Category Archives: News

Eastertide 2026: Protestia: N.T. Wright Says Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection is an Optional Christian Belief, Not Needed for Salvation

Posted on by
Reply

I posted this last year, but it is worth a second look during this Eastertide because it deals with the non-negotiable article of Faith that all Christians must believe if they are to call themselves “Christian” in any meaningful sense of the term: Namely the belief that Christ arose bodily from the dead in its full, plain, and historical sense. To believe otherwise is to believe falsely and heretically.

From Protestia:

Speaking on a recent episode of the Premiere Unbelievable? podcast, N.T. Wright addresses controversial comments he made to The Australian in 2006. At the time he said: 

I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection. But the view I take of them – and they know this – is that they are very, very muddled. They would probably return the compliment.

Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection. I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don’t want to say he isn’t a Christian.

I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational.

Read it all.

N.T. (Tom) Wright is one of my heroes. Of all the theologians, teachers, and scholars who have had a positive impact on my spiritual and professional life as a Christian man and priest—and that list is kinda long—Wright stands at the top of the list. You can imagine, then, my shock and dismay when I read the article’s title from above. To say that I am heartbroken over this is massive understatement, especially because Wright is almost singlehandedly responsible for clearing up my own muddled (and heretical) views on Christ’s Resurrection, thinking that resulted from teachers who really didn’t believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ because it is too unbelievable from a human perspective. The irony is palpable.

As I read the article I realized the situation is a bit more nuanced than its title would have us believe, but it is still catastrophic, nuance notwithstanding. Why? Because to believe in Christ and his saving/healing power, is to believe in his Death, Resurrection, and Ascension as I explain below. Simply put, if you take away Christ’s Resurrection, you take away every other single claim the New Testament (NT) writers made about him. No Resurrection, no Christ, no salvation for humans. Period. End of story.

Having met Bishop Wright once and having read almost everything he has published, I know that Wright has a huge and generous pastor’s heart and I appreciate greatly that he does; would that every priest and bishop have such a heart! I can also relate to his agonizing over his friend Marcus Borg, a well-known heretic who was part of the Jesus Seminar (Seminar: From the Latin semi and arse, meaning any half-assed discussion, a name that truly fit that particular “Seminar”). I have family and friends who are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word and I fear for the eternal destiny of their souls; it is heartbreaking and an ongoing heavy burden for me. I think they are terribly misguided and foolish not to believe in Christ, and I pray daily that God will change their minds and hearts and heal them from their foolishness because I do not want to see them headed toward eternal destruction. How could I claim to love them and remain silent about their unbelief? I even pray for friends who have died without knowing and/or believing in Christ and it grieves me to the core. Yet I still ask God to be merciful to them and to remember them for good, not for judgment because I know first-hand that God is a merciful, gracious, loving, and just God and I believe in the saving and forgiving power of the Cross of Jesus Christ. There is no biblical warrant for me praying in this manner for the dead but I can do no other; I loved them in this mortal life and because I loved them, I must pray for them. So to repeat, I get where Wright is coming from and like him, I believe our ultimate salvation is for God alone to decide, not us. But I also believe that salvation without a saving faith in Christ, a saving faith grounded in his Resurrection, is very unlikely, if not impossible.

That is why I have never, ever once thought that belief in the Resurrection was optional for Christians because the Resurrection is at the very heart and soul of the Christian Faith and is entirely non-negotiable. I am not the only one who thinks this way. Consider what Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church a decade or two after Christ’s Death and Resurrection:

I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him.

But tell me this—since we preach that Christ rose from the dead, why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins.In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world (1 Corinthians 15.3-9, 12-19).


Saint Paul pulls no punches and makes no bones about this matter: Belief in the Resurrection is not optional for Christians. No Resurrection, no Christian Faith, no forgiveness of sins, no conquering of Death, no hope for a future bodily existence living in the direct Presence of God the Father in his new world, the new heavens and earth (see, e.g., Revelation 21.1-8). Elsewhere Saint Paul demonstrated that he too had a huge and generous pastoral heart and cared about the welfare of his people (see, e.g., here). But in Saint Paul’s view their welfare demanded that they believe the Faith once delivered to the saints by the apostles who had been eyewitnesses to Christ’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. If Christ isn’t raised, then his Death on the Cross did not take care of our sins and reconcile us to God once and for all, and if we are not reconciled to God then we have no hope and chance of living with him forever because our God is a Holy and just God who cannot allow any kind of sin (or sinner) to be in his Presence, and for our own good—who in his/her right mind would want to live with Evil forever? The stakes couldn’t be higher and by claiming that a belief in the Resurrection is optional for his friend (and therefore others like him), Wright is sadly prevaricating about this Truth out of a misguided sense of love, loyalty, and friendship for his wayward friend. I cannot imagine Saint Paul ever doing such a thing under any circumstance. That did not seem to deter Wright from quoting Saint Paul in Romans 10.9 in defending his opinion about Borg and Borg’s rejection of Christ’s Resurrection: “If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” But this is cherry picking Saint Paul’s entire body of work and is quite uncharacteristic of Wright as a theologian and scholar. Moreover, if one does not believe in bodily resurrection, one cannot really believe that Christ was raised from the dead as Saint Paul and countless orthodox Christians have understood resurrection.

Borg, of course, didn’t believe in the bodily Resurrection of Christ, mistakenly believing that Christ was raised in some spiritual sense. This isn’t a new way of thinking. It’s an old heresy that has been with us in various forms from almost the beginning. But as Wright brilliantly explains and defends in his books—The Resurrection of the Son of God, Surprised by Hope (a book of which I keep extra copies on hand to give to others who struggle with their faith and/or the Resurrection), and most recently (and not so brilliantly except for the last chapter), God’s Homecoming: The Forgotten Promise of Future Renewal—resurrection for the first Christians (and ever since) meant and means bodily resurrection. We see this belief manifesting itself in the gospel writers’ narrative of Christ’s Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. Here, for example, is Saint Luke recounting a scene from the Last Supper:

Then [Jesus] took a cup of wine and gave thanks to God for it. Then he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.” (Luke 22.17-18).

If resurrection means some kind of continuing spiritual existence in a disembodied state as Borg and the other Platonists/heretics believe (and I used to think before I truly understood the nature of resurrection and the New Testament’s proclamation of the new creation), how will Jesus and his followers be able to drink wine and eat bread together? Does not compute. No, as Wright and others have brilliantly defended, Christ’s Resurrection points to the promise of God’s new creation, the new heavens and earth, a new bodily form of existence. God had to become human in Jesus to deal with the sins of the body, body being defined as body, mind, and spirit—the whole human package—not just our physical bodies. We see the NT writers affirm this in various places (cf. Luke 24.35-43). Consider, for example, this from the writer of the letter to the Hebrews:

14 Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—the Son also became flesh and blood. For only as a human being could he die, and only by dying could he break the power of the devil, who had the power of death. 15 Only in this way could he set free all who have lived their lives as slaves to the fear of dying (Hebrews 2.14-15).

Our first ancestors sinned in the body, in their flesh and blood, in their body and mind and spirit—the whole human package—the way God created them and us, and were expelled from Paradise, from living in God’s direct Presence, the very definition of Paradise (Genesis 3). And because they had sinned in the body, Christ had to take on a human body to deal with and conquer Sin for all time. Saint Paul likewise affirms this when he wrote to the Church at Rome:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed, it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8.1-8).

Did you catch that? On the cross, God condemned our sin in the flesh (body), not Jesus the Son, so that God would not have to condemn us as we rightfully deserve; hence, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ (Romans 8.1). In other words, Christ bore the terrible brunt of God’s wrath and anger on all human sin willingly and in cooperation with the Father to spare us individually from having to bear that wrath forever in Hell. The body is important to God because we are important to God as creatures who bear his Image. And so God rescued the body as well as our souls because humans are comprised of body and soul, not just soul or not just body. This has been the consistent story of Scripture from beginning to end. None of this would be true if Christ were not raised from the dead as Saint Paul asserts above. The Resurrection validated Christ’s saving Death for us.

Moreover, without the bodily Resurrection of Christ, his Ascension becomes nonsensical. If Christ were nothing but a disembodied spirit, his body would not need to ascend into heaven, into God’s realm. But from the very beginning the Church has proclaimed that Christ’s resurrected body has gone to be with the Father in heaven, not just his spirit. Again, no Resurrection, no Ascension, no promised new creation, no Christian Faith.

And after the apostles had died, the Church has consistently maintained this Resurrection hope and faith (and not without a struggle!). Hear Irenaeus, a spiritual grandson of the apostles:

If our flesh is not saved, then the Lord has not redeemed us with his blood, the eucharistic chalice does not make us sharers in his blood, and the bread we break does not make us sharers in his body. There can be no blood without veins, flesh and the rest of the human substance, and this the Word of God actually became: it was with his own blood that he redeemed us. As the Apostle says: “In him, through his blood, we have been redeemed, our sins have been forgiven.” (Read more.)

Consider also the Creeds of the Church, statements of faith that sprang in part from the various heresies that threatened the Church’s teaching about resurrection and new creation. In the Apostles’ Creed, the creed usually recited at Christian funerals, we affirm explicitly the “resurrection of the body” as we do implicitly in the Nicene Creed (“we look forward to the resurrection of the dead”). Again, as the NT writers, the Apostles, the Church, and Wright himself all maintain, when we are talking resurrection we are talking about bodies. Creation matters to God because God created it and us to be good, not for evil and rebellion, and God has promised to restore his good but corrupted and cursed creation one day. That’s the overarching story of Holy Scripture.

I have already gone on longer than I intended, but this matter is critically important. The Church and world need Christian leaders to be clear and bold in their thinking, teaching, and preaching about the Faith because it is the Story of God’s power to save us from Sin and Death by intervening on our behalf personally in the man Jesus Christ. We have suffered too long from muddled and heretical Christian teachers who really don’t believe their own Story, the Story of Christ and God’s plan of salvation as laid out in the Old and New Testaments. This has led to Christians becoming timid in (and often dismissive of) their faith because they have been taught a watered down, toothless, and false version of the Christian Faith, and we certainly don’t need one of the best of the Christian thinkers heretofore to be giving damaging mixed and muddled messages like he did in the above interview, well-intentioned as it might be. The Resurrection is absolutely critical to having a saving faith in Christ. It is what makes Christianity the only real game in town. Without it, we are lost and without hope. With it, we have the hope and promise of the fulfillment of God’s promise to finally and completely deal with the problems of Evil and Sin, problems that inevitably lead to our death and destruction without God’s intervention on our behalf in and through Christ. I pray and hope Bishop Wright will recant this nonsense and repent of this grave error. Resurrection—bodily resurrection—is not an optional belief for Christians. I pray and hope he will once again speak boldly and clearly about Christ’s Death and Resurrection. Otherwise he ceases to be a credible witness to Christ and that would be a true shame and loss for the Church. Lord have mercy.

For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

Loading

Pre-Lent 2026: Everything About Shrove Tuesday You Wanted to Know but Were Afraid to Ask

Posted on by

Culled from various sources from Logos Bible Software. The tendency to secularize Shrove Tuesday is typical of our fallen human condition and the spirit of Protestantism has done it little good. Would that we recover some of its penitential/confessional aspects for our own day and age. For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

Historical Background
Shrove Tuesday emerged in medieval England as a day devoted to confession of sins in preparation for the onset of Lent. The term itself derives from the Old English verb “shrive,” which refers to the practice of imparting penance and absolution.

Initially, the observance carried profound spiritual weight. Shrovetide functioned as a season for confession, absolution, and reconciliation before the solemnities of Lent and Passiontide and Easter. However, the character of the celebration shifted over time. As Lent itself became devoted to confession and repentance throughout the entire season, the specific emphasis on pre-Lenten confession diminished, and Shrove Tuesday increasingly centered on feasting and merrymaking—practices that would be restricted during the forty days ahead.

This transformation reflects a broader European pattern. Shrovetide paralleled the Continental tradition of Carnival, which also originated in the Middle Ages as a pre-Lenten period of feasting and frivolity culminating on the Tuesday before Lent. The eating of cakes, pancakes, and pastries became central to these celebrations as a practical means of consuming eggs, butter, milk, and sugar—foods historically forbidden during Lent—and Shrove Tuesday’s French designation “Mardi Gras” (Fat Tuesday) and English name “Pancake Day” both reflect this culinary history.

Beyond food consumption, Carnival evolved into a broader “farewell to flesh” involving indulgence and loosened social restrictions; Renaissance Europeans threw projectiles at one another, and by the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, masked performances and temporary role-reversals—where lower classes dressed as nobility—became common features. The Protestant Reformation later discontinued Carnival celebrations due to their tendency toward overindulgence, though the observance of Lent itself persisted.

Theological Significance
Shrove Tuesday’s theological significance centers on this penitential dimension—a structured opportunity for spiritual self-examination before the forty-day season of Lenten observance.

The practice traces back to at least 1000 A.D., when it was originally observed as a day of confession and penitence in preparation for Ash Wednesday and Lent. The custom emphasized receiving absolution through the sacrament of penance in readiness for the liturgical season ahead. This penitential focus remains theologically central: the day offers an excellent opportunity to reflect on one’s thoughts, words, deeds, and behaviors over preceding months, a valuable self-examination that fosters spiritual growth.

However, the observance has undergone significant transformation. In recent centuries, Shrove Tuesday shifted toward feasting in preparation for Lenten fasting, as people needed to consume restricted foods like sugar, leavened flour, and eggs before the fast began. Shrove Tuesday is now known as Mardi Gras in many areas and has largely lost its significance as a day of repentance. What originally involved confession gradually transformed into consuming rich foods and eventually into sports and merrymaking.

From a Protestant perspective, since the Bible does not mention Ash Wednesday or Lent, Shrove Tuesday is not a biblical observance, and these days are not required of Christians—their observance remains entirely a matter of personal conviction. Yet any day to remember Christ and His sacrifice holds spiritual value, making Shrove Tuesday potentially meaningful for those who observe it as a deliberate moment for confession, repentance, and renewed commitment before entering Lent’s contemplative season.

Shrove Tuesday Traditions
Shrove Tuesday traditions reflect a fascinating evolution from penitential observance to festive celebration. Originally observed in medieval England as a day for confessing sins before Lent began, the day’s name derives from the practice of receiving absolution. However, as the entire Lenten season became devoted to confession and repentance, Shrove Tuesday and the week preceding it shifted toward feasting and merrymaking—activities restricted during Lent itself.

The most enduring tradition involves food. In the Middle Ages, people abstained from meat and animal products during Lent, including milk, cheese, and eggs, so families prepared pancakes on Shrove Tuesday to deplete their stores of eggs, milk, butter, and fat. This practice explains both the French name “Mardi Gras” (Fat Tuesday) and the English “Pancake Day”.

Beyond pancakes, Carnival traditions—Shrove Tuesday’s European counterpart—involved consuming cakes, pastries, and other rich foods to use up ingredients prohibited during Lent. At its medieval height, Carnival included satirical performances and mask-wearing, with lower classes sometimes dressing as nobility in humorous role-reversals. People throughout Renaissance Europe threw projectiles like mud, flour, and eggs at one another. In England specifically, sports and football games were common, while nobility celebrated Shrove Tuesday evenings with plays and masques.

By the nineteenth century, wilder customs evolved into flower battles, masked balls, and parades—variations found today throughout Europe and the Americas, including New Orleans’s famous Mardi Gras celebrations. The religious dimension persists as well: Pope Benedict XIV instituted the “Forty Hours of Carnival” in 1748, during which prayers were offered before the exposed Blessed Sacrament, with a plenary indulgence granted to participants.

How Shrove Tuesday Relates to Lent
Shrove Tuesday functions as a threshold moment between ordinary time and the penitential season of Lent. The relationship between the two observances has shifted significantly over time. As Lent itself became devoted to confession and repentance throughout the entire season, the urgency to confess specifically on Shrove Tuesday diminished, and the day transformed into a period emphasizing feasting and celebration—activities that would be restricted during Lent. This reorientation reflects a practical concern: the eating of cakes, pancakes, or other pastries served as a way of consuming eggs, butter, milk, and sugar—foods once prohibited during Lent. The French name “Mardi Gras” or “Fat Tuesday,” along with England’s “Pancake Day,” both capture this history.

Lent comprises 40 days preceding Easter and recalls Jesus’s 40-day wilderness sojourn. while it serves as a time of repentance and preparation for marking Christ’s death and resurrection, marked by prayer, abstinence, and charitable acts. Shrove Tuesday thus occupies a liminal space—the final opportunity for indulgence before entering this austere period. After fulfilling the obligation to confess, the faithful were permitted to engage in amusements on the eve of Lent, creating a deliberate contrast between the revelry of Shrove Tuesday and the discipline that follows. The two observances define each other: one celebrates what Lent restricts, while Lent gives meaning to the temporary license Shrove Tuesday permits.

Loading

The “Epiphany Proclamation” for 2026

Posted on by

In the days when few people had calendars, it was customary at the Liturgy on Epiphany to proclaim the date of Easter for the coming year, along with other major feasts that hinge on the date of Easter. We honor that custom here at Mark 4:9.

“Dear brothers and sisters, the glory of the Lord has shone upon us and shall ever be manifest among us, until the day of his return.

“Let us recall the year’s central feast, the Easter Triduum of the Lord: His last supper, his crucifixion, his burial, and his rising, celebrated between the evening of the 2nd day of April and the evening of the 4th day of April, Easter Sunday being on the 5th day of April. Each Easter—as on each Sunday—the Holy Church makes present the great and saving deed by which Christ has forever conquered sin and death.

“From Easter are reckoned all the days we keep holy. Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent, will occur on the 18th day of February. Pentecost, the joyful conclusion of the season of Easter, will be celebrated on the 24th day of May. And this year the First Sunday of Advent will be on the 29th day of November.

“To Jesus Christ, who was, who is, and who is to come, Lord of time and history, be endless praise, forever and ever. Amen.”

Loading

Advent Sunday 2025: Introduction to the Season

Posted on by

I pray to God that he will raise up teachers and preachers in his Church today who take Advent seriously again. From Common Worship, Times and Seasons, p. 33

Advent is a season of expectation and preparation, as the Church prepares to celebrate the coming (adventus) of Christ in his incarnation, and also looks ahead to his final advent as judge at the end of time.The readings and liturgies not only direct us toward Christ’s birth, they also challenge the modern reluctance to confront the theme of divine judgment:

Every eye shall now behold him robed in dreadful majesty. (Charles Wesley)

The Four Last Things – Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell – have been traditional themes for Advent meditation.The characteristic note of Advent is therefore expectation, rather than penitence, although the character of the season is easily colored by an analogy with Lent.The anticipation of Christmas under commercial pressure has also made it harder to sustain the appropriate sense of alert watchfulness, but the fundamental Advent prayer remains ‘Maranatha’ – ‘Our Lord, come’ (1 Corinthians 16.22). Church decorations are simple and spare, and purple is the traditional liturgical color. In the northern hemisphere, the Advent season falls at the darkest time of the year, and the natural symbols of darkness and light are powerfully at work throughout Advent and Christmas.The lighting of candles on an Advent wreath was imported into Britain from northern Europe in the nineteenth century, and is now a common practice… The Third Sunday of Advent was observed in medieval times as a splash of color in the restrained atmosphere of Advent (Gaudete or ‘Rose Sunday’), and the last days of Advent were marked by the sequence of Great ‘O’ Antiphons, which continue to inspire modern Advent hymns and meditations.

Loading

Jeremy M. Christiansen (FT): On Converting Your Spouse

Posted on by

This is an excellent piece. I commend the author for recognizing true love being expressed when he sees it. No shrill voice here. Neither liberal idolatry or shortsightedness. For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

At a recent Turning Point USA event at the University of Mississippi, JD Vance remarked that he hoped his wife, Usha, would convert to Catholicism. The backlash was swift and savage. People criticized the vice president for being a bad husband and not respecting his wife’s choices and Hindu faith. Most of it was just noise. The backlash does, however, express an unfortunate reality. It is the terminus of American small-l liberalism: The ultimate truth is individual autonomy, and by publicly expressing a desire for his wife to convert, the vice president committed the cardinal sin in the religion of liberalism.  

The vice president’s marital situation is common. According to the latest data from Pew Research Center, just over 25 percent of marriages in America consist of spouses with different religions. And for a few years, I too was counted among them.

My wife and I were both raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, served as missionaries for the church, were married in the Los Angeles temple, come from devout LDS families, and were ourselves devout. We had been married about ten years with four children when I left the LDS religion and converted to Catholicism. My wife had no interest in leaving her faith at that time. But eventually, she too became Catholic. Not everyone’s experience is the same: Since writing about our conversions in various publications, I have received a number of emails over the years saying: “I converted to Catholicism, my spouse did not. What do I do?” There are, to my mind, two related answers.

First, a simple directive: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it” (Eph. 5:25). Given that to love is to will the good of the other, that God is the greatest good, and that religion is an aspect of the virtue of justice whereby we render unto God what is owed him, it follows that husbands are to will that their wives believe and practice the true religion. JD Vance ought to will that his wife convert. To do otherwise would be unloving. 

I told my wife on more than one occasion that I hoped she would convert, and I even expressed that desire publicly. Willing the good of the other is a concept mostly lost on liberalized Americans. “You do you” is the motto of our day. But it is an uncharitable motto.

Second, once we desire the conversion of our spouse, we need to know how to prudently direct our will to that end. I am grateful to the pastor I had during the time in which my wife and I were of different faiths, because he counseled me against both indifference and coercion. He advised prudence. As Aquinas writes, “it belongs to the ruling of prudence to decide in what manner and by what means man shall obtain [virtue].” Each marriage is different; each will need a different approach. When is the time to have that “hard conversation”? When is the time to just let something go? No one knew my wife and our relationship and our family better than I did. Prudence helps us to do the right thing, for the right reason, in the right time, and the right place.

Ultimately, it is God’s grace that first moves our wills toward him. We are merely instruments. And we never know when the right moment to say this or that thing, make this or that invitation, will be. My pastor wisely told me to faithfully live the sacramental life and use prudent judgment. And that is ultimately all I can tell anyone who finds themselves in that situation. Trust God. Never doom. And remember, prudently and publicly expressing the heartfelt hope that one’s spouse convert may just be the means by which God gives that ever important “twitch upon the thread.” JD Vance should be commended, not condemned.

Read it all (free account registration required).

Loading

John M. Grondelski (FT): Where the Church’s Immigration Rhetoric Fails

Posted on by

A good and balanced piece on immigration. Would that the Church’s leaders pay attention. For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

Catholic discussions of immigration frequently omit salient facts, most prominently the legal status of the “migrant.” I criticized this curious neglect in Pope Leo XIV’s apostolic exhortation Dilexi Te. In that document, the discussion of “migrants” ignores the question of their legal status. Since then, Pope Leo has acknowledged state sovereignty while saying it must be “balanced” with the duty to provide “refuge”—telling us neither how such balance is achieved nor assuring that the Church won’t always fault nations for addressing a migration crisis. Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich’s latest video insisting the “Church stands with migrants” likewise evades the question of legality. 

An honest discussion would not circumvent the issue of legal status, which is why growing numbers of people are beginning to ask whether the Church is a good-faith interlocutor on questions of mass migration. Glossing over the distinction between legal and illegal residency cannot be ecclesial oversight; too many critics have pointed out that the Church regularly sidesteps this issue. Church leaders at times formally acknowledge state sovereignty over immigration, but in practice the rhetoric (“undocumented”) suggests otherwise. Which makes one think the Church is dodging the question of illegal status, a posture more befitting a lobbyist pushing an agenda than an honest broker addressing a question that affects the common good. 

The Church seeks to frame the discussion of illegal immigration through the lens of “human dignity.” This is a fitting concept with which to begin. But the Church’s selective use of this framing neglects to address the way in which illegal immigration offends human dignity.

Free will is an essential aspect of human dignity. Man is alteri incommunicabilis:Nobody can will for me. Nobody can ultimately makeme want something. I can be influenced, pressured, and even physically forced, but I cannot be made to will something. Even God does not interfere with free will; in the end, he respects what we have chosen, even if we damn ourselves in the process.  

Willing is not limited to individuals. Political sovereignty is also an act of will. It is a decision of a community, exercised by its designated leaders. In Catholic thought, sovereign decisions are accorded deference, because the one charged with attending to the common good is supposed to employ an objective overview of the common good—which individual parties with individual interests might not see—when making a decision. It’s why distributive justice belongs to the one responsible for the community and not its individual members.

In modern political structures, the sovereign will is expressed by the democratic choice of a majority, adopted through processes established by rule of law. In our constitutional order, this is done through passing legislation in accord with proper procedures. These laws are entitled to the presumption that they serve the common good, which means that they are not subject to veto by parties outside of the legislative process. There is a profound moral reason for the presumptive respect for validly enacted laws: They express the rightly adopted will—an essential aspect of human dignity—of the organized political community on a question. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 fits that requirement.

Thus, if we recognize human dignity to be expressed through free choices, individual as well as collective, and that the latter deserve our deference as decisions made for the common good by those responsible for that common good, then validly enacted laws also deserve recognition as expressions of human dignity. A political community’s free choice of a morally legitimate option (no one has claimed immigration restrictions are intrinsically evil) by a collective decision in the name of the common good cannot be dismissed on the ground that it affects the human dignity of an individual, as if the individual is the only party that has a dignity claim.

The Church’s unartful dodges on the migrant question have especially disturbing consequences. It practically canonizes the isolated individual’s decision to judge laws, find them wanting, and justify disobeying them. This undermines the coherence of Catholic teaching. It makes an unjustified exception to a Catholic’s responsibility to obey legitimate laws, suggesting an anthropology that asserts that the only dignity at stake is the individual’s. This marks a departure from Catholic tradition, which accords dignity to the valid expression of a collective community will embodied in duly adopted laws. 

When churchmen speak about the human dignity of migrants, they are drawing attention to an important principle, one that rightly governs law enforcement’s treatment of any person who is suspected of breaking the law. But it is baffling to think that the mere assertion of the human dignity of an individual can serve as justification in practice for ignoring immigration law. Does “dignity” immunize somebody against enforcement of a valid law? Does “dignity” nullify a state’s right to enforce a valid law against a violator? 

Read it all (free registration required).

Loading

David Roseberry (The Anglican Substack): Murder in the Cathedral: The Last Gasp of a Church Trying to Be the World—A Church Killing Its Own Soul

Posted on by

An excellent piece from Father Roseberry with which I totally agree. What is happening in the Church of England is what has happened in the Episcopal Church and other mainline Protestant Churches in the West. It is both maddening and heartbreaking to watch. Lord, have mercy on your Church. Spare her from unbelief and false teachers. May none who legitimately bear your name ever be ashamed of the gospel (Romans 1.16). Raise up for us faithful leaders, especially bishops, who are bold in the Faith and able to teach it to those whom you call.

For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

It’s been a rough week for the Church of England.

First came the announcement of a new Archbishop of Canterbury—a decision that breaks with two thousand years of Christian tradition. Then came the photos from Canterbury Cathedral itself: graffiti splashed across the pillars and walls of that great and ancient cathedral.

Note: Canterbury isn’t just another cathedral. It’s where the story began. It is the cradle of English Christianity. The seat of the Gospel on British soil since 597, when Augustine came from Rome to preach Christ to the Anglo-Saxons. 1From that moment on, Canterbury became the spiritual heart of a nation. Kings were crowned there. Martyrs bled there. Pilgrims walked for days to pray there.

Every Anglican church in the world can trace its roots back to that mission. That’s what makes this so serious. When Canterbury loses her sense of the sacred, something profound—and ancient—is being lost with her.

Put these headlines together, and you see an embarrassing and tragic problem. The Church isn’t being murdered by outsiders. She’s doing herself in. This is not vandalism or persecution. It’s suicide.

Every time we trade holiness for popularity, or beauty for relevance, a little more of the Church’s purpose falls from view. The Church will never die, but a congregation can. A denomination will. And the Church of England had better wake up and realize that antics such as these are not just silly—they are harmful to its mission.

The Church is harming itself—self-vandalizing. That’s the real murder in the cathedral.

The Cathedral as Billboard

The Dean calls it art—an installation called Hear Us. Vinyl graffiti stickers, plastered on medieval stone, meant to look like spray paint from a subway tunnel. Supposedly, it’s meant to make people “think.”

I’ve seen the photos. Some graffiti artists are true to their art form—bold, illegal, shocking by what it says and where it says it. But the shock value here is only in where it’s plastered.

And when was the last time you saw graffiti that had been carefully sourced? Typed in a font made to look like graffiti—the “real thing”—then scanned at the nearest FastSigns in Canterbury and neatly applied on the pillars and staircases. Stick and peel.

One observer put it plainly:

“You don’t take a sacred site like Canterbury Cathedral—one of the oldest and most culturally significant buildings in England—and turn it into a billboard for a temporary art project. This isn’t engaging with the community. It’s a blatant disregard for the sanctity of a space that should be treated with the utmost reverence.”

And that’s exactly the point. We’ve stopped believing that the sacred is sacred. We’ve convinced ourselves that to reach the world, we must become like the world—even in our sanctuaries.

Another voice on X said it perfectly:

“Every line of this ‘installation’—‘Are you there?’ ‘Do you regret your creation?’—reveals the modern clergy’s nervous breakdown. The faith that once proclaimed truth now questions itself in neon letters. The cathedral hasn’t been vandalized by outsiders; it’s vandalized itself from within, trading reverence for relevance and beauty for gimmickry.”

Even our own Vice-President, J. D. Vance, weighed in:

“It is weird to me that these people don’t see the irony of honoring ‘marginalized communities’ by making a beautiful historical building really ugly.”

Chasing Relevance

There’s a mini-revival of spiritual things happening in England. The culture is asking the kind of questions the Church has the answers to.

But the Church of England is pretending it doesn’t know.
It’s feigning dumb.
Acting mute.
Trying not to sound self-assured, as if questions are always better than answers.

This impulse—to make faith “relatable”—has infected churches for decades. It sounds noble: We want to reach people where they are. But in practice, it becomes a slow death.

I learned this early in ministry. In seminary, the question was always, How can I make the Gospel relevant to modern life? It sounds harmless enough. But once you make relevance your goal, you’ll bend anything to achieve it.

You’ll dress up the message, sand off the edges, trade truth for tone. And little by little, you start to lose the very thing you meant to share.

It’s not murder with a knife. It’s murder by compromise—a slow, smiling suffocation of the sacred.

The Gospel Doesn’t Need Makeup

But the Gospel doesn’t need to be dressed up. The Holy Spirit is already at work in the world. He stirs hearts, awakens hunger, and draws people to Christ. Our job is not to sell Jesus, but to show him.

Not to lure, but to present Him to the world.

“Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” That’s enough. That sentence could fill a cathedral all by itself. The Gospel is inherently beautiful, inherently magnetic.

It doesn’t need graffiti to make it interesting.

Read it all.

Loading

Jonathon Van Maren (FT): As Long as You’re Living

Posted on by

A compelling and thought-provoking article with which I wholeheartedly agree. Our lives and our bodies are not ours to do with as we please, contrary to popular belief. Our lives and bodies are God’s because he has purchased them with the Blood of his dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ to save us from the power and inevitable results of our sin—our eternal destruction. For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

I first heard Robert Munsch in second grade. Our teacher read his 1986 classic Love You Forever to our class, and like almost everyone who heard the story as a child and read it to his or her own children years later, the cadences of the mother’s beautiful lullaby stayed with me: “I’ll love you forever, I’ll like you for always, as long as I’m living, my baby you’ll be.”

I had to grow up to grasp the beauty of the book’s ending. The boy, now a man and a father, cradles his frail, ailing mother, and sings the lullaby back to her as her own voice breaks and fades, changing the last line by two words: “As long as you’re living, my mommy you’ll be.” When he was a baby, a boy, and a teen, his mother covered his vulnerabilities with unconditional love. Now, as she’s dying, it’s his turn to gather her into his arms. 

That last phrase—“as long as you’re living”—took on a heartbreaking significance with the news that Munsch, who lives in Canada, has been approved for euthanasia (referred to by the Orwellian euphemism “medical aid in dying,” or MAID). According to his daughter Julie, Munsch first mentioned that he was planning to die by euthanasia in a 2021 interview with the CBC after being diagnosed with dementia, but the decision made headlines when Munsch discussed his choice in an interview with the New York Times published on September 14.

The eighty-year-old author told the Times that his memory and creative processes are declining. “I can feel it going further and further away,” he said. This, as well as witnessing his brother’s death from Lou Gehrig’s disease, prompted him to apply for euthanasia. “Hello, Doc—come kill me!” he joked. “How much time do I have? Fifteen seconds!” Munsch added that his death has not yet been scheduled, but that by law he must be able to consent just prior to the lethal injection that will kill him.

“I have to pick the moment when I can still ask for it,” he told the Times. The news coverage of the interview prompted his daughter to post a clarifying statement online: “My father IS NOT DYING!!!” she wrote. “Thanks to everyone and their well wishes, however, my father’s choice to use MAID was in fact made 5 years ago. . . . My dad is doing well but of course with a degenerative disease it can begin to progress quickly at any point.”

The public interest in Munsch’s decision to opt for euthanasia, of course, is because he is one of the most famous children’s authors in the world. Munsch, an American by birth who moved to Canada in 1975, has sold more than 30 million copies of his over seventy books. For countless children, Munsch was—and is—a fixture; he is the most stolen author at the Toronto Public Library. Now, if he decides to go through with his decision, the name “Robert Munsch” will forever be tied to Canada’s euthanasia regime, and he will join the more than 60,000 Canadians who have already been legally killed.

For advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide, Munsch’s choice is a triumph for autonomy. But it is much more than that. Munsch is making a very public value judgment. A life with dementia, he believes, is a life not worth living. Indeed, he said that he is worried about waiting too long to take the plunge into eternity because, as he told his wife Ann, if he can no longer legally consent, “you’re stuck with me being a lump.”

The description made me almost physically recoil. I love someone who suffers from dementia and treasure every moment I have with her. People suffering from dementia are not “lumps,” as Munsch says—and I hope his loved ones have made that very clear to him. Perhaps they have. But Munsch does not need their permission to die—he only needs permission from the state. In Canada, the government decides who is eligible for a state-funded and facilitated lethal injection, and who is not.

Because euthanasia is not, in fact, a “free choice.” It is a choice granted only to some. By passing legislation determining who qualifies, the government has pre-selected those they believe have lives so valuable they are legally barred from suicide, and those with lives so worthless they can be assisted in their demise. In fact, a “provider” can come to your home and dispatch you in the comfort of familiar surroundings. Many like Robert Munsch, fearful after a devastating diagnosis of what the future might hold, become suicidal. The government does not affirm their worth but affirms their suicidal ideation.

Read and reflect on it all (free user account with First Things required).

Loading

Jonathon Van Maren (TEC): “I Forgive Him”

Posted on by

A good piece on the extraordinary speech from Charlie Kirk’s widow for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. This is how we witness to our faith in the midst of extraordinary grief, pain, and suffering. Her Lord Jesus is surely proud. Would that our President have used his opportunity to eulogize Mr Kirk likewise, but he just cannot seem to help himself, which is truly unfortunate.

Well done, good and faithful servant.

In her thirty-minute address, Erika Kirk spoke of Charlie Kirk’s Christianity, his passion for reviving the American family, and defended the Christian vision of marriage, urging young men and women to step up and embrace their roles as husbands and wives. Her eulogy, alternatively fierce and sorrowful, gave a glimpse of what a powerhouse she may prove to be at the helm of Turning Point USA, where she succeeds her husband as CEO. Millions of Americans believe Christian marriage to be oppressive, and Christianity to be hateful. 

But when an LGBT extremist murdered one of America’s most prominent public Christians, a man who has been smeared daily since his death by the international press as a vile bigot, the miserable murderer found himself not loathed by the widow of the man he killed—but forgiven. For just a moment, at least, Kirk’s enemies have been stunned into silence. He would have been so proud of her. 

Read it all.

Loading

History of the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross 2025

Posted on by
exaltation of the holy cross

After the death and resurrection of Christ, both the Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem made efforts to obscure the Holy Sepulchre, Christ’s tomb in the garden near the site of His crucifixion. The earth had been mounded up over the site, and pagan temples had been built on top of it. The Cross on which Christ had died had been hidden (tradition said) by the Jewish authorities somewhere in the vicinity. According to tradition, first mentioned by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in 348, Saint Helena, nearing the end of her life, decided under divine inspiration to travel to Jerusalem in 326 to excavate the Holy Sepulchre and attempt to locate the True Cross. A Jew by the name of Judas, aware of the tradition concerning the hiding of the Cross, led those excavating the Holy Sepulchre to the spot in which it was hidden. Three crosses were found on the spot. According to one tradition, the inscription Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (“Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews”) remained attached to the True Cross. According to a more common tradition, however, the inscription was missing, and Saint Helena and Saint Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, assuming that one was the True Cross and the other two belonged to the thieves crucified alongside Christ, devised an experiment to determine which was the True Cross. In one version of the latter tradition, the three crosses were taken to a woman who was near death; when she touched the True Cross, she was healed. In another, the body of a dead man was brought to the place where the three crosses were found, and laid upon each cross. The True Cross restored the dead man to life. In celebration of the discovery of the Holy Cross, Constantine ordered the construction of churches at the site of the Holy Sepulchre and on Mount Calvary. Those churches were dedicated on September 13 and 14, 335, and shortly thereafter the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross began to be celebrated on the latter date. The feast slowly spread from Jerusalem to other churches, until, by the year 720, the celebration was universal. In the early seventh century, the Persians conquered Jerusalem, and the Persian king Khosrau II captured the True Cross and took it back to Persia. After Khosrau’s defeat by Emperor Heraclius II, Khosrau’s own son had him assassinated in 628 and returned the True Cross to Heraclius. In 629, Heraclius, having initially taken the True Cross to Constantinople, decided to restore it to Jerusalem. Tradition says that he carried the Cross on his own back, but when he attempted to enter the church on Mount Calvary, a strange force stopped him. Patriarch Zacharias of Jerusalem, seeing the emperor struggling, advised him to take off his royal robes and crown and to dress in a penitential robe instead. As soon as Heraclius took Zacharias’ advice, he was able to carry the True Cross into the church. For some centuries, a second feast, the Invention of the Cross, was celebrated on May 3 in the Roman and Gallican churches, following a tradition that marked that date as the day on which Saint Helena discovered the True Cross. In Jerusalem, however, the finding of the Cross was celebrated from the beginning on September 14.

Loading

Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross 2025

Posted on by

During the reign of Constantine, first Roman Emperor to profess the Christian faith, his mother Helena went to Israel and there undertook to find the places especially significant to Christians. (She was helped in this by the fact that in their destructions around 135, the Romans had built pagan shrines over many of these sites.) Having located, close together, what she believed to be the sites of the Crucifixion and of the Burial (at locations that modern archaeologists think may be correct), she then had built over them the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which was dedicated on 14 September 335. It has become a day for recognizing the Cross (in a festal atmosphere that would be inappropriate on Good Friday) as a symbol of triumph, as a sign of Christ’s victory over death, and a reminder of His promise, “And when I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.” (John 12:32)

Read and relish it all.

Loading

Carl Trueman (FT): Silencing Dissent, Affirming Delusion

Posted on by

An excellent piece, as usual, from Dr Trueman. For those with ears to hear, listen and understand.

Recent events indicate that the struggle against the dehumanization represented by trans ideology is far from over. True, the U.K. has closed down the Tavistock child gender identity clinic, the U.S. is moving against allowing men to compete in women’s sports, and scientists are starting to free their research in this area from the grip of ideologues and activists. More celebrities are voicing their concerns: Malcolm Gladwell has expressed regret over his silence on a 2022 panel about the issue, claiming this was more the result of cowardice than conviction. No surprise there. How many celebrity advocates for trans rights have read any of the relevant philosophical or medical literature? 

Despite the turning of the tide on the scientific (and to some extent the political) front, the situation with transgenderism is still ambiguous and remains a danger both to its victims—preventing them from obtaining proper care, rather than “affirmation,” for their condition—and to basic freedoms such as that of speech, something that once distinguished Western democracies from regimes such as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. The evidence is all around us. 

There was the widespread and pitiful use of “preferred pronouns” for the Annunciation Catholic School shooter in Minneapolis (one must respect a man’s identity politics even after he has slaughtered children at worship), the intimidation of a Canadian gender researcher (follow the science, but only to the extent it follows the pronoun preferences of the moment), and last week’s arrest of comedian and writer Graham Linehan as he disembarked in London from a transatlantic flight; Linehan was accused of “inciting violence” after posting anti-trans tweets on X. And yesterday, there was the tragic slaying of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley State University, reportedly while speaking about trans mass killers, though details on the killer and his motivation have yet to emerge. In any event, Kirk faced threats and vitriol from trans activists throughout his career, and gave a number of de-transitioners a platform to speak. Now, his voice has been silenced.

All these indicate that trans misogyny, attacks on women’s safety, and opposition to freedom of speech continue, with the stakes becoming higher all the time. The trans issue is not simply about protecting children from hormonal and genital mutilation. We make a fatal error if we stop once that is achieved. The trans question is about the nature of public life and humanity as a whole. It is no surprise that it has gained traction in Western society at the moment when the very question of what it means to be human is now a source of social confusion rather than cohesion. And it is clear that this dehumanization will be pressed forward by all means necessary, including the use of violence.

The capitulation of the American cultural commentariat on the pronoun issue (helpfully summarized by Lionel Shriver in The Spectator) is no surprise, with the New York Times as always leading the way. And the real chaos that underlies the ostentatious moralism of these opinion writers and pundits has been exposed. When a member of a class that regards itself as innocent victims proves to be a malevolent victimizer, they have no coherent moral calculus by which to frame their response, revealing the amorality of their creed. But while elite pandering to pronoun preferences, even of murderers of children, is sadly no surprise, the response to Kirk’s murder defied belief. Before the barrel of the gun was cold, media pundits were fretting that it might be used by the administration to its own political advantage, and even that to think and speak certain thoughts—presumably including those that do not conform to the progressive denial of reality—will inevitably lead to violence. Blaming the victims is apparently justified in certain circumstances, not to mention making shameful public comments that Kirk’s widow and children might well see. Such people lack any semblance of decency. They have no sense of a shared humanity.

Back in the U.K., the arrest of Linehan for his tweets was another shocking escalation of the culture war. To those unfamiliar with his work, he was the writer of Father Ted, a cleverly absurd Irish comedy that brought the tradition of dark Gaelic humor, exemplified in works such as Flann O’Brien’s The Third Policeman, to the small screen. He then went on to write The IT Crowd, another hit series. But in recent years, he has become notorious for doing what satirists always used to do: critiquing the smug pieties of the ruling class, in his case the sacred cow of that most absurd rebellion against reality, transgenderism. In this he has stood nearly alone, with so many of his earlier friends and collaborators now exposed not so much as anti-establishment as anti-that-old-establishment-to-which-they-did-not-belong. 

Linehan was arrested by five armed police officers at Heathrow. While U.K. police do not typically carry firearms, they do so at airports. But why five of them, and why in a very public space where they would be armed? Linehan was not on the run or in hiding or brandishing a weapon. Perhaps they feared that Linehan would tell a joke and innocent bystanders would die laughing? More likely they were indulging in the level of theatrical drama they deemed necessary to send a signal to anyone else tempted to behave likewise. The chief of the Metropolitan police might whine about lack of clarity in the law, but the response of his officers was unambiguous: Tweets we don’t like, even from months ago, will be met with overwhelming armed force. 

Read it all (free user account required).

Loading