killed over a thousand civilians in four weeks, raises the same questions of discrimination and proportionality.

The Inversion of Christian Teaching on War

Just-war tradition says war always involves grave harm and should only be undertaken reluctantly under strict conditions. St. Augustine teaches that war can be just, but only with the right circumstances and intentions. Namely, the focus must be justice and peace, not vengeance. Hegseth’s prayer inverts this order. He sanctifies violence, treating it as righteousness. His clear desire is to maximize destruction rather than minimize it.

The First and Third Crusades were defensible on just-war grounds: they were responses to aggression and conquest, authorized by legitimate Christian authority, fought to recover territory under military siege. But the justness of the cause did not justify the conduct. The massacres, the slaughter of civilians, the denial of mercy to prisoners were all grave moral evils, violations of the principles of discrimination and proportionality. The lesson is crucial: a war can be just in its cause and unjust in its execution. What matters is that the entire enterprise, both cause and conduct, must be governed by justice and mercy.

Hegseth’s prayer inverts this distinction. It does not separate just cause from just conduct. It sanctifies violence itself. This is a false theology. It is not merely wrong — it is an inversion of the Christian tradition on war. The just-war tradition exists precisely to prevent the sacralizing of violence, to insist that even when war is necessary, it remains a tragedy governed by moral limits. Hegseth’s prayer collapses that distinction entirely, treating overwhelming force as righteousness and enemies as undeserving of mercy. Whatever we call this, it is fundamentally at odds with Christian teaching. I’d prefer to call it “idolatrous,” since it substitutes the will of the state for the will of God.

And it is worse than the excesses of the Crusades because at least those wars (the First and the Third) had defensible initial causes. “Operation Epic Fury,” by Trump’s own admission, does not. We are waging a war we do not need to wage, in a manner explicitly designed to destroy civilian infrastructure and reduce a nation to the Stone Ages. We are committing the sins of the Crusades—indiscriminate violence, denial of mercy, collective punishment—but without even the pretense of a just cause to begin with.

Pope Leo XIV is correct. God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war in this way.

Subscribe now

Why This Should Matter to American Conservatives Specifically

As a conservative American who (reluctantly) voted for Trump three times, I understand how difficult it is to see the world clearly through an American exceptionalist lens. We want the U.S.A. to be the good guys, to be a force for justice and democracy throughout the world. So, it is difficult to face the reality that what is being done under American leadership is very, very bad.

Just-war tradition is a conservative intellectual inheritance, through figures such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Fr. Suárez S.J., and others. Just-war theory constrains power through reason and law, which is precisely what conservatives claim to value. This administration—which is populist, not conservative—has inverted that tradition, treating military dominance as moral license. Since 2001, questioning military action has been treated as weakness or insufficient patriotism. This has made it dangerous for conservatives to apply just-war reasoning to American wars.

The unconstrained executive power in military matters shown by this war is incredibly concerning to me as an American conservative. The just-war tradition demands more than application of abstract criteria. It demands witness. We can, and must, name this war for what it is: unjust in cause, unjust in conduct, and sanctified by a theology that is fundamentally at odds with Christian teaching. Silence is complicity.

The Proper Response: Examination of Conscience

Phil Lawler, in a March 13 Catholic Culture article writes:

“The just-war tradition is eminently practical, demanding, and thorough. Rather than providing quick yes-or-no questions, the tradition furnishes responsible government leaders with an examination of conscience.”

Lawler is exactly right, and he has practiced what he preaches. In his own Substack analysis of the President’s April 1 address, Lawler flagged the same passages I have cited here—Trump’s admission that “we don’t have to be there” and his threat to bring Iran “back to the Stone Ages”—and concluded that the first undermines just cause and the second threatens to constitute a war crime.

Pope Leo XIV’s call for examination of conscience is in precisely this spirit. The Pope is not telling Americans to be pacifists. He is telling us to be honest. Hegseth’s posture is the opposite: pray harder and don’t question what we are doing. The Pope, like Christ, invites us to examine our conscience.

We have to apply just-war criteria systematically: just cause? Last resort? Proportionality? Discrimination? Evidence suggests that the answers are all no. If a war fails the just-war criteria, it is not a just war.

This is not merely a foreign policy debate. And it is incredibly messy. The Iranian regime’s threat is real. That does not excuse waging war without just cause, without exhausting last resort, without proportionality, and without discrimination. The ends cannot justify the means.

The clash between the Trump administration vis-à-vis Hegseth and Pope Leo XIV is a question of whether or not the American people, and Catholics in particular, will allow leaders to wage war without moral constraint. Just-war tradition is a living inheritance rooted in Sacred Scripture. We neglect it at our own grave peril. Even war must be constrained by justice. The Pope’s call for an examination of conscience is a demand for moral seriousness, not weakness.

We can, and must, do better.

Dear readers and listeners,

I’m grateful to share that I have successfully defended my dissertation and have been awarded the Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) from Pontifex University. The board passed the dissertation with commendation.

The project, Participatio Actuosa and the Paschal Mystery: Active Participation as Sacramental Incorporation into Christ’s Self-Offering, argues that active participation is best understood as the sacramental incorporation into Christ’s paschal self-offering, grounded by baptismal ontology, fulfilled and actualized in the Eucharist, and ordered towards deification.

I am thankful to my director and readers for their careful engagement, and to my family, colleagues, and students for their steady support throughout this process.

I look forward to continuing the work in writing and teaching.

In Christ,

Dr. Will Wright

The Church issued forth from the open side of Christ on the Cross (John 19:34) and was borne forth into the world on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). She is not first a human project that later acquires divine assistance, but a divine reality that continually invites human cooperation. If the Church were merely a human thing, it would have lasted a week at most.

It seems to me that both so-called “traditional Catholics” (whom I will refer to as “trads” for brevity) and progressives often deny this foundational reality, either implicitly or explicitly. In different ways, both adopt a hermeneutic of rupture with regard to the Second Vatican Council. Against this, I follow Pope Benedict XVI’s insistence on a hermeneutic of reform in continuity, which alone does justice to the Church’s divine constitution and historical life.

Progressives tend to err on doctrinal grounds by treating the Church as a vehicle for various activist causes. When this happens, doctrine is relativized, worship is instrumentalized, and the sacred is diminished. The result is a flattening of the Church’s liturgical and sacramental life, where transcendence gives way to utility and divine initiative is overshadowed by human agendas. These errors must be named clearly and resisted, and in many places they already are.

The traditionalist reaction, however, presents a more subtle danger. While professing belief in the divine constitution of the Church, many trads operate as though human initiative has successfully obscured the Lord’s presence in His Church for the past fifty years. The implicit claim is that the Church has become so confused, compromised, or malleable that ordinary Catholics can no longer trust her worship, her discipline, or even her teaching without qualification.

Yet if the Church is truly the Church of Jesus Christ, then such a prolonged and near-total eclipse of truth and sacramental life should not be possible. Christ’s kingship is not so fragile, nor is the Holy Spirit so easily thwarted. To suggest otherwise is not a defense of tradition but a quiet denial of ecclesial indefectibility.

The Catholic Church is one Church, expressed through a legitimate diversity of rites, theological accents, and disciplinary forms. In both East and West, the Church has always allowed for plural expressions of the same faith, provided they remain in communion with the successor of St. Peter and the bishops in union with him.

The increasingly common claim that the Roman Rite has been divided into two opposing realities, the so-called “Latin Mass” on the one hand and the “Novus Ordo” on the other, is therefore theologically incoherent. It implies not organic development but rupture, not reform but replacement. Some within traditionalist circles, including certain priests and bishops associated with groups like the SSPX, go so far as to suggest that the Church after Vatican II is distinct from the true, preconciliar Church. Such claims are historically unsustainable and doctrinally indefensible.

At the same time, it must be said clearly that not all attachment to the usus antiquior reflects this mentality. Ecclesia Dei communities such as the ICKSP and the FSSP offer legitimate and beautiful pastoral care to stable communities, exercising the Roman Rite in its older form with full permission and oversight from the Holy See. There is nothing inherently suspect about reverence for older liturgical forms when that reverence remains ecclesial rather than ideological.

Subscribe now

The real danger lies not in Latin or chant or traditional vesture, but in a schismatic spirit that treats suspicion as fidelity and rupture as guardianship. That spirit, whether explicit as in sedevacantism or implicit in certain corners of traditionalist culture, cannot be allowed to take root among the faithful. Communion with the Church cannot be selectively affirmed. One cannot claim to defend Christ while quietly withdrawing trust from the Body He promised to sustain until the end of the age.

Both progressivism and traditionalist rupture stem from a loss of confidence in Christ’s active governance of His Church. There is a fear of disorder or a fear of irrelevance which becomes the rally cry for dissent from the reality of the continuity of the Church, safeguarded by the Holy Spirit. By either innovation or retreat, a desire to seize control is understandable psychologically, but not theologically. Human certainty cannot become a substitute for theological trust in the promise of Christ of a prevailing Church.

Authentic reform must presuppose continuity because it presupposes fidelity to Christ. Reform is not a replacement; in every legitimate, historical instance of reform in Church History it is a purification. Any ideological baggage associated with the Second Vatican Council will die with its adherents. Growth in the Church has always been organic. Any attempt to graft on something that is not of God results in correction, pruning, and stability over time. Authority, centered in the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in union with him, serves communion rather than the suppression of legitimate and healthy diversity.

There has been real confusion in recent decades. That is undeniable. But times and instances of poor leadership do not negate the divine life of the Church. Crises have arisen in every age of the Church and we are still here. Sin in the Church and the failure of the Church are the result of human weakness, not the action of the Lord. Ecclesial endurance is not measured in triumphalism or human achievement, but in the Cross of Christ.

The credibility of the Church rests not in aesthetic purity but in sacramental reality. The valid sacraments are acts of Christ, regardless of which Missal is being used. Grace is not dependent on the ideological alignment of the minister or recipients but on the desire to do as the Church intends. Participation is far more about reception of grace and cooperation with that grace than any notion of control.

Subscribe now

Catholic fidelity means remaining inside the Church even when those within the Church wound, disappoint, or confuse us. Obedience in trust is not passivity. There is no issue with charitable correction, calling out issues, or admonishing sin. In fact, these are spiritual works of mercy. But tradition is a living inheritance which must be received from Holy Mother Church in every age, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium, and guarded and guided by the Holy Spirit. Christ’s promise to remain with His Church is perennial. Any ideology which suggests otherwise, even implicitly, should be firmly rejected: on either side of the ideological spectrum.

Hi everyone,

Take a moment to head over to YouTube to subscribe to Reasonably Rational, a podcast from my friend Steve Greene. Steve and I sat down a few months ago to record this episode and we cover a wide range of topics, including:

• History

• Philosophy

• Theology

• The Catholic liturgy wars

• Sacred Music

• the power of Catholic orthodoxy

• and more!

Give it a listen and give their channel some love!
- Will

One of the central confusions of modern Christian life is not a lack of sincerity, but a lack of order.

We are encouraged to “follow our hearts,” to equate freedom with self-expression, and to treat moral limits as arbitrary restrictions. Yet Scripture and the Church’s Tradition present a very different account: the moral life is about learning to love rightly. Not suppressing desire, but ordering it. Not choosing whatever we want, but wanting what is truly good.

This conviction lies at the heart of a new lecture series I will be teaching with the Institute of Catholic Theology called Ordered by Love: From Leo XIII to Leo XIV.

We will be looking at the seven themes of Catholic Social Teaching and the great writings of Pope Leo XIII, the Popes of the 20th Century, up through our current Holy Father Pope Leo XIV.

This is not a self-help course, and it is not a set of moral shortcuts. It is an attempt to think clearly about the structure of the Christian moral life and to recover a vision of discipleship that is coherent, demanding, and hopeful.

You can find details and registration information here:

https://www.ictphx.org/courses/ordered-by-love

If this is a question you have wrestled with, I hope you will consider joining us.

In Christ,

Will

This episode is my first after a year off from recording. The podcast is OFF Airplane Mode! I will not be posting often, to be honest. I’m only seeking out interviews that really, truly interest me. I’ve loved speaking with every guest I’ve had on the show, but the pace was a bit breakneck, to be honest. So, I’ll be curating the conversations a bit more.

It was a real pleasure having a conversation with T.J. Burdick on technology, AI, human nature, parenting, and more. I hope you’ll give it a listen.

Here is the article on Catholic Exchange that we discussed: https://catholicexchange.com/are-you-smarter-than-ai/

And here is a link to T.J.’s book Detached: Put Your Phone in Its Place (OSV, 2018): https://www.tjburdick.com/detached/

Who is T.J.? (From his Substack)

I’m a writer of both fiction and nonfiction whose primary lens is through the Catholic faith. I’m not a radtrad, nor a liberal lefty– I strive for the middle path… which doesn’t sell many books 😂

Here’s a quick “list of me:”

• Married to my wife, Maribel (since 2007)_

• Father of 5 children

• Work as a public school teacher

• Published books through OSV, En Route Books and Media, Gracewatch Media, and Self-Published

• Contributor for Catholic Exchange

• Owner of EpicPew.com and SignumDei.com

• Former missionary

• Finally professed Third Order Dominican (since 2013)

• I run 5 and 10ks (but very slowly)

What is the Johnson Amendment?

The Johnson Amendment took a crippling blow today as far as churches go. A win for freedom of speech and religion in the United States! The Johnson Amendment is a part of the U.S. tax code named after President Lyndon Johnson who when he was a Senator in 1954 proposed the preliminary draft of the law. Basically, it prohibits 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Where the issue resided, prior to today, was with churches.

There are many news stories that can be found on the decision handed down today. Here is one.

If you want to read the actual JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT, then please download the 7 page document below.

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT

145KB ∙ PDF file

Download

"Plaintiffs National Religious Broadcasters and Intercessors for America, and Plaintiff Churches (Sand Springs Church and First Baptist Church Waskom), and Defendants Billy Long,1 in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), (collectively “the Parties”), stipulate and jointly move this Court to approve and enter the attached proposed consent judgment as a final resolution of all of the claims presented in the Amended Complaint, ECF 20...."

Download

What I want to look at briefly is two things.

First, I want to provide a brief commentary.

Second, I want to make the argument that it is good that churches are exempt but universities and other charitable organizations are not, and, hopefully, I will draw some good distinctions.

My Commentary on the Johnson Amendment not extending to Churches

Just because a church CAN endorse or oppose specific political candidates does not mean they SHOULD.

I will give a practical example and then give some principles about why this is the case. To be clear, I am focusing on the Catholic Church in this short commentary.

Using the example of the last presidential election in 2024: no sane person can make an argument for a faithful Catholic endorsing Kamala Harris (if I need to explain this, I’m afraid I can’t help you). But a rational argument can be made for a faithful Catholic opposing Donald Trump (if I need to explain this, I’m afraid I can’t help you). In our, unfortunately, two party system, an endorsement of one candidate amounts to an opposition of the other or vice versa. By saying from the pulpit that a Catholic ought to vote for one candidate or not vote for one candidate simply becomes a catch 22. By pointing out serious faults in one candidate, the other candidate will be passively brought forward as the candidate to choose, whether intentionally or not.

The practical example I just gave should highlight some of the pitfalls of endorsing candidates from the pulpit. But, in general, it is also more prudent and respectful to stick to the policies and goals of a candidate or platform. By shifting the focus away from candidate and towards what they stand for, the priest would be truly preaching and teaching. Considering the pulpit is the place where the pastor addresses his flock most powerfully, we can assume a liturgical context. The liturgy should not be the time or place for a priest to share his political views, but it is absolutely the time for a pastor to preach and teach on Catholic principles of faith and morals!! When a pastor “threads the needle” and speaks on principles, he is being respectful of the lay person he is forming. The laity are called to sanctify the world which means engaging in the public square and the political arena.

So, I think it is phenomenal that the Johnson Amendment no longer extends to churches! In our modern world, the average leftist American cannot discern the different between principles of faith and morals and actual “political speech.” And, frankly, those on the right do not do much better in finding the golden mean of speaking to ideas and principles without overstepping. Again, my issue with the priest getting into politics is not about separation of Church and state—which I think is a farce—but about him not staying in his lane and allowing the laity to step up and do the job that to which they are properly called.

To see more about why the separation of Church and state has been stretched past the breaking point, please read:

At any rate, the document released today said this, and it is a beautiful description of what the Church is: a family.

“Bona fide communications internal to a house of worship, between the house of worship and its congregation, in connection with religious services, do neither of those things, any more than does a family discussion concerning candidates. Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted…”

A family discussion concerning candidates. The Church is a family, the Family of God, and we ought to be able to discuss internally whatever we desire. It is good, right, and just.

In external communications, there is no fear of reprisal from the government because the Catholic Church, as such, does not speak to the world through its “usual channels of communication on matters of faith;” rather, if everything is well ordered, it is the laity and various apostolates that do and ought to speak to the world!

Why Are Churches Different?

While all 501(c)(3) organizations share tax-exempt status, not all stand in the same constitutional or theological position.

Churches Stand on Dual Constitutional Ground

Each Catholic Parish is a part of the Diocese in which it is located, and each diocese is a microcosm of the universal Church. Our hierarchical structure is like a body. Certainly, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, but even here on earth, with the bishops in union with the pope, it is a metaphorical body. Churches are not just speech-making institutions; they are worshiping bodies. Their communication—especially within the context of religious services—is protected not only by the Free Speech Clause, but also by the Free Exercise Clause. That constitutional protection means that preaching, teaching, and exhortation about public matters are part of religious practice, not political participation in the ordinary sense. Political participation belongs to the laity.

Churches Are Not Voluntary Nonprofits in the Same Sense

Most 501(c)(3) entities apply for status and accept certain conditions. Churches do not. They are presumed tax-exempt under federal law; they do not have to specially apply for this status. If a university chooses to receive federal funding or tax benefits, it knowingly enters into a regulatory framework (someone should remind Harvard, it seems). But churches are not contracting parties with the IRS in the same way which gives them a distinct legal character.

The State Has No Competence in the Pulpit

To enforce the Johnson Amendment against churches would require the federal government to scrutinize the content of sermons! That is precisely the kind of entanglement the Establishment Clause was meant to prevent. Again, read my article on Religious Freedom. The court rightly recognized in the joint motion that a broad reading of the Johnson Amendment would favor religious traditions that avoid political themes over those that do not. The Constitution makes it clear that the government cannot be in the business of determining which religion is superior to which.

The Law Already Makes Room for This Distinction

The text of the Johnson Amendment prohibits political “participation or intervention.” But the ordinary meaning of those words does not extend to internal religious teaching or preaching during public worship, like the Holy Mass. A pastor urging his congregation to think biblically about public decisions, ideas, goals, and means is not campaigning—he is being a pastor.

The Constitution rightly treats churches differently from other charitable organizations and universities. The State cannot police the conscience of a person, nor should it be infiltrating the sanctuary to vet the words of a homily. For better or worse, we live in a pluralistic society (which brings with it all manner of difficulties for a faithful Catholic), and good boundaries must be maintained for the good of the Church and the country. And healthy boundary does not mean separation.

War is Hell

From the outset, I want to make it clear: I am not attempting to comment on the ongoing conflicts in the world (Iran and Israel, Iran and the U.S., Israel and Hamas, Russia and Ukraine, etc.). Everyone has an opinion and no one has the full picture. However, I am sure that all of you reading this have ideas about those conflicts. You have predictions about what might happen. And you are likely discussing these matters with your friends, coworkers, and families. What I do not hear a lot about is just the stark reality: war is hell. We think about war as if it is a video game or a game of chess between politicians. Even the nature of warfare seems to be obscured; often we hear of drone strikes and missiles flying, but the idea of boots on the ground is simply not as visceral as reality when read about in the news reports.

The Catholic Church, as always, has something to say. In a moment, I will be outlining the main movements of just war theory, formulated and popularized by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pope Leo and Pope Francis both spoke of the current regional conflicts as a “piece meal Third World War” and condemned it. Pope Francis, speaking of modern contexts in 2022, dramatically said—and he was not making a doctrinal point here but rather a rhetorical one—that “there is no such thing as just war: They do not exist!” Pope Leo, in May 2025, spoke in his First Sunday Address calling for “no more war” and that there be a ceasefire in Ukraine and a “just, authentic, and lasting peace.” Echoing the words of Pope Pius XII in 1939 at the outset of WWII, Pope Leo said that “nothing is lost with peace; everything can be lost with war.” Why did he say this? Are there not examples in the past of wars which needed to be fought? In 1939, was it not evident that the Nazi threat needed to be met with like-force and put down permanently? Why does the voice of the peacemaker reiterate the universal need for peace, stability, and tranquility? Because War is Hell. Man is not made to yearn for Hell but for Heaven.

Before speaking of Just War Theory, I want to make it clear that I am speaking about war as organized, violent geopolitical conflict between nations or factions within a state with the objectives that are often political, economic, territorial, or ideological. The war in heaven, shown us in Revelation 12, between the angels and demons is fundamentally different. It is a spiritual, metaphysical conflict that is rooted in a fundamental rebellion against God Himself. Such a “war” is unlike any human war. I bring this up only to further clarify what the Church means by “war” in Just War Theory. Certainly, the fight between Satan and St. Michael was a just fight. The rebellion of the demons required a forceful and sustained response by the angels loyal to the Lord. Likewise, this spiritual warfare is one in which all the faithful are called to engage. You and I are called to fight the world, the flesh, and the devil as it pertains to sin. Spiritual warfare is requisite for the lover of Christ precisely because the goal is Heaven and the means along the way is opposed to Hell.

Just War Theory

Just War Theory is a framework for evaluating the ethical and moral permissibility of conducting warfare or entering into war. St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are the primary thinkers in this arena that expound Christian theology on the topic, but later secular thought continues to reflect on it—think, for example, of the Geneva Conventions of war. The theory looks at criteria to determine when a war is justified and how it should be carried out. There are three main categories of Just War Theory: the Justice of War, in War, and after War.

Jus ad Bellum (Justice of War)

First, the war must address a serious wrong, such as aggression or grave injustice. In other words, there must be a just cause. For example, self-defense would be a just cause if a nation was invaded. The war against the Nazi forces following the blitzkrieg is an easy to see example of this.

Individual factions in a nation cannot declare war. Only duly constituted authorities and governments have the legitimate authority to declare war.

The aim of the war must itself be peace and justice. The right intention would preclude ulterior motives such as conquest, revenge, and strategic capture of resources.

War must always be the last resort. All other reasonable nonviolent options must be exhausted.

The anticipated and foreseen benefits of a war must outweigh the expected harms. This is the principle of proportionality in moral theology.

Finally, there must be a reasonable chance of success. In order to have a just cause, there must be a realistic prospect of achieving that goal.

Jus in Bello (Justice for War)

Non-combatants must not be targeted—this is the principle of discrimination in which the forces distinguish between legitimate military targets and civilians, medical personnel, and chaplains. Non-combatants must be spared. Of course, in war, there will be unexpected and unintended collateral damage, but this must be reasonably mitigated.

The principle of proportionality during a war refers to the harm caused by military actions. Simply put, the harm must not outweigh the military advantage to be gained. To take this a step further, an evil action cannot be done to later achieve a good end. We could think here of the use of nuclear weapons or carpet (indiscriminate) bombing of civilian centers—these would violate discrimination and proportionality.

The actions taken must be of necessity to achieve legitimate military objectives. Gratuitous destruction should be avoided.

Jus post Bellum (Justice after War)

This third category is not part of St. Thomas’s Just War Theory, and is what might be considered “emerging” in terms of the modern notion of Just War Theory, but it is worth mentioning. The fair treatment of defeated parties, including reconstruction and reconciliation, must be considered. There must also be just accountability for war crimes and real effort to restore justice.

Just War Theory: Out of Date?

Some argue that Just War Theory is out of date in modern warfare for two reasons. First, it can be manipulate to justify aggression, and, second, it does not explicitly take into account things like drones and cyberattacks. Generally, I hold that Just War Theory has its place as a way to restrain violence. Human beings have been trying to justify sin since the Fall. Therefore, solid unflappable principles gives us a language to share as we condemn injustice.

It is also odd to speak of Just War Theory as outdated when modern international law was shaped by it. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 include the principles of discrimination and proportionality specifically. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is unfortunately manipulated by various powers unjustly, but in principle can investigate conflicts and assess accountability based on Just War principles. The 1945 UN Charter restricts war to self-defense or actions authorized by the Security Council (self-defense and legitimate authority).

There are certainly issues with Just War Theory that cannot be ignored. For example, the principles are far less clear in asymmetric warfare where non-state actors like terrorist groups or insurgencies are active. In modern urban warfare, combatants blend in with civilians making discrimination nearly impossible. In the event of nuclear or total war where the entire society is engaged or targeted is simply not envisioned in Just War Theory which is based on conventional warfare on the field of battle. There are also modern means like economic sanctions, propaganda, and proxy wars which add complexity to an already complex situation.

Moral theologians have the task to update Just War Theory for modern times, and are hard at work doing so. This will prove fruitful if it gives us the necessary restraint and common language to avoid warfare. Just War Theory has been manipulated to justify the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Neither conflict actually meets the standards for going to war. In an era of advanced technology and non-conventional threats, I think Just War Theory becomes more important, not less. It simply needs to be adapted and updated, which happens often with the application of principles to specific circumstances. The principles themselves do not change, but the applications can be vastly different over the centuries.

What should be clear to all is that war is Hell. Peace and justice must be our goal. There is no room for war in a modern, civilized society. How, then, can we convince those who would seek war for their own gain that they are doing the work of Satan? The only answer with any real staying power is: Jesus Christ. You and I must step up our evangelistic efforts. Sharing the Gospel is the only way to lead the world towards the peace that only He can give.

In this time of uncertainty and widespread regional conflicts, we are on the precipice of world war. Pray for those who are already fighting, especially the troops who are fighting for peace and justice. Pray for conversion for those who fight for their own selfish interest detached from what is good and true. Pray for those living in affected areas who have lost homes, family, livelihood, and a means of reliable food and clean water. War is Hell and our brothers and sisters throughout the world need our support. This begins with prayer and doing the work of evangelization with those nearest you.

Especially given the providence of this class being scheduled as Pope Leo XIV begins his reign as Supreme Pontiff, come join me. The entire course can be done from anywhere in the world, as long as you have an internet connection.

Learn more here: https://www.ictphx.org/pages/summer-symposium

Register today! Class begins on June 2 and most of the course is asynchronous. Again, you can participate via Zoom in the lectures or watch them at a later time, if your schedule does not allow you to be there when class is in session.

Please email me if you have any questions!

Course Outline

Module 1: THE HUMAN PERSON IN GOD’S PLAN

Understanding Dignity, Creation, and the Foundations of Society

• The Trinity, Creation, and Human Dignity

• Original Sin, Providence, and the Right to Life

• Marriage and Family: The Cornerstone of Society

• Overview of the Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching

Module 2: BUILDING A JUST SOCIETY

Rights, Responsibilities, and the Common Good

• Foundations of Justice: Rights and Responsibilities

• The Church’s Vision for the Common Good

• Solidarity, Subsidiarity, and Overcoming Unjust Discrimination

• The Family’s Role in Education and Human Flourishing

• The Catholic Understanding of Religious Liberty

Module 3: WORK, ECONOMY, AND THE CALL TO STEWARDSHIP

Labor, Justice, and Our Responsibility for Creation

• The Dignity of Work: Labor, Business, and the Economy

• Economic Justice and the Path to True Development

• Stewardship of Creation: A Moral and Social Responsibility

• Instantiating the Kingship of Christ in a Pluralistic Society

A Few Thoughts on Pope Leo XIV

I am thrilled to have an American Pope. What an amazing thing! Hearing the Holy Father yesterday morning speak in English with an American accent during his first papal homily was a joy. But, beyond that novelty, WHAT he said was exceptional.

You can access the full transcript HERE—including a video—from Catholic News Agency.

Among the many wonderful things the Holy Father said in his homily, this is by far my favorite quote:

“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). In these words, Peter, asked by the Master, together with the other disciples, about his faith in him, expressed the patrimony that the Church, through the apostolic succession, has preserved, deepened, and handed on for 2,000 years.

Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God: the one Savior who alone reveals the face of the Father. (Pope Leo XIV’s First Homily)

It is my favorite quote because it clearly and unequivocally says that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is the one Savior who alone reveals the face of the Father. I have defended and critiqued Pope Francis on this channel multiple times and I do not mean to cast aspersions on him. But during his pontificate he said the following—with no clarification from the Holy See Press Office:

“All religions are paths to God… There is only one God, and religions are like languages, paths to reach God. Some Sikh, some Muslim, some Hindu, some Christian.” (Commonweal Magazine)

For the Vicar of Christ to say such things is an outrage and an objective heresy. I am not saying that Pope Francis was a heretic; that is far above my pay grade. But what he said here—again, without clarification offered—is horribly untrue, erroneous, and contrary to the one Gospel.

To hear Pope Leo XIV in his first homily joyfully uphold the truth of the Gospel and flatly contradict the ill-advised words of Pope Francis on this subject was marvelous indeed. He also entered the Mass with the ferula (papal cross staff) of Blessed Pope Pius IX, said the Mass in impeccably pronounced Latin, used the thurible adeptly, and celebrated the liturgy with a noble simplicity and humble regality.

Subscribe now

His first address to the world as pope on Thursday was also excellent. He spoke of peace, unity, and the joy of the Risen Christ. He invoked the prayers of the Blessed Mother and led the world in the recitation of the Hail Mary. He gave a beautiful blessing in Latin to the world, invoking again the Blessed Mother, as well as the Apostles Peter and Paul. He smiled warmly, shed tears, and his confreres were ecstatic.

It appears that the Holy Father had the backing of Cardinals Dolan, Burke, Tobin, and Cupich. Such a thing would have seemed impossible. Yet, here is the man. Pope Leo XIV.

What a name! Pope Leo XIII is by far one of my favorite popes. He was stern in teaching and should have been hated by the reigning monarchs in Europe in the late 1800s, and, still, he was beloved by all. He was a pastor at heart. He began a resurgence of scholastic scholarship and study of St. Thomas Aquinas. Rerum Novarum, which I referenced in my episode on the dignity of work, was written by Pope Leo XIII. For the modern world, the pope reframed and relaunched the Social Doctrine of the Church (Catholic Social Teaching - CST).

For Pope Leo XIV to choose the name Leo was intentional. As soon as I heard the name, I thought of CST. Today we received confirmation in his address to the cardinals that this was his exact intention.

Share

In his first address to the College of Cardinals, Pope Leo XIV expressed gratitude for the support of the cardinals following the death of Pope Francis and the challenges of the recent conclave. He emphasized that the Church’s mission continues as a “paschal event,” drawing strength from the Risen Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. He invoked the legacy of his predecessors, especially Pope Francis’ call to evangelization, and reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to the path set by the Second Vatican Council, highlighting themes from Evangelii Gaudium like synodality, missionary conversion, and care for the marginalized.

Of his namesake, he said this:

“Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.” (10 May 2025)

WOW! My goodness… I am so excited about this pontificate. There are thousands of articles on the background and formation of Pope Leo XIV. What I offer here is my own commentary on the last couple of days. I cannot wait to see what Pope Leo offers us.

Often, I have found that the post-conciliar hearken back to the Second Vatican Council and their immediate predecessors. Pope Leo XIV has done both so far. But he has also chosen the name Leo and, thus, rooted himself in the full tradition of the Church. As an Augustinian, he called himself a son of St. Augustine and he quoted St. Ignatius of Antioch in his first homily—establishing himself as a pope rooted in the Church Fathers.

Pope Leo XIV could transcend political divisions, root the Church back fully in the Gospel of Christ, and lead Catholics of all stripes back firmly to the heart of the Father, docile to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. For too long have we dealt with division within the Church. Progressives in Germany and radical traditionalists around the world have openly expressed optimism with the new pope. This can only be described as a miracle.

But he is a Eucharistic and Marian pope, rooted in the patristic age, attentive to Canon Law, and with a temperament well suited to the Petrine Office. And, wonder of wonders… he is an American. Wow.

Let us pray for Pope Leo. He has work cut out for him.

Subscribe now

Study Catholic Social Teaching this June

Understanding the direction of this papacy will mean understanding the Catholic Social Teaching of the Church. Providentially, I will be teaching a full college-level course on CST this June with the Institute of Catholic Theology. It is accessible entirely online. I highly recommend that you sign up! And if you are currently in college, there is an option to get credit for this course at most universities!

More information HERE.

My wife suggested that I write something about the conclave. I insisted that no one cares what I have to say about it; everyone and their mother has a thought about the conclave and who is papible for not. What does it matter what I have to say? The answer: it doesn’t. However, that does not stop people from wondering, voicing their desires and concerns, and opining about one of the most important events of a person’s lifetime.

In that spirit, I will offer my own observations.

Subscribe now

Cardinal Sarah would be an amazing pope. Cardinal Pizzaballa would be an amazing pope. Cardinal Erdo would be an amazing pope. And I am sure there are many other good, holy cardinals that I do not know.

Cardinal Sarah has proven himself to be a thoughtful and holy priest. He and Benedict XVI converge theologically and liturgically. As the former head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Card. Sarah gave the world great reflections on the nature of the Sacred Liturgy, the posture of the priest (in favor of ad orientem), and had a clear understanding of authentic inculturation.

Cardinal Pizzaballa is relatively unknown to me. But after October 7 in Israel, he told Hamas to give back the hostages and take him in their place. That incident alone speaks volumes about the man. He has the heart of St. Maximillian Kolbe. Card. Pizzaballa, in the sermons I have heard from him, speaks well of the truths of the Faith and has a heart for Christ and His Church.

Cardinal Erdo is Hungarian. I know nothing about him, other than the media paints him as a doctrinal conservative. What I was impressed by was his ability to stay his tongue, unless necessity calls for something to be said. He is also on the record as defending Pope Francis on more than one occasion. So, he seems like the type of papal candidate who could adeptly navigate Vatican politics and international conversations.

There are other relatively unknown cardinals—at least in the English speaking world—that would probably be fantastic popes. I trust the Holy Spirit to move in the Sistine Chapel with great dynamism. My prayer is that the cardinal electors heed His promptings and are docile to divine desire.

The whole world has their eyes fixed on the chimney installed above the conclave. Every news outlet in the world tunes in for this momentous event. Each lay person, clergyman, and religious cares deeply about the outcome of the conclave if they care deeply about the Church. The world sees the conclave as a political event and, of course, it is in many respects. Beyond the politics, though, is a mystical reality that supersedes the mundane. The Vicar of Christ is the Pontifex: the bridge-builder. We have but one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. But Jesus founded His Church upon the Rock of St. Peter that we might have a pastor here on Earth to be a visible symbol of unity and point us to the invisible reality of our unity, our Lord Jesus Christ.

For my part, I will keep praying and hoping for a pope who brings stability, discipline, doctrinal clarity, unity, and who is on fire for love of Christ and His Church.

Veni Sancte Spiritus!

Subscribe now

Summary

In this conversation, Teresa Yanaros shares her transformative journey from the New Age movement to Catholicism, detailing her experiences with the occult and the importance of understanding spiritual practices. She emphasizes the dangers of syncretism and the blending of beliefs in modern spirituality, advocating for a clear Christian worldview and the role of sacraments in healing and deliverance. Teresa provides insights into how to engage with loved ones involved in the occult and stresses the need for discernment in spiritual practices.

Takeaways

• Teresa Yanaros transitioned from New Age beliefs to Catholicism after realizing the dangers of the occult.

• The occult is defined as engaging with demonic spirits, often through invocation or evocation.

• The New Age movement is characterized by self-centered practices that can lead to spiritual deception.

• Worldview shapes our beliefs and actions; a Christian worldview is essential for discernment.

• Sacraments, especially confession, play a crucial role in healing from occult practices.

• Many people involved in the New Age have underlying trauma they are trying to address.

• Syncretism is prevalent today, with many Christians blending beliefs from different spiritual practices.

• Awareness of the occult's influence is necessary for spiritual safety and growth.

• Engaging with loved ones in the occult requires love, boundaries, and knowledge.

• Resources are available for those seeking to understand and escape the occult.

I cannot recommend this new book from Sophia Institute Press by Teresa Yanaros enough! My conversation with Teresa was great, but her book is so helpful! Even if you have not dabbled in the occult (you probably have and don’t know it), you will still be edified and inspired by this book!

Buy a copy today! - https://sophiainstitute.com/product/freedom-from-darkness

In this episode of Good Distinctions, host Will Wright speaks with Sr. Allison Regina Gliot about her new book, 'Eli's Quiet Friend,' which addresses the needs of neurodivergent children, particularly those on the autism spectrum. Sister Allison shares insights into her religious order, the Daughters of St. Paul, and their mission to evangelize through media. The conversation explores the inspiration behind the book, the writing process, and the importance of creating inclusive content for all children. Additionally, they discuss the role of editors in the publishing process and resources available for parents and educators.

Eli is sensitive to sound. He feels anxious and overwhelmed in a noisy world. But Grandma says God speaks in a gentle whisper. Can Eli brave the loud city to spend some quiet time with Jesus in Eucharistic Adoration?

Buy the book from Pauline Press here! - https://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Friend-Allison-Regina-Gliot/dp/0819831727

Reading liturgical theology is a passion of mine. Even after the past few years of actively researching for my doctoral dissertation in liturgical theology, I just cannot get enough of it! The Mass is the source and the summit of the Christian life (cf. CCC 1324) and participation in the Sacred Mysteries consumes my daily thoughts. Even beyond my dissertation work, though, I have always been drawn to non-fiction. Besides Theology, History books about the Roman Empire, the American democratic experiment, and World War Two are high on my reading list. Apart from the occasional diversion, I am honestly remarkably bored by the prospect of reading fiction.

There are notable exceptions. Like almost every millennial man I know, I love the Inklings: Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton. Though, even with these British gents, I would rather read Abolition of Man than The Great Divorce and I would rather spend my time with Everlasting Man than Fr. Brown.

But then comes J.R.R. Tolkien. I re-read the Lord of the Rings Trilogy ever couple of years. My wife Bridget is an even bigger Tolkien fan than I am. She knows the Silmarillion better than anyone I know. I asked her for some fiction recommendations one night and she rattled off a few fantasy books she was reading with her sister… no, thanks. Then, I made a joke and said, “well, maybe not then. I’ll just read the Silmarillion again. But that’s non-fiction, isn’t it?” She replied, “It’s basically non-fiction.” It is humorous, but it is probably close to true.

I just finished reading The High Hallow: Tolkien’s Liturgical Imagination by Dr. Ben Reinhard, professor of English at Franciscan University of Steubenville, from Emmaus Road Publishing. It was phenomenal. I highly recommend picking up a copy! It was insightful and thought-provoking and my admiration and respect for Tolkien grew even more! I must say, though, I was drawn back to the conversation with my wife about fiction and non-fiction. Tolkien famously disliked allegory, but why do I see enough truth in his stories to think of them almost as non-fiction? Dr. Reinhard has hit the nail on the head: Tolkien in his world building is drawing on the cosmic liturgy. The mystery of creation, the fall, redemption, and the end of all things is not only represented in Tolkien’s work, it takes it as the foundation!

Over the course of this relatively short book, Dr. Reinhard explores Tolkien’s affinity for the Holy Mass, the interplay between Faerie stories and liturgy, and examines the liturgical patterns of the primary reality (our world) and their reflection in the secondary reality (the story). What Dr. Reinhard is able to do, quite successfully, is draw in two camps: those who have a love for the Catholic liturgy and those who love Tolkien and his stories. Both groups will leave better off for having read the book. For those, like me, who stand squarely in both camps, you will be giddy as you read Dr. Reinhard’s insights. His prose is readable and engaging without being over-simplified, but he achieves a level of analysis that leaves no stone unturned. He is also remarkably focused in his examination. As someone who is writing extensively on the liturgy and many of the themes that Dr. Reinhard brings up, it is easy to get lost in the woods and miss the trees. Dr. Reinhard keeps his book on the point and the outcome is a fantastic treatise of the interplay of Tolkien’s imagination and love for the liturgy.

Share

From the publisher:
J. R. R. Tolkien famously described The Lord of the Rings as “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work.” But while these words have been widely and enthusiastically quoted in Catholic studies of Tolkien’s legendarium, readers have not always paid sufficient attention to what Catholic and religious would have meant to Tolkien himself. To do so is to misunderstand the full import of the phrase.

From his childhood as an altar server and “junior inmate” of the Birmingham Oratory to daily Mass with his children as an adult, Tolkien’s Catholic religion was, at its heart, a liturgical affair. To be religious and Catholic in the Tolkienian sense is to be rooted in the prayer of the Church.

The High Hallow: Tolkien’s Liturgical Imagination takes this claim seriously: The Lord of the Rings (and Tolkien’s myth as a whole) is the product of an imagination seeped in liturgical prayer. In the course of its argument, the Ben Reinhard examines the liturgical pieties that governed Tolkien’s life from childhood to old age, the ways in which the liturgy colored Tolkien’s theory of myth and fantasy, and the alleged absence of religion in Middle-earth. Most importantly, he shows how the plots, themes, and characters of Tolkien’s beloved works can be traced to the patterns of the Church’s liturgical year.

Buy it HERE from the St. Paul Center (Emmaus Road Publishing) or at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or wherever great books are sold!

In this conversation, Will Wright and Jason Simon explore the themes of friendship, discipleship, and evangelization within the context of the Catholic faith. Jason shares insights from his experience as president of the Evangelical Catholic, emphasizing the importance of lay apostolate and the role of deep, intentional friendships in leading others to Christ. They discuss the urgency of building these relationships, the concept of disruptive friendships, and the balance between urgency and patience in accompanying others on their faith journey. The conversation culminates in a call to action for listeners to cultivate meaningful friendships that reflect their faith.

Learn more about The Evangelical Catholic here:

https://evangelicalcatholic.org/

Jason Simon is the President of The Evangelical Catholic (EC). After working briefly in engineering, he began working in the Church as a parish Director of Religious Education and Youth Ministry. Through this work, he saw the power of evangelization in the Church and his passion to see more lives impacted by the Holy Spirit. In 2007, he graduated from the M.Div. Theology Program at the University of Notre Dame and then began leading the EC. Under his leadership, the Evangelical Catholic has experienced consistent expansion by equipping local Catholic leaders to not only be disciples, but disciple-makers. Jason and the EC’s staff built Reach More™ and Nextstep to equip Catholic lay leaders to fulfill the Great Commission. He lives in Madison, WI with his wife and six children.

Whether we know it or not, we all have family members or friends who are fighting hidden battles of doubt, alienation, isolation, guilt, compulsions, grief, or hopelessness. But often we don’t know exactly how to offer the Good News of Jesus to them in these struggles—at least not beyond offering our “thoughts and prayers.” Mission-Ready Friendship is a roadmap for how to truly befriend your friends, not by solving their problems for them but by going deeper to become the friend Jesus created you to be.

Jason J. Simon grew up in a faithful home but wandered into darkness through his high school and college years. For years, he struggled with shame and despair until Chip, a guy he met while eating donuts after Mass, noticed that darkness and disrupted it by being an intentional, thoughtful friend. This relationship changed Simon’s life and eventually inspired him to lead the Evangelical Catholic, a national organization dedicated to helping people discover how God is already at work in the lives of our innermost circle.

This book spells out simple and incremental practices any Catholic can use to develop deeper, more purposeful friendships. You will learn how to

• become more invested, curious, and empathetic toward others;

• pray for the people God has placed in your life;

• be ready for the ways God is prompting you to build deeper friendships; and

• bring intentionality to your relationships to accompany them closer to God.

Jesus himself used these practices with his followers and sent each of them to use mission-ready friendship to share his good news with others. It’s a simple but powerful approach to relationships that promises to change lives, including your own.

Buy it today! - https://www.avemariapress.com/products/mission-ready-friendship

In this conversation, Dr. Marlon De La Torre shares his journey of faith and ministry, emphasizing the importance of suffering in the Christian life. He discusses his new book, which connects C.S. Lewis's 'Screwtape Letters' with the Catechism, providing practical insights into spiritual warfare and temptation. The discussion highlights the relevance of Lewis's work in understanding the battle between good and evil, and the transformative power of grace in overcoming sin.

All of us are faced with the daily onslaught of sin and temptation. We are all involved in a spiritual battle to keep our souls united with Christ so we can attain heaven.

The Screwtape Letters and the Catechism brings together two wonderful and significant resources that can help us to grow in spiritual courage. Engaging the Catechism of the Catholic Church from a new perspective, against the backdrop of C. S. Lewis' classic The Screwtape Letters, this book will help you to recognize temptation and engage in the battle against sin. Following Lewis and the Catechism, you will learn how to use the teachings of Christ to outwit the evil one.

In this book, each chapter of The Screwtape Letters is cross-referenced with the Catechism. By examining the dialogue between the demons Wormwood and Screwtape, we can apply Screwtape's lessons on temptation to our daily lives. The Catechism provides sound and reasonable explanations of the Catholic Faith, and these explanations debunk the methods of Screwtape. C.S. Lewis masterfully invites us into the diabolical world of Screwtape and Wormwood and the ever-present battle between good and evil. The Catechism, on the other hand, masterfully reveals the teachings of Jesus Christ as a living gift of the Church that shows us the love of God for his children.

Buy it here from OSV - https://www.osvcatholicbookstore.com/product/the-screwtape-letters-and-the-catechism-recognizing-temptation-battling-sin-and-growing-in-spiritual-courage