Vivat Agnus Dei

Cohabitate, why not?

2026-06-28T00:00:00.000-05:00

As we have discussed previously, the world's idea of freedom can best be captured by the unanswered, dismissive question, "Why not?"[1] Also, as previously discussed, this reduction of religion to the moral (Kantianism), or of those who believe that which pertains to any religion as blind followers, each in their turn reduces any argument against a behavior with at least probable negative outcomes to mere attempts at control, an obsessive-compulsive perfectionism that would negate subjectivity (rigid psychological tendency), or to a spirituality divergent from corporal legitimacy (Gnosticism). Because our culture clings so foundationally to the demoralization of sex, its role, and its ideal context, cohabitation, like abortion, the definition of marriage, and the nature of love, has become a controversial issue that many come to discuss only once "loaded for bear" and often without listening. Moreover, although the "pro-cohabitation choice" side of this issue would strongly attempt to reframe any argument in the ways previously mentioned, it is worth noting that logic does not concern feelings first, as this would not be rational. Still, it cannot exclude the state of humanity either. This is to say that I think both sides should appreciate the primacy of avoiding the increase of negative dynamics in humanity, which often originate through the following of emotion or convenience without sufficient use of reason or long-term consideration. Thus, cohabitation is incompatible with Catholic courtship because it appropriates the goods and intimacies proper to marriage before its free, public, and sacramental establishment, separating marital acts from the covenant they signify (ontologically and psychologically), obscuring the meaning of commitment, sacrifice, and sacramental grace, while impairing authentic discernment, hindering the formation of virtue, and increasing the likelihood of (if not outright producing) relational and spiritual harm.

First, we shall consider that the purpose of courtship is discernment. "As youth enter young adulthood, they begin a period of greater personal responsibility which includes the discernment of vocation."[6] Just as every human practice has a proper purpose, courtship, insofar as it always precedes marriage, is ordered toward discerning whether a particular man and woman should enter marriage (a vocation) together. (Self-evidentially,) Discernment requires gauging the goodness of, understanding the nature of the thing discerned in both any and this particular context, and the possibility of moral execution of the thing discerned. Discerning marriage specifically requires the absence of coercion, the presence of freedom, and wholehearted consent, which in turn require clarity and the ability to choose (against) marriage to the member of the opposite sex.[8] The necessary freedom for discernment is undermined by fear of what happens when a relationship may not be headed toward marriage or, in place of the pursuit of marriage, may need to be ended for lack of relational health or prudential continuation.* Discerning marriage specifically requires actual openness to fidelity, lifelong commitment, and openness to children and their being raised "according to the law of Christ and his Church."[8] Cohabitation creates practical and emotional constraints, and outcomes do not support that it is valuable for discernment [5]. Therefore, courtship should preserve freedom, clarity for discernment, and a period of impartial discernment; arrangements that compromise such things undermine discernment.

Second, we must discuss the nature of the thing to be discerned. Marriage is a total covenant whose privileges belong to the covenant. Marriage is a lifelong covenant of mutual self-gift.[9] This implies exclusivity, particular yet comprehensive vows, a spirit of unbounded generosity, unconditionality on the part of the parties, and a particular methodology by which it is engendered and sustained. The goods of marriage express and presuppose that covenant. Empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and relationship studies suggests that sexual intimacy is most conducive to long-term flourishing when integrated within committed, enduring relationships, as sex appears to foster pair-bonding through neurobiological mechanisms, deepen relational attachment through shared meaning and spiritual significance, and is associated with greater relationship satisfaction and stability when preceded by commitment rather than treated as a casual activity.[11] This means that any goods of living together and being made one are improper, incomplete, and profaned (in terms of sacramentality) outside of the proper context, thus maligning the goods (both in themselves and in our understanding of them) and producing consequences and probabilistic effects.[12] Engaging in the acts that engender it suggests that the nature of the covenant is not respected, which begs questions of how it will be abided by or reverenced when it is present. In short, how can one acquiesce to something a goal requires if one is disrespecting that goal and seeking only to reap its benefits without paying its cost before it truly begins? Therefore, marital privileges properly belong within marriage because marriage contextualizes the acts properly and bestows upon them the meaning that they physiologically imply, joining them to a life of peace, grace, and certainty in a way only the sacrament can bestow.

Third, we shall consider the contradiction of justice that cohabitation signifies. Cohabitation (fraudulently or thievishly) appropriates goods proper to marriage while withholding the covenant that gives those goods their meaning. Marriage establishes a covenant. Just as God established covenants with us time and again, a covenant involves assurances of generosity and selflessness that not just any relationship offers. Just as promises of salvation are brought about by partaking in a covenant with God, marital goods properly flow from the marital covenant. Cohabitation seeks many marital goods apart from the covenant, including the good of cuddling through the night, waking together, or intercourse (fornication) itself (if not only a consistent or constant occasion for it, which we pray about avoiding in the Act of Contrition). The content of a firm purpose of amendment necessary to be absolved of sin includes, at minimum, the avoidance of temptation where possible, and failure to amend these situations strains the validity of absolution for this sin, compromising a state of grace even in the context of confession. Virtue (and most certainly a repentant Christian life) avoids foreseeable occasions of moral failure and is honest with the finitude and compromised condition of human love.[2][10] Cohabitation, by its nature, creates strong occasions for sexual sin, to the point that canon law assumes intercourse in the context, and rightfully so, for determining the validity of a marriage.[4] Moreover, given our brokenness (which is further strained in this context), we are often indisposed to good things and disposed to bad things. First, how much more difficult is it for the difference between temptation and the act of sin not to become all but immediate? Second, how much more should one be tempted if this is someone we trust deeply, have great affection for, possess a natural sexual interest in, and may wish to have children with anyway? [7] Overall, charity/love seeks the true good of the beloved. Love is measured by self-gift and sacrifice. Cohabitation is often motivated by convenience. Consequently, it habituates couples to a complacent absence of sacrifice or inconvenience. Freedom is the ability to choose the good.[1] Therefore, cohabitation separates goods from the reality that justifies them, namely the self-sacrificial covenant, undermining virtue (being contrary to justice, chastity, prudence, and charity) and authentic freedom.[10]

Fourth, and consequently (from the prior points), it harms couples, children, and society. As discussed above, the effects, regardless of intention or circumstance, include weaker discernment, less intentional commitment, relationship inertia (or stagnation), increased temptation, impaired communication, and reduced trust in all such matters. Children may arise from such situations. Empirical research in sociology, developmental psychology, economics, and family studies consistently finds that children, on average, experience the most favorable outcomes when raised in stable, low-conflict homes headed by their married biological parents, as such family structures are associated with greater relational stability, lower poverty rates, reduced exposure to abuse and family disruption, stronger educational and emotional outcomes, and increased access to parental resources, although some scholars note that part of this advantage reflects parental characteristics and selection effects rather than marital status alone.[14] No less, marriage is formally ordered toward stable family life and invites sure discernment. Cohabitation is at best less stable than marriage. Therefore, cohabitation creates greater risks for children, at best. Actions teach children and neighbors alike. Self-evidently, cohabitation communicates, at least, that: 1) chastity is unrealistic, 2) marriage is unnecessary, and 3) commitment is optional in a relationship, or even as Jordan Petersen crassly quips concerning the man and woman, "you are the best I can manage at the moment".[2]

In conclusion, Christians should reject cohabitation (unless there are circumstances that a priest agrees constitute an exception, notably rare and probably dire) and instead order courtship toward virtuous preparation for sacramental marriage. The role of the sacrament in the relationship, commitment during marriage, detachment before marriage, and the relevant practices utilized by the Catholic Church and derived from Christ's teaching are the surest ways to protect the common good of every party, even when something goes wrong. To understate the strength of this conclusion, it would be advisable not to cohabitate or cross related boundaries in almost every instance of the question, "Why not?" This is the better part of the answer. Still more, beyond avoiding a negative trend, the pursuit of a holistic relationship rather than mere relations is, as William May would say, “the union of one man and one woman, the foundation of family life, and a person-affirming, love-enabling, life-giving, sanctifying reality.”[13] In like fashion, those who consider the avoidance of fornication and cohabitation a boundary, and who are honored or honor their beloved by recognizing the above, often observe a healthy and helpful challenge to grow the relationship through navigating obstacles, making good and valid sacrifices, cherishing the interior well-being of the other, and establishing healthy dynamics for a lifelong relationship as consoling, loving, and necessary for deeper, more thorough discernment. Better discernment means greater trust is available both for God and between man and woman, which makes for a marriage that brings about health, happiness, and holiness. Even in cases where sacramentality may not be a consideration (for non-Christians), discernment and commitment remain essential aspects of a "marriage" if one wishes to prevent negative trends affecting couples, children, and society, far from being a mere "paper".[3][9]**

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN (Click to find):

1. Carter Carruthers, "Where the World’s Definition of Freedom Leads", Vivat Agnus Dei, July 27, 2025.

2. Jordan Petersen, "Here’s Why You Shouldn’t Live With Your Significant Other Before Marriage," YouTube video, posted by Jordan B. Petersen Clips (26 February 2023) at http://www.youtube.com, .

3. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation on the Love in the Family Amoris laetitia (19 March 2016), §293.

4. cf. Code of Canon Law, at The Holy See, www.vatican.va, 1061§2.

5. Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades, University of Denver x Institute for Family Studies.

6. Laity, Life, and Youth Committee, Bishop's Conference Publication on the Phases of Sacramental Preparation Walking towards marriage (31 March 2021). Also see: https://bridgeportpriest.org/articles/dating-and-discernment

7. Andrew Thruinger, Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls in Ministry to Youth.

8. Order of Matrimony, The Questions before the Consent.

9. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000), 1603.

10. Gregory Pine, 'Why You Shouldn't Live Together Before Marriage.,' YouTube video, posted by Matt Fradd (29 October 2022) at http://www.youtube.com.

11. 1) Ryan B. Allen and Dean M. Busby, “Sexual Sanctification and Sexual Well-Being in Committed Relationships,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy (2026); Anna Iovine, “How Finding Deep Spiritual Meaning in the Bedroom Changes Relationship Dynamics,” PsyPost, 2026; 2) Abigail Marsh, “The Neuroscience of Love: What’s Going on in the Lovestruck Brain?” Georgetown University; 3) Laura M. Padilla-Walker et al., “A Longitudinal Study of the Timing of First Sex in Romantic Relationships and Subsequent Relationship Quality,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships; 4) Karen J Holland et al. “Spiritual Intimacy, Marital Intimacy, and Physical/Psychological Well-Being: Spiritual Meaning as a Mediator.” Psychology of religion and spirituality vol. 8,3 (2016): 218-227.

12. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000), 2360-2363.

13. William May, Marriage: The Rock on which the Family is Built, Second Ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1 January 2009).

14. 1) W. Bradford Wilcox et al., Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. (New York: Institute for American Values and National Marriage Project, 2011); “Marriage, Divorce and Family Relations: Effects on Children,” American College of Pediatricians; 2) Mary Parke, Are Married Parents Really Better for Children? (Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy, 2003), CLASP Report PDF; 3) “For Kids, Parental Cohabitation and Marriage Are Not Interchangeable,” Institute for Family Studies; 4) “New Research Confirms Having Married Parents Helps Kids Get Ahead,” Institute for Family Studies; “Couples and Kids,” University of Notre Dame Shaw Center for Children and Families; 5) Kristin A. Moore et al., Marital Quality and Outcomes for Children and Adolescents: A Review of the Family Process Literature (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009), HHS Report; 6) Claire Crawford, Wendy Sigle-Rushton, and Lindsey Macmillan, “Child Development and Marital Status,” Nuffield Foundation Research Summary.

*Note: Although this is meant to be more academic than experiential, it is well worth noting that I personally have encountered many who, even after making it work for a time after marriage, had their lives ruined by relationships of cohabitation amounting to inadequate discernment, and even some who later asked for money. Financially, if your significant other is the only one whose name is on the lease or deed and they kick you out, one may lose all physical assets on the premises.

**of course, it may be argued that there exists an insufficient commitment as long as marriage is not considered indissoluble and existentially important, which may be available only in the Catholic Church and denominations with similar teachings

Chance, Intelligibility, and the Watchmaker Argument

2026-01-01T12:32:00.000-06:00

Among St. Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways for demonstrating the existence of God, the Fifth Way—often called the argument from governance or finality—has frequently been conflated with what is popularly known as the “argument from design,” William Paley’s “watchmaker argument,” or modern forms of “intelligent design.” While these arguments share a family resemblance, Aquinas’s Fifth Way differs from them in method, metaphysical depth, and philosophical ambition. At its core, the Fifth Way is not an inference from complexity alone, but an argument from the intelligibility, regularity, and ordered directedness of nature toward an intellect that grounds and sustains that order. A careful comparison clarifies both the strengths of Aquinas’s approach and the limited, though pedagogically useful, role of the watchmaker analogy.

The Fifth Way and the Governance of the World

Aquinas’s Fifth Way begins with an observation about the natural world: non-rational beings consistently act for ends. Natural entities lacking intelligence—such as physical bodies, plants, and even fundamental natural processes—regularly operate in ways that conduce to determinate outcomes. This ordered regularity is what Aquinas calls the governance of the world. [1] Importantly, this is not merely a claim about biological complexity but about intelligibility itself: nature is lawlike, stable, and knowable.

The constancy of natural laws and the fixed ranges within which reality operates make science, technology, adaptation, and even evolution possible. Were there no stable principles or governing norms, reality would be unintelligible and uninhabitable. The Fifth Way thus presupposes what the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: that creation reflects divine wisdom and order, such that “God created the world according to his wisdom”.[2]

An analogy helps clarify this point. Consider a master painter. The detail, harmony, proportions, and coherence of a finished painting reveal not only the existence of an artist, but the intellect, intention, and skill that guided the work. Similarly, the beauty, hierarchy of species, cyclic patterns of nature, generation and corruption, and harmonious “economies” of existence testify to a directing intelligence. The emphasis is not on isolated complexity, but on the pervasive orientation of things toward intelligible ends.

Distinction from the Watchmaker Argument

William Paley’s watchmaker argument famously invites the reader to imagine discovering a watch on the ground and inferring a designer due to its intricate arrangement of parts. This analogy is effective for introducing the idea of design to a general audience, particularly those untrained in metaphysics. However, Paley’s argument differs fundamentally from Aquinas’s Fifth Way.

First, Paley reasons primarily from complexity to design, whereas Aquinas reasons from final causality to intellect. Aquinas does not depend on the improbability of complexity but on the directedness of natural processes themselves. Second, Paley’s argument can be misinterpreted as suggesting that God merely assembles pre-existing materials, like a craftsman assembling a machine. Aquinas, by contrast, situates the Fifth Way within the broader metaphysical framework established by the first four Ways: God is the First Cause, the source of being itself, who creates and sustains all things ex nihilo.[3]

Moreover, Aquinas explicitly avoids treating God as a distant artificer who acts only at the beginning of creation. Divine providence extends to all things, including particulars.[4] Creation is not a one-time act but an ongoing participation of creatures in God’s causality. In this sense, the world is not merely designed like a watch and left to run; it is continuously governed and directed by divine intellect and will.

Chance, Providence, and Modern Misunderstandings

Modern objections often appeal to chance or randomness as alternatives to divine governance. Yet Aquinas offers a more precise account. While chance exists in the sense that multiple causal lines may intersect unpredictably from a limited human perspective, nothing is truly uncaused or unintelligible from the standpoint of divine providence.[5]

What scientists describe as randomness—such as the outcome of a coin toss—arises from the complexity and opacity of causal factors, not from the absence of causality itself. Air resistance, weight distribution, force, angle, and environmental conditions all contribute determinately to the outcome, even if they are not fully measurable. Thus, “chance” functions as an epistemic placeholder rather than a metaphysical explanation.

To invoke chance as an ultimate explanation for the profound intelligibility of reality risks collapsing into a form of scientism that takes order for granted without accounting for its source. As Aquinas insists, intelligibility itself demands explanation. If reality is ordered in such a way that rational minds can consistently discover and articulate its laws, then that order ultimately points beyond itself to an ordering intellect.

Conclusion

The Fifth Way is neither a primitive version of the watchmaker argument nor a simple appeal to biological complexity. It is a metaphysical argument rooted in the intelligibility, regularity, and purposiveness of nature as such. While the watchmaker analogy may serve as a useful introduction for certain audiences, it lacks the ontological depth of Aquinas’s account of divine governance. Properly understood, the Fifth Way reveals that the order of the world is not the product of blind chance, but the expression of a provident intellect who not only initiates creation but sustains it in being. Analogies inevitably and universally fall short when speaking of God—but when carefully employed, they can still point the mind toward the truth of a reality.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Reflection on the Readings for Third Sunday of Advent - Year A

2025-12-14T15:39:00.002-06:00

Read Readings

Do you ever notice the feeling of anticipation that accompanies Advent? To me, Advent is a season symbolic of the journey of this life: we wait in eager hope for the life to come—the fullness of health, happiness, and holiness in Christ—and we conform ourselves so as to receive that fullness with eagerness and readiness, that is, to long in the proper way. In this sense, it is a livelier Lent, because it holds the anticipation of Christ in one hand and the strong conviction that all promises are about to be fulfilled in the other.

As I read—and even before I read—I could not help but feel overcome by the sense that the biggest thing is about to happen: the one thing God has been laboring toward with us, namely the fulfillment of every covenant, God among us; what was destroyed in our sins and the sins of others beginning to be undone; people who once sneered now rejoicing in communion. It is much like last Sunday’s reading from Isaiah 11, which highlights how those naturally opposed to each other will come to rest in peace and share in each other’s good.

This Sunday brings that curve to a local maximum, as the Entrance Antiphon for Mass begins: “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice. Indeed, the Lord is near.” In my heart, as I think about singing that, it feels like a beautiful trumpet blast that invites one to tears of hopefulness at the goodness about to unfold.

Our passage from Isaiah speaks to this as it prophesies the undoing of every human affliction—not merely a calm return to normal, but an overwhelming renewal. The lame “will leap,” not merely stand. It ends with the image of ransom—being bought out of slavery—and then what follows: being crowned with everlasting joy, while sorrow and mourning flee away. Aquinas speaks into this when he discusses grace: not only is human nature healed of the affliction, burden, and weakness caused by sin, but it is elevated and endowed with a potency we did not previously possess.

The responsorial Psalm builds upon this theme. Its response, “Lord, come and save us,” is paired with verses proclaiming that He does save—certainly in part now, though not completely until we are brought to Him (should His grace find us cooperative). The Psalm even concludes by proclaiming His special care and providence for the poorest—those lacking wealth, community, and protection, such as the widow and the orphan—and His undoing of evil designs.

The second reading instructs us in truly Christian, joyful hope. Much of Scripture echoes this theme of being vigilant for the Lord’s coming: His first coming, which we recall; His coming into our hearts now; and His final coming to earth in the future, which will complete all that remains unfinished in the first two. It uses the image of a farmer waiting for the harvest. Although not all of us are farmers, we can appreciate the anticipation of completing a central life project—of reaching the moment when we launch ourselves into joyful action for which we have labored and prayed. May the Lord find us this eager to see Him.

In the Gospel, Jesus quotes the Scripture of the first reading and effectively says, “It is happening; the time is here,” and He identifies John the Baptist as the last herald of this great work beginning while calling to mind the greatest one must pursue in order to be in Heaven and still more among the greats.

My invitation to you, dear reader, is to feel that hope in your heart: like a runner ready to begin the race toward Christ, to love Him the moment the buzzer sounds. Prepare yourself for that solemn joy proper to the coming of Christ in all three of His comings—especially His coming into the barn or cave that is so often our hearts.

Written by Carter Carruthers

Divine Simplicity: The Essence and Existence of God

2025-11-30T13:54:00.004-06:00

Before we search out the answers to scientific questions with a critical and intentional inquisition, those realities can seem deeply mysterious, unintelligible, and/or complex. We begin with an educated guess, and as we experiment, our understanding can become very complex, not knowing exactly how newfound variables are involved. By the time we completely understand the causality of a phenomenon such that we can apply it to technology, it becomes simple, singular, and familiar to us. From mystification to a well-formed perspective, our perception becomes tuned to reality. As the mind approaches God, man has shown this same pattern, imagining Him to be not one but many, not loving but oppressive, etc. However, as one grows familiar with His ways, we also become familiar with His nature. Similar to the manner in which Thomas Aquinas discussed whether God’s existence is demonstrable, God is not so much known through the same method as a physical being but rather by getting to know Him like a person, i.e., watching His actions, listening to how He speaks, the content of what He says, and how He reacts to injustice. Through such encounters, Christians (post-messianic Jews, us) conclude that God’s essence is His existence, and thus He is simple and yet the underpinning of the existence of all things.

First, let us define existence and essence. Defining these terms is crucial for answering the question of diversity and unity of beings, i.e., this being appears to be different but still is a part of the singular existence; is it one (the same as others, a faint reflection of an ideal form), many (only an individual among others unrelated to anything considered like it), or a combination of the two? Existence is “that in a being which makes it a real being.”[1] Existence necessarily comes first, and it is from this principle that all beings come to be, and thus it qualitatively unites all beings. Philosophically, we can imagine the principle of existence as a sort of infinite creative energy that is always working to be utilized. This potency from which all beings become actual is one of the most easily grasped concepts of metaphysics. Essence is “that which makes a being what it is… [as] distinct from every other.”[2] Essence is the philosophical response to the reality of diverse beings. Essence answers the question of what makes a given being the being it is, in the way it is, and not another being in another way. Essence is the principle that makes giving names to people possible. It does so by channeling existence into specific/concrete/individual expression. Thereby, essence limits existence in quality, quantity, and finitude. The form is “that which determines a being to be such-and-such in any order, accidental or essential-substantial.”[3] The form is the aspect of a being that shows this being to be an individual of a category of beings (one of many) and not in another category; therefore substance (what makes it itself) is derived primarily from the form and thus accounts for the qualitative aspects of a being. The principle of form is what allows us to identify an organism through classification and to anticipate the reality of the individual from the knowledge we have of others in its genus and species. Matter (primary) is “the non-formal principle of quantitative spatial extension that functions as a potency receiving the qualitative perfection of form, limiting it to this-location-now in the space-time matrix of the material world, and also serving as the principle of continuity in the transition from one essential form to another in essential change.”[4] Matter is the quantitative potency of existence that constitutes a being’s finitude and allows for the presence/absence of a being’s accidents in individuals, even when they are naturally present in most beings of the individual’s corresponding categories. Each of these principles in Aquinas is Aristotelian at its root with a Platonic icing, since it is firstly about individuals and then about existence beyond the individual, and then beyond our experience.

Second, let us consider how essence and existence are related and what their source is. Existence actualizes the potency of prime matter by applying a form to it. As defined above, the form makes a being the kind of being it is, and the matter is what allows for its finite expression/individuation. In this way, existence is limited in its production of beings by essence. The potency of existence (not to be confused with the potency of prime matter) is restrained and defined by essence (form and matter), since all beings are individual structures. Since reality, as we detect it, is intelligible, then existence is delimited in an ordered/controlled/governed way. A being’s nature is defined by its essence and thereby is given its own potencies and is changed through causality. This must be so because of sufficient reason, i.e., since reality, as we detect it, is intelligible and there is nothing that is formless within the bounds of what we can detect (with anything from electron microscopes to the most sensitive telescopes). Every finite being was brought into existence through efficient cause, and thus all finite beings trace their existence back to a single infinite being (which we call God). Existence must be guided by a final cause, since beings do not just illogically/unfoundedly appear or disappear. What we mean by final cause at least refers to the laws of science and logic of nature that limit/direct potentialities and, as a result, restrict finite beings to only a few possible immediate futures. The final cause (guiding principles of reality combined) makes use of efficient causes (that which makes potencies into actualities) to create, change, and perpetuate reality through the application and maintenance of the essence of all beings.

Third, let us consider how essence and existence behave in God. As we begin our investigation, there are a few important considerations. The first is that God is not susceptible to change as a result of His nature. This is because God is pure actuality, and potency (which comes after act) does not exist in Him, because He is Perfection Itself, and thus He can have no matter or form.[5] Consequently, movement and composition are also not possible for Him.[6] In His mystery, He can create, sustain us in existence (Him), and even make an Incarnation of Himself experience what is human and divine concurrently without movement, composition, matter, form, etc. (without regard to what Jesus experienced in the Incarnation). Secondly, God is not found within the genus of being but rather encompasses it entirely. This is apparent from above, because we are not in the same sense, degree, or category by virtue of His infinitude and preexistence in the material world. God could never fit into categories but rather transcends everything without limit.[7] God is the same as His nature: Perfection Itself, Love Itself, Truth Itself, Beauty Itself, etc.[8] Therefore, His essence would not be captured by how we define “essence.” By consequence of His transcendent nature, His essence cannot be distinguished from His existence, and thus His essence must be His existence, since He is Existence Itself. Therefore, God must be Existence Itself, and all things that exist participate in His existence as in a closed system (God does not gain or lose existence in creation or destruction). Since God is Existence Himself, it is not possible to find Him within creation, with the exception of incarnating a Person of His Substance within it. By this fact, we (beings) must always participate in God if we are to remain real, and further, God is present among the things we detect empirically because He is their author, and of course, all participate in Him. God, as Existence Itself, must be (the Author of) the final cause that authors essences and completes the transition from non-being to being (as the pre-existent efficient cause). Insofar as He authors essences and makes things actual, He delimits potentialities. Insofar as this is true, He not only authors the present state of things but also where they can go. Since we have established that God’s essence is Existence Itself and what this means, then we understand in what fashion He is simple. In Him, there is only wholeness, a singular infinitesimal nature that encompasses all things, that cannot be found in empiricism and scarcely in pure rationality (although Plato and Aristotle were headed in a very particular direction toward which Aquinas directed their philosophies), cannot undergo change, cannot have matter and form, and is so simple that His existence is not separable from His essence.

In conclusion, God’s nature can be known to us if we approach the subject with honesty and humility. Much like many other questions, the mystery of God is a deep and enigmatic reality. However, as we move closer to knowing Him, we begin to encounter the singular truth of His existence. As we learn about the beings we empirically encounter, we begin to ask the question of why: Why this and not another? Why is there anything at all? Why does this thing appear to be its own being while so largely similar to others of its kind? As we attempt to answer these questions, we develop the concepts of “essence” and “existence” to answer the question of what makes this being this being, in a way that it is more similar to some than others and is still its own being. Without these precise concepts, we would not be able to approach the answers we seek, just as one could not complete experiments without properly calibrated equipment to conduct them, nor could one comprehend the results of the experiments without a baseline knowledge of the methods that derive the results. As we discuss changes, these definitions are challenged and developed. As we study causality, we come to realize there must be something that pre-exists finite beings. Since this being necessarily has a fixed relationship to reality as we experience it, we can conclude that God’s existence must be His essence, and He cannot be defined by the same things that define finite beings. We come to understand how He interacts with our world. Thereby, we realize His nature is simple, not consisting of many aspects but still infinitely all things insofar as His essence is Existence Itself. He is not subject to change, nor is it possible to find Him present only within empirical/material reality as other beings are.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

William Norris Clarke, The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2011), 317.
Clarke, The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics, 159.
Clarke, The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics, 159.
Clarke, The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics, 159.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I, q. 9, a. 1, at New Advent, www.newadvent.org.; ST, I, q. 3, a. 2.
ST, I, q. 9, a. 1.
ST, I, q. 3, a. 5.
ST, I, q. 3, a. 3.

What is Happiness?

2025-10-26T00:00:00.001-05:00

This question is the foremost question of ethics because it is what joins or separates—depending on our answer—what is objectively good from what we subjectively feel compelled to pursue. Every person desires to be happy, and rightfully so (cf. Ps 4:7; Jn 16:24, Ps 16:11). However, real happiness does not lie on the other side of evil (cf. Rom 6:23).

This is where the Catholic Church becomes unpopular, for it reveals the depth of humanity’s fall. If we pursue happiness through what in fact engenders suffering, we seek our destruction and rejoice in it (cf. Prov 14:12).[1] This destruction disposes us to greater comfort with evil, creating conditions in which undesirable realities arise—both internal and external—and relationships at every level (with God, others, and ourselves) are degraded (cf. Jas 1:14–15).[2]

This raises the question of what constitutes real happiness—happiness that does not produce these absurdities yet makes one truly joyful and unburdened. I would argue, and the Church with me, that happiness is only true if found near to health and holiness. Thus, this pursuit may be divided into three subcategories derivative of, and analogous to, the transcendentals: truth, goodness, and beauty.[3] These correspond respectively to meaning (conformity to Christ), virtuous enjoyment, and satisfaction with Heaven, both in its poverty now and in eternal beatitude (cf. Mt 5:3–12; Jn 15:11).

I: Virtuous Enjoyment

We consider virtuous enjoyment first because it corresponds to the lowest level of happiness while still opening toward the highest. There is nothing wrong with pleasure so long as it is virtuous (cf. 1 Tim 6:17; Sir 14:21). Enjoyment, however, need not be superficial. It can and should be experienced in small ways through gratitude, a passion-driven life, and appreciation of small or immaterial rewards. [4]

Temperance moderates our engagement with goods by eliminating the suffering proper to a particular object: avoiding excess or consumption in inappropriate contexts that produce undesired consequences for example, debilitating hangover or tragedy due to debilitated judgment. Prudence applies this principle in practical decisions. For example, overindulging in dessert can lead to obesity, diabetes, sickness, and volatile blood sugar levels. Yet, if one limits quantity and frequency, making the experience special, the enjoyment is pursued for its own sake, not for a fleeting “high.” This principle extends to many other goods: mindful consideration of purpose, means, amount, and context ensures proper enjoyment.[5] Another point is this is what is so helpful about periodic fasting and feasting according to a calendar like the liturgical calendar.

Participation in the divine life represents the highest form of enjoyment. Prayer, awareness of God’s love and presence, and feelings of affection toward God are often unconditional experiences of joy, and are a storing up of treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21). These constitute the well from which we draw “living water” (cf. Jn 4:13–14; Jn 7:38, Mt 5:6, Neh 8:10). Such experiences are goods in themselves—requiring no extrinsic reason beyond their own value—and can sustain us during anguish or sorrow (cf. 2 Cor 4:17–18).

Yet treating these consolations as a means to solve psychological problems or eliminate suffering is self-destructive and amounts to addiction. Good feelings do not change reality; good intentions do not make something good; and a good over there does not change the nature of what is in here. This belongs solely to God. Experiences of divine consolation sustain us precisely when higher forms of happiness demand suffering.[6]

Part II: Eternal Meaning

The second kind of happiness we examine is eternal, truthful meaning. This level has two subcategories: ego-aggrandizement and contribution or self-giving.

Ego-aggrandizement, at first glance, may appear merely self-centered; yet it is healthy if rooted in magnanimity.[7] We are lovable creatures, children of God, and we grow into this identity through holiness (cf. 1 Jn 3:1; Eph 2:10; Gn 1:26-31). Humility, properly understood, does not suppress true greatness, nor does it permit loving oneself before God or others. One must be well to love properly, but once wellness is achieved, one ought not to center oneself. Meaning emerges, therefore, through personal, goal-oriented greatness rather than comparative pursuit.

Contribution and self-giving represent the second subcategory, emphasizing generosity proper to greatness. As Scripture affirms, “Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Mt 16:25, 1 Pt 4:13). This principle illuminates why the purpose of masculinity extends beyond biology or mere strength: it is familial and sacramental. Priests, fathers, and spiritual leaders are called to protect human and divine good and exercise care in service to others, reflecting this truth.

In this context, proper self-love—loving oneself as created in God’s image—provides the foundation for authentic love of others (cf. Mt 22:39). Moral and spiritual development align the ego with God’s purposes rather than mere self-interest, transforming personal ambition into participation in divine goodness.[8]

Participation in God’s eternal narrative—creation, fall, redemption, and glorification—situates human action within a broader, cosmic meaning. The temporal and the eternal converge: every act, when ordered to God, possesses enduring significance. As Frankl observes, even in suffering, life maintains meaning through conscious engagement and ethical action.[9] The Catholic tradition adds that this meaning is given by God, revealed in Scripture and Tradition, and actualized through grace. [10]

Part IV: Satisfaction

Lastly, we consider satisfaction, the experience of fullness and well-being. Satisfaction, as the Council of Trent explains, is the general experience of lacking nothing.[11] We can encounter moments of this fullness on earth through the sacraments, in adoration, and in environments imbued with the presence of a loving Christian God (cf. Heb 10:24–25). Likewise, it is found in the companionship of discipleship and familial communion, where God is easily experienced.

These moments reflect the vision God intended “from the beginning” and point toward the even greater fullness to come—accomplished only by becoming what we were created to be in Christ (Is 58:11, Jn 17:5, Matthew 19:1-11, Ps 107:9). This fullness has a natural harmony, where one’s movements are received and reciprocated in perfect love. Integration, or integritas, is another characteristic of this category: not only individual health, but a dynamic wholeness amid all reality—within, around, and relating to oneself.

Moral purity is central here, for it aligns all aspects of the self with truth, goodness, and beauty, enabling this transcendental satisfaction. As St. Thomas teaches, perfect happiness requires the ultimate good, God Himself.[12] Psychological research similarly identifies integration and coherence as key components of life satisfaction.[13]

Satisfaction, therefore, is transcendental in nature: it combines the alignment of self, relationships, and purpose with divine communion. Even temporal experiences of satisfaction—through love, service, or sacramental participation—reflect the beatific vision, giving us a foretaste of eternal happiness. [10]

Conclusion: Integration and Intersection, the Path of the Joyful, Peaceful, and Self-Giving Christian

The Catholic understanding of happiness unites what the world has divided, for it orders all desires toward the good that alone can satisfy—the divine life of God Himself (cf. Jn 14:6; Ps 27:4). True happiness is not the indulgence of desire but its purification and redirection to the love of God and neighbor, for “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10; cf. 1 Jn 4:20). In Christ, enjoyment becomes virtuous, meaning becomes self-gift, and satisfaction becomes communion, where truth, goodness, and beauty converge (Jn 15:11, Lk 24:52). Detached from God, each pursuit collapses into vanity; but in Him, they are integrated and elevated to eternal life.[6]

The Lord Jesus prayed “that all may be one… as we are one” (Jn 17:21–22), revealing that human happiness consists in communion, modeled upon Trinitarian love. Man, “who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself.”[16] This self-gift is the perfection of ethics, for love fulfills what reason and virtue begin. As St. John Paul II teaches, “man cannot live without love; he remains incomprehensible to himself if love is not revealed to him.”[17] In the mystery of the Redemption, Christ “fully reveals man to himself,” restoring his dignity and giving back meaning to his life.[14] In this union, humanity’s restless heart finds its rest, echoing St. Augustine’s confession: “You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”[15]

Through the Cross, love transforms suffering into participation in divine life, giving joy its deepest form (Romans 5:3–5).[5] Thus, the end of all ethics is not merely to choose rightly but to become love, for in loving God and neighbor man becomes righteous and finds himself at rest in the One who is Love itself (1 Jn 4:8).

“For in His presence is fullness of joy, and at His right hand are pleasures forevermore” (Ps 16:11).

Written by Carter Carruthers

Footnotes

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, 2000), 1865.; Carter Carruthers, "Spiral of Sin", Vivat Agnus Dei, February 25, 2024.; Carter Carruthers, "The Source of All Sadness", Vivat Agnus Dei, January 24, 2021.; Carter Carruthers, "Confession: Why do we need it? How to do it?", Vivat Agnus Dei, July 5, 2020.; Carter Carruthers, "If God is truly all-loving, all-good, and all-powerful then why is their evil and suffering?", Vivat Agnus Dei, August 16, 2020.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 5, a. 1, at New Advent, www.newadvent.org.; ST, I-II, q. 2, a. 8..
Carter Carruthers, "Gratitude, the Act of Reception", Vivat Agnus Dei, October 13, 2024.
ST, II-II, q. 141, a. 2.
CCC, 1521.
CCC, 1716, 1718-1721.
ST, II-II, q. 129.
ST, II-II, q. 58, a. 4.
Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959/2006).
CCC, 1721.
Council of Trent, _Catechism of the council of trent for parish priests_ (1 January 1923), §296.
ST, I-II, q. 3, a. 8.
Some among many: Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (New York: Harper & Row, 1990).; Barbara Fredrickson, "The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 359 (2004): 1367–78.; VanderWeele, Tyler J. “On the promotion of human flourishing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America vol. 114,31 (2017): 8148-8156.; Michael F. Steger, "Meaning in Life," in Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, 2nd ed., eds. C. R. Snyder and Shane J. Lopez (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).; Roy F. Baumeister et al., "Some Key Differences Between a Happy Life and a Meaningful Life," Journal of Positive Psychology 8, no. 6 (2013): 505–516. (Notes: It is true that seeking meaning involves suffering but according to a more balanced and magnanimous anthropology, without meaning happiness becomes unstable, I would argue).; Carol D. Ryff, “Happiness is Everything, or Is It? Explorations on the Meaning of Psychological Well-Being,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, no. 6 (1989): 1069–1081. (Note in General: although psychology strains to define happiness well, faith seems to have a good idea of what it ought to be and psychology can try to argue against it cite the difficult of the pursuit of what faith recommends as undue or not showing empirical correlation. However, I would argue that insofar as the data points (broken persons) are subjective. This makes study-based psychology categorically fall short of answering the question what humanity is bound for or what the destination for the individual ought to be without first knowing it it means for humanity to not be broken as opposed to "normal" or "average". Since, those who truly pursue the absolute ideal are few and many who try give up or misapply principles, the only way psychology would give us the answer to such a question is to survey the saints rather than the sinners, for more see this: Carter Carruthers, "Where Psychology and Sociology Get It Wrong", Vivat Agnus Dei, February 4, 2024.)
CCC, 605, 1709.
St. Augustine, Confessions, I,1.
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World _Gaudium et spes_ (7 December 1965), §24.3.
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter on the Jesus Christ the Redeemer of Man _Redemptor hominis_ (4 March 1979), §10.

The "Hour of the Son of Man", Suffering, and Mary's Maternity

2025-09-28T00:00:00.004-05:00

The word hour appears twenty times throughout the Gospel of John. More often than not, Jesus uses it to symbolize the climactic event of His glorification through suffering (cf. John 12:23, 27, NRSVCE). “Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father” (John 13:1). This verse begins the Last Supper discourse, and the language signals that the decisive moment has truly “come.”

In chapter 16, the word is used to foretell the suffering of the Apostles (John 16:2–4). Later in the same chapter, Jesus foretells their sorrow at His departure: “When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you” (John 16:21–22). Here, suffering is revealed as necessary for the accomplishment of a greater good: although extreme, the anguish is temporary and yields to a joy that cannot be taken away.

Later, Jesus again uses hour to predict both the crucifixion and the unveiling of divine truth. Up to this point, He has spoken in figures—through language, allegories, and proverbs—but the hour will come when He speaks “plainly,” openly and publicly (John 16:25, 30). In chapter 17, in His high-priestly prayer, Jesus prays, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you” (John 17:1). This reveals the full meaning of the hour: not simply death, but glorification—like a climactic moment in a symphony, upon which the entire score depends. Here, Christ transforms the meaning of suffering itself, showing it as the path to divine glory.

The Evangelist does not use the term again until describing the moment the beloved disciple received Mary as his Mother (John 19:27). Strikingly, this is also the final occurrence of hour in the Gospel. Seen in light of chapter 16, this moment recalls the pangs of birth: Mary’s heart is pierced with the sword of sorrow (cf. Luke 2:35), but through that agony she becomes Mother of many children (cf. 1 Samuel 2:5). Her suffering, like labor pains, brings forth the new family of God and brings us back to Eden’s promise, now fulfilled in Christ.

Written by Carter Carruthers

The Strengths and Limits of the Argument from Miracles

2025-08-31T00:00:00.001-05:00

The argument from miracles is often presented as a proof for the existence of God. However, its strength and persuasiveness are largely dependent upon the interpretive framework of its audience. This essay will argue that while miracles can serve as powerful confirmations of belief, their value as arguments against atheism is significantly limited by the epistemological commitments of non-theists.

The epistemological restraint of atheists already disallows them to consider abstract or not immediately present evidence, which is the reason they are not theists. The effectiveness of miracle-based arguments is therefore derivative of the effectiveness of arguments from experience. Even if they were presented with a miracle before them, it is likely they would assert it is just a phenomenon that science does not yet have the capability to describe, predict, or affect—or that the laws of nature do not perfectly obtain at every moment and place. Sometimes even the greatest of miracles cannot convince their immediate observers.

A similar problem is described in the “Rich Man and Lazarus” story. A Rich Man, “who feasted sumptuously every day,” died, went to hell, and out of regret for his present state he wished to save his brothers (Luke 16:19–22, 28). He asked that someone come from the dead to “warn them so that they will not also come into this place of torment,” but Abraham replied, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:27–31). Although this parable is meant to concern moral choices and their eternal consequences, it would seem convenience and inconvenience of evidence are still elements of the story. The formally rich man believes that if he had sufficient evidence given to him that this was going to happen, he would have believed and done right. However, the distinction between what is and is not sufficient evidence seems irrelevant, based on Abraham’s response.

Knowing Christ’s miracles, Pharisees and others, still refused to believe what Christ said about Himself (Matthew 12:22–37). Even if one is persuaded as an observer, their former peers would likely consider this shift in conclusion as due to insanity, hallucination, deception, or a breach of logic rather than an honest pursuit of truth, with different premises being acquired. Thus, even if I well present the "Miracle of the Sun" with the greatest scrutiny of investigation and verification, the evidence would be dealt an understandable, even if incorrect, genetic fallacy.[1]

The aforementioned personal favorite miracle, however, is the "Miracle of the Sun" during the Fatima apparition of Mary on October 13, 1917. It is reported that more than thirty thousand people witnessed the same miracle. As much as atmospheric distortions could be said to account for the spectacle, the fact that so many people were gathered and saw it, the precise “random” moment that it occurred, and the odd sequence of events is about as convincing as it gets. No explanation, however scientific, would be sufficient to explain the alignment of so many causes and effects.

In conclusion, the argument from miracles has both strengths and limits. It is strongest when supported by large-scale, public testimony, and when used as confirmation for those already inclined toward faith. However, as a direct argument against atheism, its persuasiveness is sharply restricted by the epistemological assumptions of non-believers, who are predisposed to reject supernatural explanations in favor of naturalistic ones.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Carter Carruthers, "God of Miracles or Providence?", Vivat Agnus Dei, September 17, 2023.

Where the World’s Definition of Freedom Leads

2025-07-27T00:00:00.005-05:00

Whenever someone asks, “why not?” Usually, it seems the right question has been asked, and it’s understood to mean there is not a sufficient reason to think contrary to what someone has said. It is dismissive framing, suggesting either/both ignoratio elenchi or intentional rhetoric to discredit the contrary without engaging counterarguments. This undermines credibility in balanced discourse, prioritizing persuasion over accuracy. This is not unlike the first sin tantamount to: "He said..." which is honest and responsible for the most part, and it is replied to with "but why not? after all, this is really what God is about..." This is similar to the way the world defines freedom or addresses any significant issue regulated by religion, i.e., an undiscerning, uninvestigating, daft, and disinterested Occam's razor interested in mere perpetual apathy via vincible and therefore culpable ignorance. This "ignorance is bliss and I unilaterally decide to strawman any argument that may offer imposition upon my perspective" approach is a great way to find oneself clearly and tragically full of guilt on the day of judgement. At the limit/in its logical conclusions, the world’s definition of freedom proves to be inadequate and dangerous. The world would define freedom as the ability to act without hindrance, not just in the physical, but also without valid limitations imposed by religion, morals, and even good logic, dismissing the real answer to "why not?". Where this leads, especially in the context of more than one person, is nowhere good. In such considerations, what morality is left to the ill-formed conscience is the short-term consequences, which only affect that insight. However, there’s a lot more to an act in terms of morality than just whether it hurts someone in the short term or whether the intentions were good ("meh I tried") to define freedom in this way is to assert that life is best without rules which is very convenient until it hurts oneself and it never stops because everyone has opted for convenience, truly caring about one's pain is a burden, and to assert they should is always interpreted as an imposition. In such cases government is a limiting factor, no longer operating with a well-formed conscience. Rather, it is much worse; humanity is no longer governed by its best possible outcome by its worst possible outcome. The individual who acts upon this definition of freedom will undoubtedly drive the attributes of shame, regret, and above all, emptiness.

First, let us discuss the outcome of shame. The hiding of Adam and Eve really speaks volumes to this point. Guilt is one thing; one knows what they did and that it was a poor choice, but shame is different. Shame is an internalization of guilt, one that says not only was that act wrong, but I am wrong and therefore unlovable. The difficulty in guarding against shame is that one cannot be honest, have a well-formed conscience, and deny guilt. Thus, eliminates a robust psychological distinction between acts and persons. How one succeeds, again often with difficulty, is by accepting that since the conclusion was wrong, then the logic that produced it is false or faulty. If we equivocate this with our hurts, we can find ourselves stuck equivocating ourselves/our dignity and feel the need to defend the sin even if we know it is wrong. The truth is we don't have to defend sin, but our dignity in its way is found in the fact that we are simply broken in need of healing, growth, and perfection. Thus, it is understandable though not excusable necessarily, that we sin(ned). We must evaluate our sins or supposed sins to analyze how they came to be tempting, what philosophies we used to justify them, and what hurts are contributing. Naturally, we grow by accepting our tendency to error as inevitable, avoiding situations we can in which temptations come, (in deep psychological fashion) refute the philosophies that we use to justify our sinning in the moment and even after the fact, and then seek healing via God's love and others. However, the culture's definition of freedom does not provide this nuance, so it moves us in the direction of sociopathology, so either we are unphased or unbelieving in the consequences of our actions long term as well as short, or we tend to feel our worth is void with no nuance to stand on. This can be expressed in short, in saying "everything permitted, nothing forgiven", in contrast to objective morality and faith, which suggests "everything forgiven, good actions expected, and evil actions prohibited".

Second, we consider the production of either regret (healthy for a relativist) or again that sociopathic sort of calm in response that breaks down the conscience every time it is chosen. If one removes the idea of "being made for good" or "the freedom corresponds to good things and not evil thing", then inevitably, in the context of broken nature, one will find (likely with unfortunately great haste) exactly why what the culture lauds particularly with respect to sexuality and isolating "independence" is not what one wanted. However, since the culture is tone deaf to criticism or truth, we are abandoned in following those recommendations, thus producing regret, dishonesty with one's emotions, and/or a bitter isolation. Thus, following the culture is often inherently regrettable in where it takes us and what it invites us to do.

Third, freedom "run amok" produces emptiness. We are ordered towards relationship, wherein intimacy, peace, and communion dwell in the same reality. A definition of freedom that cares nothing of happiness, how it is attained, how it is kept/nurtured, and the difficulty a robust answer to these questions entails, empties man of the very thing that tempts Him to accept the "convenient" definition of freedom, happiness of the quick and easy variety. Comfort opposes happiness in every unsuperficial capacity.[1] Enjoyment has no objective moorings, meaning is devalued, and no satisfaction can be real, lasting, or unconditional.[2] The relational aspects of these also cannot be dismissed. [3]

In conclusion, I would never suggest hastily swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme, only to invert the problems. Instead, I’d encourage one to consider that simplicity isn’t about stripping meaning away, but rather that good definitions rest on the truth, which, while simple, still carries nuance. Many "armchair philosophers" often neglect to examine all aspects thoroughly, focusing on what something initially seems to be rather than what it truly is. Given this, it’s no surprise that mainstream culture’s approach to ethics is often "why bother?" Its view on sin is "why not?" and its perspective on even the most obvious sins becomes "what forgiveness should there be?" These questions are ultimately answered not by persuasion, and not completely by mere reason, but by Jesus and the Church. Interestingly, one could argue that atheists can be moral if they adopt Christian ethics while discarding only the parts they disagree with. In any case, when it comes to ethics, be not surprised that common definitions of the foundational aspects of our approach don't prove to be worthwhile.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

The Role Sad Songs and Rock Can Have in Healing and Conversion

2025-06-29T00:00:00.001-05:00

"Come to life

I remember this

Just like paradise (And cyanide)

Take a bite

The taste of all your sin

You've lost your appetite (For sacrifice)"

These lyrics come to us from a brand-new song "Silos" by Starset. Before we begin our discussion, I must restrain the category for you lest you think I am discussing something that includes a broader category than my meaning. By rock music, I am not thinking about any song with electric guitar and not even [any with gravelly vocals]. I do mean music, which, in the delivery as well as lyrics, demonstrates some truth about the effects of sin and belief held by those broken by the pain of abuse, regret, and relational strife. By sad songs, I am actually expanding that category to include most of rap, pop, and hip-hop, because the sadness conveyed is not only whether the song is in a minor key but also demonstrative of that selfsame darkness invited in by sins, both our own and that of those we love. In either case, it is made plain that our longings for health, happiness, and holiness are brought to the surface the depths of our hearts, the problem/struggle is known and clarified by the song, and we are given a new opportunity to invite God into our hurts that He may change our life.

First, sad songs, including rock music as I defined it, reveal not only the struggle, but the absence of some good that ought to be there. If we look at the lyrics above, in the first line, we notice that something is dead—something not functioning as it ought to—because the divine command is, "Come to life." Then the tone shifts, seemingly speaking of paradise and memory, but in the background, there is a whisper of a deadly poison. The command to "take a bite" is clearly a temptation—but a temptation to what? What follows is the taste of all our sin, which is tempting in one respect. Yet in both the act of sinning and in our response to temptation, we find ourselves losing our appetite—both for life and for sin. Overcoming this loss requires sacrifice, but in our fallen state, we numb our senses to life, forget its goodness, and thus lose even our appetite for sacrifice. When the Catholic Church speaks frequently of sin, many—especially those unfamiliar with its true nature—may feel as though there is a morbid preoccupation with the topic. But the reality is that we are all sinners (cf. Romans 3:23), and we are bound to the dynamics of sin until we are purified through grace and conversion—a process that takes a lifetime or real and well-graced effort. Those who pretend sin is not part of their lives are often the least willing to hear the bad news. Yet without an honest statement of the problem, one cannot freely or adequately choose the solution. Ignoring sin does not make it cease to exist. While it is true that we should not fixate on sin—since our focus must be on Christ, who has conquered sin and death (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:55–57)—if we cannot even name the disease, how can we rejoice in the actual cure? Without a clear view of the enemy, we cannot rightly marvel at Christ's victory, and so our life remains disoriented, numbed, and asleep. We long for life but stumble over those very longings as we seek it because we, not infrequently, seek it wrongly, looking into places like success, pleasure, power, and/or wealth for a substitute salvation from something that we do not need salvation from rather than our One True Lover, who guides us through trials and joys to be increasingly healthier, happier, and holier.

Second, sad songs—whether demonstrating the stupidity of a "party" lifestyle, the soreness of wounds, or the good we long for but cannot have without God—are invitations to welcome in the Jesus we so often leave outside our darkness, if not outside our hearts and minds entirely. Our darkest parts are not dark because God doesn't want them or avoids them; they are dark because we cannot conceive that God wants those places most of all. We imagine that God wants us to simply "get over" our problems, that our malfunctions are signs of our unworthiness of life. So when we hear the good things He wants for us—the "call of life"—we give up and settle for second best. We are not insurrectionists against Christ so much as we are against our own health, happiness, and holiness. It is this paradox that traps us in despair. We end up believing against God, even if we never intended to. Sin is its own spiritual suicide and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s what makes sad songs momentarily true: they echo the absurdity of our choice to sin. However, our choice to sin (whether our own or that of our willful or unwitting enemies) is not the only thing that restrains us. It is also our brokenness—bodily, psychological, spiritual, relational—that feeds this negative feedback loop. Sad songs can help us accept that this is the case. For me, I have a stable sense of emotional homelessness. It consistently tempts me to seek communion in unhealthy ways—or, when tired or stressed, to at least numb it—rather than bringing it to the Lord. At the same time, those hurts indispose me to receiving the very things the Lord wants to give. However, one thing I know for sure: the surest way to not receive what the Lord wants to give is to give up and to numb. I must first recognize that this is my struggle. Then I must recognize that sin is not the answer. That is the implied message of every sad song. But if I do not process this truth, I only succeed in remaining sad and/or disoriented.

In conclusion, when you are sad and burdened, go to the Lord. Maybe listen to a sad song as you do so. Say to the Lord:

“Lord, this is where sin leads me. The sins of [person] have made me feel this way. This is a key moment of my struggle. This song—‘Silos’ by Starset, for example—reminds me that my salvation is in You alone, and that anything less than You will only worsen my condition. Maybe I am not strong enough to receive what I need from You right now to be well. But at least, Lord, I offer You my heart and invite You to sit with me in this reality, insofar as that is what You would have me do. Do not let me dwell too long here, but also help me truly accept the fact that the trials you entrust me with will bring not only struggle which is going to be the case but growth. Help me to see the reality I am in, lest I settle on some other ‘solution’ that will deepen my wound. Be with me, Lord. Here is what I find very true in this song right now…”

Then listen to the song at least once, or jump from song to song—whatever works—and continue telling the Lord what you find significant, how it corresponds to your experience, both present and past. Do this with everything you come across. You may well be given greater clarity about your experience and a new way of talking and thinking about it with God. Sometimes we need to just accept the obvious and realize that that is the

Also consider reading:

Law & Virtue: Freedom Refined for True Goodness

2025-05-18T00:00:00.003-05:00

The Seven Virtues, Piero and Antonio Pollaiuolo and Botticelli

Depicted from left-to-right: Fortitude ~ Temperance ~ Faith ~ Charity ~ Hope ~ Justice ~ Prudence

If you have ever observed a significant amount of rhetoric on any contentious issue, then you would have observed an attempt to frame an objective reality subjectively, some ad hominem attacks, and even some conclusions/premises posed without evidence. This comes largely from the cultural inability to either form arguments or a disbelief in objective reality. However, more fundamentally, there is hardly ever a common definition of freedom. What is freedom, and do we have it? True freedom is the aspect of rational man to choose the good (according to the nature of a thing, in that it is some way desirable and that it has its essence in completeness or in that an action contributes or derives from the completeness of an act, thus an act not completely good is evil and it correspond to an imperfection in the actor and lacks being thereby) and fulfill one’s nature, which is fundamentally undermined in choosing evil.[1] Evil is contrary to reason, the nature of the agent, and it stifles one’s future ability to choose what is good—for oneself, for others, and for the sake of intrinsic goods such as truth, love, communion, perfection, and peace in conscience.

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law" .[2]

True freedom is not license but the ordered power to choose the good, revealed through virtue and fulfilled in divine law, as St. Thomas teaches.

I. Freedom: License vs. Ordered Power

Freedom as license “saws off its own supporting structure” when it is used to choose what contradicts the good and the integral fulfillment of the person. Such abuse of freedom becomes, by definition, an act of self-destruction—not only for the one who chooses, but potentially for others as well. This is precisely because a choice against the good undermines freedom itself, which, as a good, must be ordered toward what is true and good in its object, intention, and circumstances.[3]

Just as the act of choosing a lie is not a valid exercise of reason—since it contradicts reason’s very nature to discern and affirm truth—so too, a supposed act of freedom that contradicts the good ceases to be true freedom. Truth, by nature, cannot contradict itself; therefore, a moral act that opposes what is self-evidently good—such as life, beauty, or justice—cannot be truly good. In this way, freedom rightly understood must be harmonized with the objective moral order, or it loses its very meaning.

II. St. Thomas on Law and True Freedom

Law shows us how to use freedom in such a way that we don’t destroy ourselves, undermine freedom, and sin.[4]

Due to the instantly gratifying understanding of freedom utilized by modernity and moral relativism, law is consequently disparaged as imposing, and virtue—the disposition to the good—is determined to be irrelevant. [5] The problem with this logical implication (derivative of its premises) is that it either considers what is truly good as erroneous or conceptually indeterminate.

Law is a statement of reason produced by the ruler, binding upon citizens. When something is said to be virtuous, it is because it acts as a subordinate to that which governs it. In its obedience to reason, an irascible or concupiscible faculty becomes virtuous. Every law is produced such that it is obeyed. Consequently, law ought to lead its subjects in any and all virtue, for virtue is that which makes something good. Therefore, law ought to lead those subjects to goodness, in general or in a particular way.[6]

If the legislator has the end of what is truly the common good in mind—i.e., in accord with Divine Law—it follows that the effect would be this goodness produced in those bound by the law. This attainment of good is undermined if the legislator legislates for his own supposed good or contrary to Divine Justice. However, sometimes even these abuses of authority can produce good in certain contexts (cf. ST I–II, q. 92, a.1).[7]

III. Divine Law and Human Fulfillment

Since man is fallible and known to be so by fellow man, it is necessary that the legislator of true law would be higher than man and even institutions of men. Still more, who better to draw the distinction between good and evil than God?

It is no accident that the tree that eroded the freedom to choose what is good was that whose fruit was the “knowledge of Good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). For in seeking to define our freedom to include what God forbade and accepting the ideals which seem convenient or expedient, we assumed that certain goods are opposed to others—rather than seeing the good as a maximized reality to be fulfilled. This disorder leads to valuing contingent goods (e.g., sexual gratification or drugs) as equal to or greater than higher goods such as communion or ideological coherence.

Even though we possess said disorder of will, it is helpful to understand how to become ordered—and this is the function law serves. “He hath not done in like manner to every nation: and his judgments he hath not made manifest to them” (Psalm 147:20).[8]

Divine law concerns the acts of all virtues by ordering reason itself, and moral virtues order reason between external acts and passions. Therefore, Divine law proposes precepts about every virtue. Where there is no established virtue the Divine law binds man, and where he is well-disposed, he is guided through his good disposition by reason.[9]

IV. Virtue and the Practice of True Freedom

When one assumes that the bounds of freedom are clarified by law, it is no longer burdensome to oneself i.e. having the burden to, both author appropriate bounds and to abide by them. When someone else transgresses one’s principles, all one can appeal to is why their bounds are more legitimate than another's. This often takes the form of shaming, ad hominem attacks, or other methods of psychological control—rather than having something objective to appeal to that another could come to see as valid, though momentarily erring.

This opens the door to the possibility of the common pursuit of truth and perfection, much to the benefit of both souls—if virtue or the reception of the gift of eternal life are the focus, and the commandments of God are the ends in mind. Otherwise, we have to accept the oddly specific expectations of individuals as valid or make them experience our own, for there to be harmony.

This harmony or communion, which was intended by God from the beginning and which the abuse of freedom undermines, is fostered by recognizing God’s sovereignty, by doing one’s best to abide by it, and by forgiving oneself and others as they occasionally fall short.

Specific Virtues as Examples

Justice: Giving another his due educates one in maintaining communion and provides a suitable metric for reconciliation.
Temperance: Moderation of pleasures allows for ideal participation in material goods without defect or excess.
Fortitude: Strengthens the will to pursue the good amidst difficulty and loss.
Prudence: “Disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it.” This virtue secures peace by guiding us with reason rather than emotion.[10]

Conclusion

The modern “free-for-all” definition of freedom is not only myopic but self-repudiating. In making men not only good but also holy—graced in the constant gift of self to God and neighbor by consequence—one can not only attain Heaven, fulfill the call of the Gospel, and become for others a connection with the divine, but also break out of selfish patterns and poverty of all kinds.

The worst kind of poverty is to be separated from Joy, Peace, Existence, Perfection, Goodness, Truth, and Beauty Himself. Even the slightest bit of conformity to Him is sweet to the heart, life-giving, love-enabling, and beautiful.

If freedom is misunderstood as mere license, it invites one into a frame of mind that disregards what is truly good. In our fallen state, we inevitably fall short of the good and thus become confused, ashamed, broken, and conformed to evils, running into the "wall" or truth one has believed against. Consequently, we find ourselves confounded by suffering and unaware of its causes. These very consequences place us in direct contact with reality.

True peace is not found in pleasure or comfort, but in greatness—communion, honoring life, and living by those enduring truths and virtues that anchor us in God and in one another:

Faith, Hope, Charity, Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance, Chastity, Humility, Obedience, Mercy, Forgiveness, Sanctity, Holiness, Righteousness, Wisdom, Understanding, Knowledge, Piety, Fear of the Lord, Dignity, Life, Love, Peace, Joy, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Self-control, Greatness, Communion, Evangelical Obedience, and Evangelical Poverty.

The Use of Reason and Grace work together to ensure this freedom, even if evil is within our potency.[1]

Written by Carter Carruthers

Read a Word on Fire Article on this topic

FN:

Evangelizing Cultures and the Freedom Brought by Christ

2025-05-11T00:00:00.004-05:00

Otto Friedrich Theodor von Möller, John's Sermon on Patmos

A general response to: How did the Jewish laws affect Paul's ministry? How did the early Christian's allegiance to Jewish law (ie. dietary law, circumcision) make ministry difficult when addressing both Jews and Gentiles?

The Christian call to conversion requires a profound transformation of heart, rooted in faith and love, yet it must also respect the cultural identities of those being evangelized. Jesus Himself proclaimed, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and “the time is fulfilled… repent and believe in the gospel” (Matt 4:17, Mark 1:15). Scripture and Church teaching warn against both extremes: imposing unnecessary cultural practices can suffocate the Gospel—“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery”—and unbounded relativism can dilute it—“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us” (Galatians 5:1, 2 Thess 2:15). As St. Paul teaches, “you were called to freedom… only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another”, and “if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again” (Gal 5:13, 1 Cor 8:13). Even lawful cultural habits must yield to charity (1 Cor 7:19; Acts 15:7–10). Authentic evangelization must preserve the essence of faith while refraining from cultural imperialism [1]. Genuine evangelization respects freedom and conscience; it is a dialogue rooted in truth, not the enforcement of arbitrary customs [2].

The Church understands herself as called to be “a leaven and, as it were, the soul of human society” [7][8]. Her mission infuses social structures with Gospel truth and love, providing “a source of commitment, direction, and vigor” for building up the human community according to God’s law [7][8]. Evangelizing culture means bringing the Good News into every human reality, aiming for the conversion of both personal and collective consciences, activities, and environments where people live and form relationships. It calls for proclaiming the Gospel as a vital alternative to ideologies that judge humanity by efficiency, profit, or power. The ultimate goal is to foster a society that is both more Christian and more human, promoting freedom, responsibility, mutual respect, and dialogue while upholding the dignity of the human person created in God’s image [6]. As described in *Thoughts on Ryan N.S. Topping’s Method of Rebuilding Catholic Culture*, evangelization must foster authentic Catholic identity while elevating what is good in each culture [2]. Likewise, the domestically rooted reflections in *The Domestic Church, Family* show how Christian homes become seedbeds of cultural renewal [3].

Inculturation is essential to this mission [9]. The Gospel must “take flesh” within each culture without betraying its divine origin, purifying elements burdened by sin and error while elevating the morality and life of the people [9][12]. The Church respects what is truly good and beautiful in every culture and, borrowing St. Thomas Aquinas’ insight, allows grace to perfect nature rather than obliterate it [10]. The Council of Jerusalem’s refusal to impose Jewish rites on Gentile believers remains the paradigmatic model: evangelization brings Christ, not the missionary’s own cultural trappings (Acts of the Apostles 15:7–10). [4]

While evangelization is the mission of the entire Church, the laity have a special role through their secular vocation [7][8][12]. By living their faith in families, workplaces, schools, and public life, they witness to Christ within cultural structures. Christian families, when authentically evangelized, act as vital agents of cultural renewal, forming the domestic Church [4], and Catholic universities, scholars, artists, and professionals contribute through intellectual and moral engagement [7][8]. All the faithful, through prayer, meditation, and lives of holiness and charity, help the fruits of Redemption penetrate cultures gradually [5][17].

Contemporary culture often exhibits a weakened sense of dependence on God, skepticism toward objective truth, and rejection of universal moral norms [5]. Evangelization must confront these crises by proclaiming truths about the human person, community, and destiny known through reason and revelation (Romans 1:19–20). Linking freedom to truth and the moral law, the Church upholds that when fundamental human rights or the salvation of souls are at stake, it must sometimes pass moral judgments—even on political matters (Romans 2:15). [7][8] In doing so, evangelization stands as the indispensable leaven that shapes a free and just society.

In essence, evangelizing culture is the ongoing effort to renew human life and society from within, bringing the light and hope of Christ to every human endeavor [11][17]. True conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, measured by charity, not mere conformity. Christ’s command remains central: “Love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34; cf. 1 John 4:7–8). Rooted in Scripture, nourished by Tradition, and guided by reason, the Church continues her mission of incarnating the Gospel into all cultures—respecting diversity where possible, correcting error where necessary, and always inviting humanity into the glorious freedom of the children of God (Romans 8:21).

Written by Carter Carruthers with some expansion and help with citations from Magisterium Ai and Chat GPT

FN:

Humility: Respecting Human Dignity in Everyday Life

2025-05-04T00:00:00.008-05:00

Every person is a galaxy of parts and mystery: traumas and joys, virtues and vices, all bound together in the same struggle toward Heaven. We are shaped by our upbringing and by critical moments of development, yet often burdened by despair when the path seems too difficult. In every circumstance, we carry our cross and confront our finitude, recognizing our need for God’s love, grace, and providence—His forgiveness, guidance for the future, and knowledge of His past mercies. Our specialized education may make us superior in one area but inferior in many others; we are at once beautiful and broken. We perceive reality sometimes as it is, sometimes as we wish it to be, shaped by both opinion and orthodox belief. We strive to love, yet fail frequently, perpetuating wounds in ourselves and others, for we are social creatures. Ultimately, Christ will separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:31–46), dealing with each according to our deeds—leading either to fuller communion with God and His Church or to perpetual separation and a “dying that is never quenched” (Mark 9:43–48). In our sins and in our evangelical efforts, in encouraging virtue or echoing the Enemy’s voice, we play a role in each other’s destiny. Although we have many dimensions—emotional, intellectual, moral—our true dignity lies in being made in God’s image and restored to Divine Sonship by Christ’s saving action.

Created “in the image and likeness of God,” each person possesses inherent dignity that no trauma or triumph can eclipse[1]. Our finitude and susceptibility to sin echo St. Paul’s warning that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Mortal sin, if unredeemed, excludes us from Christ’s kingdom and brings eternal death[2]. Yet Christ’s mercy endures, calling us to repentance (Matthew 4:17) and promising “shadows of good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The Parable of the Sheep and Goats portrays the final judgment: works of mercy toward others determine our fate (Matthew 25:35–40). This eschatological hope bids us turn from lesser ways to greater, acknowledging the cost of our choices and seeking restoration where we have harmed our neighbors.

Every person is sacred and worthy of love. True restoration does not come from rote actions but from a shared pilgrimage in grace: we walk together, supported by God’s strength and our neighbors’ compassion. To honor another’s sacredness, we must see them as they are—beyond our frustrations or preconceptions—and will their good in each moment. Sometimes that means offering correction, at other times patient acceptance or deeper engagement. As St. Paul teaches in his discourse on charity, “so faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). And as the Catechism affirms, charity is the bond of perfection, the form of all virtues, and the fulfillment of the Law[3]. Even the choice to respect another’s freedom, however painful, reflects their sacred dignity and preserves the possibility of mutual healing[4].

In conclusion, the sooner we accept our broken state, the sooner we can love authentically. We are always in need of repentance—turning from lesser ways to greater by admitting our errors, seeking restoration, and embracing the present will of God. This ongoing conversion is not a burdensome law but the path to our true destiny: communion with God and one another. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, the ultimate end of human life is union with God, which requires both grace and our free cooperation[5]. The Magisterium calls the Church to be leaven in the world, transforming every human structure with Gospel truth and charity[6][7]. Thus, empowered by the Holy Spirit, we embrace our role in each other’s journey—eager to be corrected, ready to change, and committed to willing the good of every person—as we seek the “unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” for the renewal of all creation (Eph. 4:13). This is the ideological consistency we are called to. [8]

Written by Carter Carruthers (with Help from Magisterium AI and Chat GPT)

FN:

Human Dignity and Soul

2025-04-27T13:35:00.001-05:00

Pictured (color-edited with some error in the shadow): Josemaria Escrivá

The atheist, materialist, and even some scientific interpretations of the "soul" differ sharply from that which the Catholic Church teaches. In the popular or materialist view, the soul is often portrayed as a "ghost in a machine," a Gnostic concept that posits the body as merely a vessel or the soul as merely a part of either the brain or mind. This misunderstanding becomes a strawman for atheists and materialists to refute, for it seems to conflict with empirical science. However, the Catholic understanding, rooted in Aristotle and perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas, presents no true quarrel with science. The Church teaches that the soul is the form of the body, constituting with it a single human nature (cf. CCC 365, 382). As Aquinas beautifully articulates, "the soul is not in the body as contained by it, but rather contains the body" (Summa Theologiae I, q. 76, a. 8).

The soul, in Catholic doctrine, is the spiritual principle of a human being, intimately connected to the body and creating an indivisible unity (CCC 364). It is the innermost aspect of the person, bearing the imprint of God's image, and it is immortal, directly created by God (CCC 363, 366). Aristotle hints at this essential unity when he considers whether the soul may be to the body as a sailor is to a ship. Yet Aristotle concludes—and Aquinas confirms—that being alive cannot belong to a body as such; otherwise, all bodies would be alive. “Suppose that what is literally an 'organ', like an axe, were a natural body, its 'essential whatness', would have been its essence, and so its soul; if this disappeared from it, it would have ceased to be an axe, except in name.”[1]

Approaching the matter philosophically, especially through causality, reveals the strength of Aristotle's and Aquinas’ arguments. If the body were capable of self-animation, it would have to be its own cause. Yet, causality and contingency teach otherwise: the body, being material, is contingent, and thus cannot be its own cause. Only God, whose essence is existence (cf. Exodus 3:14; Summa Theologiae I, q. 3, a. 4), can claim such necessary existence. Consequently, if the soul were merely bodily, death would be impossible, for the body would eternally self-sustain. Yet death is real. Therefore, the soul must transcend mere materiality.

Moreover, human dignity itself testifies to this reality. Even when the body deteriorates through illness or age, a person's dignity remains intact. The soul’s spiritual nature, being the "form" and not merely the "content" of the body, means that man remains a person even after bodily death. As Christ teaches, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30), indicating the soul’s continued existence beyond bodily death.

The union of body and soul constitutes one human nature, not two. The soul is the life principle, animating the material body and rendering it human (CCC 382). Through it, man possesses intellect and will—powers directed toward truth and goodness—thus exceeding purely biological processes. A cow’s soul, being mortal and material, ceases at death, whereas man’s soul, spiritual and eternal, endures. This distinction is not minor but critical: it separates humanity from the animals and anchors Christian anthropology against the flattening effects of materialism.

In modern times, science may measure brain activity and physiological responses but cannot detect the soul. Yet, this is expected. The soul, being immaterial, cannot be observed by empirical means. Faith, supported by reason, reveals its presence. Practically, we sense this in our existential experiences: when confronted by the death of a loved one, it is immediately evident that the person is not merely their body. Our longing for eternal meaning, our capacity to contemplate universals, and our irreducible dignity all point to our spiritual nature.

In sum, the arguments of Aristotle and Aquinas remain compelling. Life does not belong to the body by itself. The soul is the form of the body, created by God, immortal, and spiritual. Denying this truth leads not only to philosophical errors but to the dehumanization of the person. Affirming it grounds human dignity, moral responsibility, and the hope of eternal life in God. However, in dialogue about the soul, if one is a materialist, then we should not start with a singular tenet of belief in the immaterial. Otherwise, our dialogue ends up being circular: one presents an argument for a particular immaterial reality, the interlocutor replies with skepticism and not necessarily malicious but no less real strawman, and an appeal back to disbelief in the immaterial, one provides another argument, and then the interlocutor does the same. The soul cannot be reduced to a part of that which it is the form of without it being erroneous, and to try to explain the function of particular parts of the body as if the lack of optical need to discuss soul evanesces is not a philosophically nuanced view but only a specialized scientific observation with an atheist interpretation.

Written by Carter Carruthers

View Bishop Barron on the Subject

FN:

Aristotle, "On the Soul," translated by J. A. Smith, at The Internet Classics Archive (350 AD) at http://classics.mit.edu/, Book II, Part 1.

Letter from Rome: A Historical Fiction Sequel

2025-04-20T00:00:00.120-05:00

My Dearest Maximus,

Your letter reached me as the spring rains fell upon Rome, and as I read your words, I felt as though I could hear your voice whispering across the seas. Frugi, our messenger, was greatly delayed. I am sure he will tell you about his travels when you read this. Nevertheless, I wish to share the parts which amazed me most in light of what you said in your letter. Frugi, who carries letters to and from Rome, for us and for our friends, he bears many parchments amid his travels and endeavors to do so by land lest he lose some of the parchments. As he began his journey the temple guards stopped him, fearful he was carrying communication between the Christians, whose leader they had just crucified. Not long after they had stopped him, they got word that the men who were supposed to watch the tomb of Jesus, in the night, while asleep missed the theft of his body. This delayed him longer because they thought to scrutinize our letters again lest they fail to see code concerning a plot to steal the body. I hope they were not your men, lest you be punished for their weakness.

My heart aches with longing for you, but I find solace in knowing that you are well and that we may once again be reunited when Jupiter deems it so. Maximus, I read your words with a heart torn between pride and sorrow. You are a man of honor and duty, a soldier of Rome, yet you write of events so harrowing that even the strength of Mars would waver. You speak of Jerusalem as though it were a battlefield of hearts and minds rather than one of swords. It pains me to think of you caught between a people so divided, a city boiling with unrest.

Your words about this man, this Jesus, intrigue me beyond measure. You say he was innocent, yet the people who should have loved him most demanded his death? My dear husband, can you not see the great tragedy in this? And you—though a soldier, though bound by duty—your soul is troubled by it. I know you well enough to hear the questions in your words, even those unspoken.

You wonder if he was truly a god, for no man could endure what he did with such grace. Oh, my love, how often have we stood before the altars of our gods, offering sacrifice, pleading for favor, yet hearing nothing in return? But here, you write of a man who looked upon you—upon all of you—with love, even in his greatest agony. Could any mortal do such a thing? Would Jupiter, would Mars, show such mercy? I have never known our gods to do so. Frugi said there is belief that this Jesus has been raised from the dead, none of our gods have claimed to have been raised from the dead still less have we known any of man to be raised. How curious is all of this? How beyond comprehension? Even if his body was truly stolen, what grand insanity it would have to be for the many Jews who believe in Him to be as persuaded against their elders as Furgi says.

You have seen many battles, my husband, and you have witnessed death countless times. Yet never before have you written to me of one who haunts your thoughts, of a gaze that seared your soul. I cannot help but weep for you, for the burden you now carry in your heart. What war stirs within you now, my Maximus? A war not of flesh, but of the spirit?

And Pilate—ah, what a man of contradictions! You say he knew this Jesus to be innocent, yet he surrendered him to the will of the crowd? What kind of ruler is this, who bends to the voices of the people rather than to the weight of justice? Would you torture and kill a man by popular vote? Was it even popular or was this a riot? We Romans pride ourselves on our laws, yet here, a man was handed over to death despite his innocence. Is this not a betrayal of all we claim to uphold? And Herod—what a pathetic excuse for a king! A puppet, the Senators and you say, more interested in his indulgences than in his rule. How far the mighty have fallen, that Rome must prop up such weaklings to maintain order.

Oh, my love, my heart aches at the thought of you standing amidst such chaos. To see a man tortured beyond recognition, to bear witness to the cries of his mother, to hear the venomous chants of a people who should have embraced him—how could you not be changed by it?

Maximus, I know you to be a man of logic, of duty. But you are also a man of deep thought, though you may not often admit it. You ask if this Jesus was truly a god. I cannot claim to know the ways of the divine, but I do know this—no mere man, no common prophet, could endure what you describe and still offer love instead of hate.

My love, I know you do not write of your own suffering lightly, but I hear it between every line. Do not bear this alone. Whatever you have seen, whatever burdens your heart, I am here to share them with you. That is what we vowed, is it not?

And our daughter—fear not, my love. She grows strong, though she misses her father greatly. I see so much of you in her, in the way she carries herself, in the way she questions everything with that sharp mind of hers. She will be a woman of great wisdom, of great strength, and she will know the love of a father who serves Rome with honor, though I hope she shall get know hers since I did not get to know mine due to Roman conquest.

I am so grateful to Frugi for keeping us in contact, it must be so tiring traversing the coast, but he loves my cooking still, especially my bread and the chicken I butcher for him knowing how difficult it is for us to raise them, the time it takes.

May the gods, or perhaps this Jesus who haunts our dreams and wonders, disturbing our hearts, keep you safe until you return to me. I will wait for you, as I always have, as I always will. Return with haste my love!

With all my love and longing,

Cornelia

DCCLXXXII ab urbe condita

Written by Carter Carruthers with input from Nicole Schilling.

A reply to Carter Carruthers, "A Letter to Rome", Vivat Agnus Dei, April 9, 2023.

An Intro to Lectio Divina and considering Practicing what One Preaches

2025-04-13T00:00:00.001-05:00

Entry of Christ into Jerusalem, Pietro Lorenzetti, Basilica of San Francesco d'Assisi

Introduction

Today, I thought we could consider the early church practice of Lectio Divina, or "divine reading," which allows one to receive God's communication through scripture. One may say that if God does not seem to speak (typically considered in audible fashion), it is because He has already spoken or speaks in a way that one is not listening. Lectio Divina tunes one to both possibilities, by obtaining direct information concerning a Person who should be Our Everything straight from the subject Himself rather than taking someone else's interpretation and formulation of facts about Him, which often leads to inconsistencies if someone is not educated in saying things about Him and even then, we have to understand what they mean and they have to do it pretty well to compensate for all the potential problems. This is what makes going to the source itself in the Sacraments and Scriptures, still more the Gospel where Christ is quoted. Here is an example, but in order for this to be effective it (what I say sure, but all the more the Scripture) cannot be effectual if we do not endeavor to read this not as a blog post or another reading among many but an opportunity to enter into the reality of the passage itself. Thus, we begin an example of the process:

Opening Prayer

Word of God speak Your meaning to me via Your Holy Spirit, Who instructed the writers of Scripture manifesting Yourself to those who read. Let Your revelation be known to us who “knock” at this door “seeking” and “asking” for greater knowledge of You, Whom we love. Amen.

Luke 21:25-28, 34-36

(3-C 1st Sunday of Advent)

“There will be signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, and on the earth distress among nations confused by the roaring of the sea and the waves. People will faint from fear and foreboding of what is coming upon the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in a cloud’ with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

“Be on guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of this life, and that day does not catch you unexpectedly, like a trap. For it will come upon all who live on the face of the whole earth.

Lectio

This passage emanates from a chapter on the implication of evils and the direction of that which confounds us. Much like what Jerimiah perceives in his persecutors, many have tried and will try to understand what is happening as natural evil manifests itself, in addition to sin’s multiplication (Jeremiah 20:10 NRSVCE). They will often do so with error. Those both of religious lives and those especially of secular ones shall be struck with terror as they realize their finitude and smallness in comparison to these forces. However, as He did at the beginning of the chapter, Christ brings his listeners to prioritize what truly matters and what significance these forces of nature have. Indeed, all they do is point to the Son, since at their height the Son of Man shall appear in the glory which was foretold and expected of the Messiah. The first passage of this reading ends by encouraging readiness to receive redemption. The second half of the reading begins where the latter ends, directing the listeners' minds to be ready for that day by loosing all earthly attachments the we “are not weighed down”. Jesus elaborates that no one will be exempted from this moment. In the verses that follow the passages, Jesus exhorts His listeners that they may have the strength to “escape” and be able to “stand before the Son of Man”. These images describe the nature of evil and of good. Evil prevents us from attaining our fulfillment i.e. what we were made for, a relationship with God in glory. Sin rather weighs us down when we otherwise would have been rising to receive what our dignity deserves. Sin thus is actually effectual in itself and is its own punishment, not so much one sent directly from God. Man, though, hardly stops misattributing these just and clear consequences of sin to God as though we expect Him to smite everyone that does evil except ourselves.

Meditatio

It is time we stop imagining that sin is acceptable and the things our senses encounter take priority over the eternal decisions we presently make. We cannot let what is final slip our minds as though it is only a future problem. The Spanish word “sin” means “without” and this is hardly a coincidence with what we define as sin because it certainly means “without God”. Sin in our present culture is something so common it is more readily believed that religious people just want to force their vision of the world than that sin is truly evil. Sin is a choice of bringing hell upon oneself i.e. life without God. What then are we to expect for outcomes? If we lose sight to sin’s true nature and then blame God for what befalls us, then who is wrong? Truly, it is not God. The opposite dynamic is also important to consider. Life with God is always preferable, since all our virtuous actions precipitate good things and God provides for what else is left to chance. Sin, of course, has the benefit of momentary appeal and convenience, but are we willing to surrender our life for this false show, because we still do? Christ calls us out of the world to live with Him and it should not matter when He comes to exact justice because we should always be ready.

Oratio

O Lord help us to live vigilantly with eyes that see heaven and everything else as that which helps us on our way there. Let us not be distracted too heavily by the frustrations or inconveniences of the present, but live in light of the eternal. Let us not weigh ourselves down in sin but be made free from what keeps us from living only in light of You, Our Eternal Spouse.

Contemplatio

At the beginning of the passage, Christ mentions fear concerning what is happening in the world. However, countless times Christ (in the Gospels) and authors through Sacred Scripture urge us to not be afraid, to not waste our energy on that which may afflict the mind and body, but rather to be concerned only with the will of the Father, living in virtue, and seeking heaven. Whenever Christ speaks eschatologically, He urges us to be ready for judgment, such that if we live in the good (love, justice, fortitude, temperance, and prudence), we will receive what is great. When scripture mentions this vigilance, it often speaks of prayer, since it is only through God’s help that we can live in Him and truly “stand up and raise [our] heads”(cf. Ephesians 6:18).

Operatio

If we really believe what we say we do, then our lives should be entirely different from those who do not believe what we do. If Christ urges us to live differently then we must rely on Him to make it happen. Christ makes it abundantly clear throughout his Gospels that it is a true transformation of the self that following Christ should precipitate. Let us live what the Gospel preaches whether evaluating students, doing the dishes, etc. Let us follow Christ in all things, He shall help us, and we will become great saints.

Written by Carter Carruthers

For further elucidation of Lectio Divina, click here.

Free-Will, Moral Evil, and Disposition to the Good

2025-04-06T00:00:00.025-05:00

Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist

In The Matrix Resurrections (2021), Morpheus tells Neo: “People believe the craziest things these days. They think the world’s built on choice... when it's really just another system of control.” If you have the slightest ear to Hollywood news, then you have likely heard about the Lively v. Baldoni lawsuit and the petty attempts at control which are its foundations, and even the ubiquitous relationship-ending circumstances that concern attempts to control the other whether out of malice or fear. Another instance of this is the pro-choice woman lashing out by assaulting a pro-life reporter that has recently surfaced. In both these examples of the appeal to force fallacy, one may note that it reveals there is an absence of substance to claim to the contrary of better things. So the question arises a priori, "Is moral regulation proper or antithetical to freedom?" However, given these examples and the popular bend they are expressions of, perhaps the question is truly, "is the greater form of freedom the one where certain people have popular sway, everything is permitted, and nothing is forgiven, or the one that appeals to objective, universal concepts—more forgiving in light of transgression, yet grounded in truths that situate freedom within the responsibility to pursue the good?" I would argue that freedom is not the absence of rules, but the capacity to pursue the good through obedience to natural and divine order; when rejected, this order gives way to addiction and moral violence, even against the self.

The concept of natural necessity regards the understanding of freedom as accompanied by rules. Laws are not an absolutely oppressive thing, as the enemy would have us believe. We are not, as they say, "missing out" if we choose not the evil to which we are disposed or most desires of—acquiescing to it is a worse crime against our freedom.

This participation in evil not only further robs us of the goodness and harmony for which we were made (which are proper to our nature) and disposes us more deeply toward evil, but it also binds us to the means of achieving the good just as much as to the good itself—especially when the pursuit of the good is made absolute. This path disposes one less and less to do the good, removing the freedom once had to only pursue the proximate good for the self. By frequency and magnitude (of both means taken and destruction brought through ends attained), this proportionately decreases not only the end in goodness but also the ultimate good for all. This is what the virtuous call “addiction.”

This coercive necessity is that which man’s concupiscence, demonic suggestion, and cultures of sin and death utilize to remove one’s ability to make free use of the natural necessity to attain good ends using at least neutral means: first, in that which corresponds to the sin; second, in ways proportional to the goodness of ends desired; and third, toward other indirectly related goods.

Rather, obedience is traced as the maximization of both potency (the ability to accomplish good) and health (conditions that maximize potency through ideal psychological, moral, physical, spiritual, etc., harmonies). Natural obedience makes use of natural necessity (as regards spirituality and physicality).

This “natural obedience” is the proper operating environment in which grace and man’s will operate—apart from which no, or perhaps at best little or the wrong, good is attained. Acting outside of this environment—i.e., the context of what we know or once knew as safe/legal—is violence. Because if we neglect such objective boundaries (which in any case were once a key aspect of one’s inclination to the good, both ultimate and proximate, even should we think them arbitrary), then we are only guided by our mutable and easily corrupted subjective “boundaries.” “We call that violent which is against the inclination of a thing.”[1]

In conclusion, therefore, to use one’s freedom contrary to one’s conscience and the commandments of God is an act of violence that first destroys oneself—at least through separation from the path of good and relationship with God—and then others, as it corresponds to direct and indirect implications of (a) sin(s). If we are truly interested in the decline in violence (as many who posse religion claim to be in their atheism), then I would suggest that there is no religious violence like that of atheist religious violence, the kind that disbelieves even the concept of a moral framework rather than different priorities in its way (making the beheading of John the Baptist an appropriate depiction of this). Stop the attempts at control, stop the violence, and choose what is good, and WHEN you fail, ask God for help and do a little better tomorrow, if we all did this, the world would eventually improve exponentially, as we would likely find there is no real need for control out of fear as with Blake Lively or the aggressive pro-choicer because we would control ourselves with a joy and peace no evil or sociopathology can provide, and live a truly scientific existence with a reliable moral compass that cannot corrupt with the newest blatant evil, setting the new precedent of permission. the good is the best one can wish for one’s creation, therefore, is it not necessary that we are disposed to the good? Is it not freedom to be able to choose the best for oneself (and for at least those who we come to love if applicable)? It seems our woundedness makes us feel distaste at the idea of disposition to the good because we find the good difficult to choose in a world of dis-harmony and the only culprit is really us.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I, q. 82, a. 1, at New Advent, www.newadvent.org.

Misattribution of Blame via Falsehood and Deceitful Reasoning

2025-03-30T00:00:00.016-05:00

Painting: Martyrdom of St. Lucy

One day, as I wandered through the X-verse, I came across a pro-choice conservative commentator, Tomi Lahren, arguing against anti-abortion laws on the basis of safety. Her claim was that abortion should remain legally permissible so that women would not be forced to seek unsafe, black-market alternatives. Needing a break but still wanting to stretch my logical muscles, I decided to analyze this argument.

The Argument Summarized

The law takes away safe means for me to kill my child.
I have to kill my child.
Therefore, the law takes away my safety for something I have to do.

Or, more precisely and explicitly the Formalized Argument:

Premises Related to Anti-Abortion Laws and Their Supporters

P1: All those responsible for anti-abortion laws are supporters of anti-abortion laws.
P2: All supporters of anti-abortion laws believe murder is never justified.
P3: All who believe murder is never justified believe abortion is never justified.

Premises Related to Abortion Justification

P4: Sometimes, situations of duress for women make evil necessary.
P5: All that which makes evil necessary justifies abortion.
P6: If something justifies abortion, then abortion is justified.
P7: At least some justifications for abortion are usually present.

Conclusion Against Anti-Abortion Views

C1: Therefore, abortion is usually justified.
C2: Therefore, all who believe abortion is never justified are wrong.
C3: Since all supporters of anti-abortion laws believe abortion is never justified, they are wrong.

Consequences of Anti-Abortion Laws

P8: All supporters of anti-abortion laws oppose a woman's opportunity to choose abortion when she deems it necessary.
P9: All who oppose a woman's opportunity to choose abortion make necessary abortion more dangerous.
P10: All who make necessary abortion more dangerous make women's lives more dangerous.
C4: Therefore, supporters of anti-abortion laws make women's lives more dangerous.

I can grant P9, as it follows logically from the claim that illegal abortions tend to be more dangerous than legal ones. I also acknowledge P1–P3, though P3 is subject to various interpretations, which I will leave to apologists. However, I do not grant P4, and P7 is often accepted by assumption despite being questionable. While many may agree with P7 outright, I find it false. Even if I disagreed with the argument on its truth value alone, I still aim to assess its logical form and identify structural errors commonly found in similar arguments.

Evaluating the Justification for Abortion

Let us first consider P4 and P5, which argue that situations of duress sometimes make evil necessary and that all such cases justify abortion. P5 is particularly interesting because it is often implied rather than explicitly stated, escaping scrutiny as a result. I acknowledge the real duress in cases of incest and rape; however, like suicide, abortion is a quick-fix evil intended to alleviate finite suffering.

Yet, no evil should be committed for the sake of the good it may produce. Evil inherently begets further evil, even if unintended, ultimately making the world and one’s own life worse rather than better. The fact that someone did not cause their own suffering does not justify an evil remedy. This is not to say that suffering is meaningless, but if suffering justified evil, then conscience itself would lose its significance. P5 manipulates fear to convince people that evil is permissible in certain emotionally distressing situations. Thus, P5 is false, and in some cases, it serves as a deception that distracts from the potential good that can be done for the created life, its intrinsic worth, and the good that life may bring into the world.

P6 and P7, which claim that justification leads to moral legitimacy and that such justifications for abortion are usually present, may seem more reasonable than P5 at first glance. However, the definition of "better" in these premises is highly subjective, and the idea that abortion "must" be chosen is deceptive. What if mercy-killing or ending a life for the sake of some other lesser good is not objectively better, even if it appears so subjectively in the moment?

There are ways to reshape one’s perception of happiness in such situations—through compassion for the new life, through recognizing the broader good of human existence (more people mean more love, more workers, and greater contributions to the world), and through acceptance of reality, supported by friends, family, pregnancy centers, Church members, mental health professionals, and, most importantly, the love of God. Thus, if the "quick-fix evil" is merely the momentarily desirable course of action, P6 and P7 ultimately fail.

Addressing the Safety Argument Against Anti-Abortion Laws

Second, the inconvenience created by anti-abortion laws is rarely inherently bad—after all, their entire purpose is to discourage murder. However, a key question arises: if legal restrictions create obstacles that are circumvented illegally, does the law itself become responsible for the resulting dangers? In simpler terms, is the obstruction placed in the way of evil itself evil?

A more appropriate counter-question would be: why is the actor so intent on committing the evil that, even when discouraged by conscience, social standards, and increased personal risk, they still find it necessary? We have already shown that such necessity is a false premise. Perhaps the real responsibility lies not with the law but with the actor and those who convinced them that their actions were justified. If someone is so committed to a particular evil that they are willing to bypass every warning and safety mechanism, can they really claim to be faultless? For this reason, I find the premise underlying this argument to be false, which in turn undermines the conclusion.

Final Thoughts: The Error of Justifying Evil

If every evil were made more difficult for us to commit, would we persist in choosing evil even at great personal cost? Should we resent the obstacles placed before us, or should we be grateful that the temptation to do wrong has been made less reasonable?

The reasoning underlying pro-abortion arguments echoes the deception of the first sin. The tempter told Eve:

"You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4–5)

This argument suggests that God's laws are arbitrary and selfish. Likewise, Eve saw that:

"The tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise." (Genesis 3:6)

Here, evil is falsely presented as a source of goodness, truth, and beauty. Unless one operates with a sociopathic disregard for morality, the evil of sin (and abortion in particular) is ultimately self-evident—such actions lead only to greater suffering.[1] Yet, modern culture rarely acknowledges the suffering endured by those who choose abortion. Not unlike a journal, which anomalous to science, suggests that it is the laws concerning sex work that are the true culprit for the emotional strife faced by those who transgress those laws.[2] It is not the "rules" that cause suffering; rather, the suffering itself is evidence of why the rules exist. The real blame lies with those who insist upon evil and propagate its justification, depriving people of true freedom. In doing so, they bear responsibility for the suffering that follows, misleading others into choices that leave them in greater pain than before, and trampling what is good imagining it evil (Matthew 7:6).

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

1. Carter Carruthers, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil", Vivat Agnus Dei, May 30, 2021.

2. cf. Lucy Platt, Pippa Grenfell, Rebecca Meiksin, Jocelyn Elmes, Susan G Sherman, Teela Sanders, Peninah Mwangi, Anna-Louise Crago, "Associations between sex work laws and sex workers' health: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative studies," _PLoS medicine_ 15, no. 12 (2020), 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002680.

Freedom, Morality, and Purity of Heart

2025-03-23T00:00:00.003-05:00

“We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives forever, so after death the righteous will live forever with the risen Christ and He will raise them up on the last day (Jn. 6:39-40). Our resurrection, like His own, will be the work of the Most Holy Trinity. ‘If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through His Spirit who dwells in you’ (Rom 8:11; cf. 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:10-11).”[1]

Three things that seem to keep most people from a truly organic interpretation of natural law as it applies to sexual matters are that 1) we are destined for something, 2) there is a divine content to human dignity, and 3) grace can help us in the struggle.

1. “He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him in love. He destined us for adoption as His children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace that He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:4-6)
If we are destined, made for something, then it follows there is an order we would ideally abide by.[2] It is not that we are not free to resist, it is that we should not want to, knowing that it always means degradation of what is actually good even if our perception (clearly warped by sin) tells us goodness is otherwise.[3] What is actually good is what actually satisfies because in it our identity is realized in oneness and not infected by our duplicitous and fickle diversion of desire which tears us apart (cf. Galatians 5:17).

2. “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion…” (Genesis 1:26)

If man is as God and God is sacred, then man is sacred. When we gaze at each other do we see something sacred? It is not holiness that allows us to gaze at each other with eyes glazed over, seeing only material and not even animate material as a gift like gold or food to be possessed, traded, or exploited. Rather, it is real authentic love, which people of the world rarely possess, which first recognizes the other, that it may recognize the good for the other and see them as a gift which chooses to be given, when they may choose otherwise. This applies to friendships just as well as spousal or potentially spousal relationships. Recognizing, the sacred, the holy, the other is important even with how we treat ourselves (Matthew 25:40-45, Romans 12:1, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20). “By the oblation of his Body, he brought the sacrifices of old to fulfillment in the reality of the Cross, and, by commending himself to [the Father] for our salvation, showed himself the Priest, the Altar, and the Lamb of sacrifice.”[4] “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” (Ephesians 5:1-2).

3. “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” (Romans 7:15).

In our culture, failure is feared as much as death, so when we look at the Christian ideal as difficult, many fail to try it. The truth is our part is only growth, it is not being perfect but struggling to be perfect. Love properly understood should provide us with every motivation we need to get to Heaven and help others do the same, because the Spouse of Our Nature provides us with every grace to do so and when we fail He scoops us up again and loves us more (2 Corinthians 9:8).[5]

Conclusion
We must work against treating the body and sex like a commodity which is a reduction in the meaning of each. The greater irony, and a painful one, is that in our culture where theoretically everything is permitted there is nothing truly forgivable, least of all objective belief. For the Church perhaps there is less permitted which the culture insists upon allowing, but the Church forgives transgressions when something impermissible is done. There is a striking difference here because the former is only guided by stigma and the latter by objective order. While the former is impossible to please, the latter uses grace to help and genuinely seeks the good of the believer so transgression is to be expected to an extent but it does not condemn us as the former. In a culture where everything is permitted, and nothing is forgiven is there more freedom than following God where goodness is permitted and evil is forgiven? It would certainly seem not.

“Freedom and sin. Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.”[6]

When it comes to sex, the most common argument against waiting until marriage, against actually getting married, for cohabitation, for homosexual acts, and other related evils is for love. There is tragic irony afoot here also since love to be real must honor the nature of the other, whence their good is willed.[7] A lesser definition of love is used which is mere affection, the rose-colored glasses that are meant to assist our fortitude when willing someone else’s good is most difficult are traded for love’s objective definition. It is no wonder then that even divorce is seen more as a right than even a last resort, which the Church says, and rightly so, should never happen.

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Confession: The Call to Forgiveness Pt. 2

2025-03-16T00:00:00.073-05:00

Continued from Carruthers, Carter. "Confession: The Call to Forgiveness Pt. 1" Vivat Agnus Dei, March 9, 2025. https://vivatagnusdei.blogspot.com/2025/03/confession-call-to-forgiveness-pt-1.html.

Third, what does God's forgiveness consist of? This is a much tougher question because, for humans, forgiveness only means appealing the case to God (Psalm 103:10-12). God is the just judge; He is not swayed by favoritism toward sin (Deuteronomy 10:17, Acts 10:34-35). He comes to His judgment seat loving both parties (Wisdom 11:24-26, Romans 5:8). Perhaps, then, the question is not "What will God do?" but "What is God's ultimate design?" (Ephesians 1:9-10). In our pain, we can only see juridical contrariety, but God is not interested in punishment—He is interested in salvation from sin, its reality, and its effects (Ezekiel 33:11, John 3:17). His hopes are not suffering, but healing, love, and communion (Jeremiah 29:11, 1 Timothy 2:4). If, by sin, we indebt ourselves to those we offend, then we concern ourselves with the justice owed (Exodus 22:1, Luke 19:8). However, from the perspective of an all-good, higher power, what is visible is not merely an infraction but the degradation of a relationship between two inherently good creatures—both impoverished by their sins and brokenness (Genesis 1:27, Romans 3:23). What is needed, then, is not primarily juridical correction but ontological restoration (2 Corinthians 5:17-19). God is not burdened by our sins, but by what our sins cost us and others (Isaiah 59:2, Romans 6:23). He sent His Son to show us that our sins bring suffering to the innocent—that every opportunity we have to stop things from escalating, we choose (if we do not follow Him) as a result of our pain and hiding (effects of sin on our psyche) rather than from our goodness (Isaiah 53:5, John 8:12). God wants us—all of us—personally, and He desires our good (John 6:37, 2 Peter 3:9). This truth cannot be over-emphasized or overstated (Romans 8:38-39). Where does this simple logic leave us? We need forgiveness for ourselves, willingness to forgive others, and teamwork to repair what has been lost or broken—both in the individual and between parties (Colossians 3:13, Matthew 5:23-24). The next question becomes: What is now missing between the parties, and how is it restored? (Matthew 18:15-17). This is where difficulty arises—where humility and the pursuit of truth meet fortitude (Micah 6:8). It is painful for the offender, and here, I would argue, is where we truly find our offenses justly punished, if we prefer such language (Hebrews 12:11). This is the golden question because something we wish to restore simply and immediately (if we are a contrite offender) or have restored to us (if we are offended) may not be something we can truly pay back—even in cases as seemingly straightforward as theft (Luke 7:42). However, if we deny what is true, we fail to truly follow God's will, and in doing so, commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29).

Fourth, what does reconciliation with God (sacramental or otherwise) accomplish, and what doesn't it accomplish? Well, the question actually answers itself at this point. Reconciliation with God is, at best, reconciliation with God—the Creator of our fellow creatures. This means a great deal, but it does not mean that the wrongs we have committed are suddenly mended, nor that we are dispensed from our duty to love.

Here are some thoughts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on forgiveness and key relevant points that elucidate the claims of this post. (Feel free to skim these unless you want to be thorough.)

"The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”"[1]
"Illness becomes a way to conversion; God’s forgiveness initiates the healing. It is the experience of Israel that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life: “For I am the Lord, your healer.” The prophet intuits that suffering can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others. Finally Isaiah announces that God will usher in a time for Zion when he will pardon every offense and heal every illness."[2]
"“God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”"[3]
"From the Sermon on the Mount onwards, Jesus insists on conversion of heart: reconciliation with one’s brother before presenting an offering on the altar, love of enemies, and prayer for persecutors, prayer to the Father in secret, not heaping up empty phrases, prayerful forgiveness from the depths of the heart, purity of heart, and seeking the Kingdom before all else. This filial conversion is entirely directed to the Father."[4]
"...forgive us our trespasses..."[5]

"This petition is astonishing. If it consisted only of the first phrase, “And forgive us our trespasses,” it might have been included, implicitly, in the first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, since Christ’s sacrifice is “that sins may be forgiven.” But, according to the second phrase, our petition will not be heard unless we have first met a strict requirement. Our petition looks to the future, but our response must come first, for the two parts are joined by the single word “as.”"

"...though we are clothed with the baptismal garment, we do not cease to sin, to turn away from God. Now, in [the petition "forgive us our trespasses"], we return to him like the prodigal son and, like the tax collector, recognize that we are sinners before him. Our petition begins with a “confession” of our wretchedness and his mercy. Our hope is firm because, in his Son, “we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” We find the efficacious and undoubted sign of his forgiveness in the sacraments of his Church."

Now—and this is daunting—this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love, like the Body of Christ, is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see.136 In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father’s merciful love; but in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace.
This petition is so important that it is the only one to which the Lord returns and which he develops explicitly in the Sermon on the Mount. This crucial requirement of the covenant mystery is impossible for man. But “with God all things are possible.”

. . . as we forgive those who trespass against us [6]

This “as” is not unique in Jesus’ teaching: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”; “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful”; “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.” It is impossible to keep the Lord’s commandment by imitating the divine model from outside; there has to be a vital participation, coming from the depths of the heart, in the holiness and the mercy and the love of our God. Only the Spirit by whom we live can make “ours” the same mind that was in Christ Jesus. Then the unity of forgiveness becomes possible and we find ourselves “forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave” us.
Thus the Lord’s words on forgiveness, the love that loves to the end, become a living reality. The parable of the merciless servant, which crowns the Lord’s teaching on ecclesial communion, ends with these words: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” It is there, in fact, “in the depths of the ” that heart, everything is bound and loosed. It is not in our power not to feel or to forget an offense; but the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit turns injury into compassion and purifies the memory in transforming the hurt into intercession.
Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin. The martyrs of yesterday and today bear this witness to Jesus. Forgiveness is the fundamental condition of the reconciliation of the children of God with their Father and of men with one another.
There is no limit or measure to this essentially divine forgiveness, whether one speaks of "sins" as in Luke (11:4), or “debts” as in Matthew (6:12). We are always debtors: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another.” The communion of the Holy Trinity is the source and criterion of truth in every relationship. It is lived out in prayer, above all in the Eucharist. God does not accept the sacrifice of a sower of disunion, but commands that he depart from the altar so that he may first be reconciled with his brother. For God can be appeased only by prayers that make peace. To God, the better offering is peace, brotherly concord, and a people made one in the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Fifth, we might think of the Rich Young Man, the Pharisees, the elders of the people in Christ’s time, or the older brother in the Prodigal Son parable (Matthew 19:16-22, Luke 15:25-32, Matthew 23:27-28). As we have already elucidated, God's love is not dependent on our perceived lovability (Romans 5:8, 1 John 4:10). If we believe that faith merely offers us sage-like wisdom and a set of rules, we have missed the entire point (Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28). This misconception was largely addressed in the first paragraph, while the misunderstanding of God's forgiveness was clarified in the third. That being said, it makes no sense to apply the "forgiveness before permission" philosophy to God's love, because God provides for all (Matthew 5:45, Acts 14:17). He does not take sides (Romans 2:11, Job 34:19). He does not expect us to be without struggle (John 16:33, 1 Peter 4:12-13). He is not repulsed by our most self-destructive and corrupt ideas (Luke 5:31-32, Romans 8:38-39). He does not bless the sinner because of their sin but because of their need for Him (Luke 18:13-14, Matthew 9:36). The Divine Physician comes to the sick—not to celebrate or approve of the disease, nor to boast of His own health and expertise, which we lack, for that would be cruel—but to heal us (Mark 2:17, Isaiah 61:1). He seeks to free us from our afflictions, from our tendencies to choose evil over good, and even to deplete our desire for what is evil, courting us with His infinite truth, goodness, and beauty (John 8:36, Philippians 4:8). He inspires not just virtue but holiness, and what is holiness if not wholeness (1 Peter 1:15-16, Hebrews 12:10). Yet, lost in the adultery of our senses, we often forget our only true Lover, our true Health, and our very Existence (Jeremiah 2:13, Psalm 73:25-26).

Lastly, what are we to do when we sin or when we are sinned against? If we find ourselves to be the sinner—and we will—we must seek reconciliation with God and neighbor (2 Corinthians 5:18, Matthew 5:23-24).[7] If Catholic, we should go to confession (even weekly, if needed, though always guarding against scrupulosity) (John 20:22-23, James 5:16). If not Catholic, then confessing to God directly is always beneficial, even before sacramental confession (1 John 1:9, Psalm 32:5). Above all, remember your belovedness and Christ's mission (Isaiah 43:1, Luke 19:10). Return to His mission, even within yourself, by bringing God’s life, love, and truth to the poor—whether their poverty is spiritual, psychological, or physical—since there is no greater poverty than lacking these (Matthew 25:35-40, Proverbs 19:17). As mentioned above, make amends, and do so well—with prayer, love, and as much understanding as possible (Luke 19:8, Romans 12:18). And where desirable, do not do it alone (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10, Galatians 6:2). If you find yourself the offended party, do your best to remember both your belovedness and your own sinfulness (Romans 3:23, Psalm 103:14). Then, consider what the other person may be going through that led them to act as they did (Luke 6:36, Colossians 3:12-13). This moment is a privileged opportunity—not only to change oneself but also, if possible, to correct another in a spirit of love (Galatians 6:1, Matthew 18:15). In any case, sin—whether ours or another’s—reveals a place of brokenness, inviting us to examine what must change, what needs healing, and what must be addressed with God’s grace (Psalm 147:3, 2 Corinthians 12:9). We must extend forgiveness, but always choose what is best—whether that means setting boundaries, creating distance, or seeking reconciliation where possible (Ephesians 4:32, Proverbs 22:24-25). Let us admit our wrongs readily to our fellows and be humbled by them, and do eagerly all that love surely and likely demands of us (James 5:16, Micah 6:8).

In conclusion, confess often. What fear is there in love? So many of us are scared not of heal but of what it may take to correct our favorite bad habits i.e. changing our behavior. We think that we will have to inorganically constipate our hearts, restraining what is evil to pretend to be something we are not. This is nothing like the Christian life, which is moral vanity. We may well find "shoes fitting" we would rather not wear or cannot seem to get off our feet, but we MUST start where we truly are, however, attached to what is not good for us we may be, and do a little better every day that is all you need. [8] Neither the Church as it is now (spanning the world) nor Rome was not built in a day. We are always sinners, and that will never change, God always loves us and that will not change, we will always have need for repentance and that will not change. So back to the question: "How, in God's good justice, can He forgive you for hurting me—especially when I do my best to abide by His rules and love Him—while, when something befalls me, I am told to forgive and surrender it, yet He just forgives?" To answer this simply, it is not as simple as that. Forgiveness doesn’t erase sin’s consequences. God's forgiveness reconciles us to Him but doesn’t remove all temporal effects including the need for personal reconciliation. It is neither permission nor approval. Reconciliation isn’t universal—each relationship requires its own healing. If wrong, we must remember that sin arises from a fallen world where good isn’t always easy to choose. True repentance calls us to will the good, and the clearest, most accessible good is making amends—undoing, as much as possible, the harm we’ve caused.[9]

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Confession: The Call to Forgiveness Pt. 1

2025-03-09T00:00:00.084-06:00

Apologies that this will be a long post, but it is a big topic.

I have heard this question twice from people in my life, and I have also found myself on the other side of it. So, to paraphrase in a more pointed way: "How, in God's good justice, can He forgive you for hurting me—especially when I do my best to abide by His rules and love Him—while, when something befalls me, I am told to forgive and surrender it, yet He just forgives?" A loaded question, no doubt! In fact, it echoes the Epicurean philosophy of the day—one that everyone condemns when it is used against them, yet many justify when they themselves seek to be forgiven. So, let’s answer it. However, I must say there are misconceptions embedded in this question, which means we will need to consider multiple aspects. This requires nuance—something often undesirable when suffering is already present.

Let’s break this down and examine it properly by separating the question into broader inquiries:

What is the real narrative of life?
What is the nature of forgiveness?
What is God's forgiveness?
What does (sacramental or direct to God) confession do and what does it not do?
Am I really understanding what God is getting at concerning love?
What do we think lies ahead concerning our sins for us, and the offended? What is our job?

If we think someone can be free and clear post-sin without experiencing negative effects, we are wrong. Forgiveness and reconciliation are not a once-done-with-one-done-with-everyone reality. God's forgiveness is not permission, approval, or choice against the offender. Confessing sins only reconciles one with God and this reconciliation does not exonerate one of the consequences of sin except for eternal consequence. If I am the offended party of my own or someone else's sins, I should understand that we did not get to this point because good is clear and easy to choose always and the whole Gospel must be referenced. We are called to will what is good, and there is no good clearer to choose nor more accessible than amends for our sins i.e. undoing insofar as possible the damage we have done.

First, what is the real narrative of life? Here it is, in rhyme:

God made us for love, His life to share,
Sin broke the bond, bringing despair.
Through prophets, priests, and covenants of old,
He prepared the way for His plan to unfold.

In fullness of time, He sent us His Son,
Redeemer and Savior, the Holy One.
By grace, we return, our hearts realigned,
In Christ’s covenant, salvation we find.

His Spirit calls us, His children to be,
Heirs of His life for eternity.
Through His Church, His love and mission expand,
Repent, seek God—the Kingdom’s at hand!

What does this have to do with our topic of forgiveness? Well, this is truly the only real battle in life, to be purified of one's sins and be brought back into a relationship with God (2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 John 1:9). It is the whole of God's efforts to court our souls in this way (Hosea 2:19-20, John 6:44). The problem with being at home with one's sins, comfortable with one's attainment of virtue, and friends with one's demons is that one's own breach of morality is felt to be the only forgivable because of this struggle, and all the offenses that have ever been committed against us are the reason we do struggle and so are truly the unforgivable (Proverbs 16:2, Luke 18:9-14). Still worse, it stops shy of connecting us with the fact that our so-called aggressors feel the same way about their sins (Matthew 7:3-5, Romans 2:1). (The opposite extreme, i.e. still not virtue, is taking all the blame and doing nothing with it.) We live in an atheistic culture that is for every breach of the moral order, especially the popular ones like anything "sexual," yet condemns the people for choosing something with poor consequences, especially if the one it offends is popular or popularly understood as the victim in any scene (Isaiah 5:20, Romans 1:28-32). Yes, we live in a have-your-cake-eat-it-too-and-condemn-your-neighbor-for-it culture (James 4:4, Matthew 23:27-28). However, if we consider sin in a truly Christian sense, we understand that poor choices bring poor results, and although our brokenness is real, so are these facts (Galatians 6:7-8, Romans 6:21-23). The reality, the whole reality, is that we struggle against at least with convenient evils, which if pursued consistently turn into addiction, which is self-destruction [1] (Romans 7:15-20, John 8:34). Sin on any level is self-destruction, to it we are prone, and surrendering to grace is the only thing that can save us from ourselves [2] (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5). If one does not see the truth in these things or refuses to, it is because they are indeed at home with their sins (John 3:19-20, 2 Timothy 4:3-4). Repenting our sins and making amends opens one's heart to mercy for others (Luke 6:36-37, Matthew 5:7). Nobody has any right to condemn others for their sins, but it is against the good of their soul to permit the illusion of support for those sins; the past cannot be changed, yet what does going forward look like? [3] (John 8:11, Ezekiel 18:30-32). Negative consequences arise from acts lacking goodness [4] (Proverbs 1:31, Romans 2:6-8).

Second, there are many misconceptions about forgiveness. Here are several:

Forgiveness requires forgetting the offense.
Forgiving excuses or condones the behavior.
Forgiveness eliminates consequences.
Reconciliation is necessary for forgiveness.
The offender must apologize or deserve forgiveness.
Forgiveness invalidates your pain or loyalty to others hurt by the offender.

Forgiveness is not a free pass; it does not deny that a past offense has caused damage—damage that can, and often is, felt in the present (Romans 6:23, Galatians 6:7). It is far from condoning the behavior but instead sees the offender as distinct from the offense (Ezekiel 18:23, Luke 23:34). It has no bearing on what boundaries are prudent nor on the natural implications of behavior (Proverbs 22:3, Matthew 10:16). It does not require interaction with the offender, nor does it necessitate a relationship with them (Proverbs 4:14-15, 2 Timothy 3:5). Apologies, although ideal, are not required—forgiveness is for reconciliation, and sometimes people fail to even recognize what they have done (Luke 17:3-4, Matthew 18:21-22). It does not mean taking sides, nor does it invalidate one's often valid sense of pain from an offense (Psalm 34:18, Romans 12:19). [See all citations] In this way, forgiveness is one's own permission to move forward—more for one’s own good than the offender’s—pursuing healing, which lies beyond simply assigning blame where it is apparently due (Colossians 3:13, Isaiah 43:18-19). It is an appeal to the Heavenly Court, done by grace, where the appellant is the offended, and the appellee is the offender (Hebrews 4:16, Psalm 9:8). However impenitent the offender may be, it is unreasonable to assume that they are not already receiving the consequences of their actions (Proverbs 11:31, Galatians 6:7). This act of appeal and surrender must also apply to us when we sin, for forgiveness is about following the best possible reality going forward—one in which we are not burdened by the judgment of our neighbors' souls (Matthew 7:1-2, Romans 14:10-12).[5] Certainly, we do not seek our own justice so that they feel our pain or so that their reaction is visible (Luke 6:35, Matthew 6:14-15). When we sin, we sin against ourselves (1 Corinthians 6:18, Proverbs 8:36). When we sin against others, we reveal our own brokenness, which is then brought all the more to the forefront of our consciousness—to be addressed by God (Mark 7:20, Psalm 51:3-4). Sin is real, it is inherently negative, and it always costs life (Romans 6:23, James 1:15). Forgiveness is the only thing that overcomes it (Ephesians 1:7, Luke 6:37). Grace—and all our efforts to receive and cooperate with it, inspired by it—is the only thing that heals the wounds and renders them inert in our conduct, lest we compound our issues (2 Corinthians 12:9, Hebrews 12:15). [6]

To be continued...

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Fostering Hope and Evangelization Among Youth

2025-03-02T00:00:00.001-06:00

How can we as Church and parish be inspired by the virtue of hope exemplified by young people? What virtues, habits and practices will help us to accompany young people as they take up their call and go out to serve the world? The Church must embrace the hope and vitality of young people by taking their struggles and questions seriously, offering compassionate guidance, and witnessing to the Christian life as both a relationship with God and a battle for holiness. In turn, older generations can be renewed by the faith and innocence of youth, fostering a reciprocal journey toward truth and evangelization.

1. Hope in Youth

As older folks, we should be inspired by the newness of efforts they put forth which speak to the reality of struggle. Indeed, what Christ says concerning youth is striking. “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of heaven belongs.”, don’t lead them astray, and “unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14; Matthew 18:6; Matthew 18:3). As we look at how these two realities interact that there is hope (for a better world, that one is not the only one to seek good things, and that there are new persons with new strength entering the fight) and their need for guidance, it seems we should recognize the role we are called to i.e. to share the truth the Lord has provided for us.^1^

2. Authentic Accompaniment

One thing that the document Chistus vivit suggests and that the need for authentic listening in pastoral contexts demonstrates is that children desire to be taken seriously, as we all do. Perhaps this question is better posed, how can we better treat children like real live humans? Indeed, this is love, sometimes lust does not have sexual meaning, sometimes it is simply wrongly interpreting beauty. How then do we rightly interpret the beauty of youthful persons that we may see them not only as pure and innocent, adorable humans, but as humans first of all? So often the young leave the Church because they think we are unable to answer their questions, that we don’t want them to ask questions, or we trivialize their struggles. I would suggest a compassion borne of a very intentional love, one that is not so near-sighted so as to see only hubris as we look at the young.[1] In my experience, people often lack the interest or assume there is none on the youth’s end to be guided, accompanied, and helped along the path of having a life fully alive.^2^

3. The Christian Life as a Struggle

So often we pretend like Christian life is not a struggle, a battle. How can we better witness to the young what the Christian life truly is, i.e., that it is not only a relationship - although primarily that - but also that it is a battle where God is providing for us, a deliverance from evil with which we must both suffer and cooperate; that life without it is truly death and starvation of the worst kind; and that it is a set of beliefs with the least error, so that we may not find ourselves longing for truth while being lied to at every turn by a world consumed with hatred of objective reality?

4. Guidance and Evangelization

First, we must purge ourselves of anything that prevents them from a relationship with Christ wherever possible, we must do a service to them that they may be led unto Christ and not lost to the world’s wiles, and we must learn from them anew what it means to be innocent, pure, and to seek God (Matthew 10:16; Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 15). Moreover, we should recognize that the faith and virtue we now possess does not precipitate from our own wanting it, but in our wanting it by God’s grace and the Church He established which consists of generation after generation of faithful Christians who came to this same conclusion, and did not sit idly by while we starved for what is truly good while coming to despise what is only its faint reflection.

5. Learning from Youth

It is difficult enough that we are born into our own weakness, striving every day to be better, even to follow the Gospel, surrounded by people that are/appear better than us in every way, it is a whole new level of difficulty to find that they are not better than us when it comes to sin and brokenness. We are called to be something for the world which it is not for us, holy.

Written by Carter Carruthers & Arranged by ChatGPT

Footnotes

Francis, Apostolic Exhortation on the Growth in Personal Vocation to Young People Christus vivit (25 March 2019), §6-21.
Francis, Christus vivit, §12.
Donald DeGrood, “Sunday TV Mass - July 14, 2024,” YouTube video, from Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls, posted by Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls (14 July 2024) at http://www.youtube.com.

Educating for Relationship: An Approach to Youth Ministry

2025-02-23T00:00:00.002-06:00

Christ invites us into communion with Himself and others, and today’s culture, often marked by isolation and brokenness, challenges achieving this communion. Our sins and attachments restrain us from healthy communion. As ministers to the youth (young adults to the learning toddlers), we should aspire to both live out of our relationship with Jesus and teach our understanding of what the Church has to offer in terms of communion. Contemporary youth face cultural pressures like social media and self-gratification that prioritize instant validation or enjoyment over authentic relationships, often resulting in isolation and a lack of relational depth. Youth ministry must therefore provide a counter-cultural space for authentic, discipleship-focused communion.[1] Effective youth ministry requires a relational approach that combines discipleship, empathy for youth’s unique struggles, and loving discipline, guiding them in social-emotional learning and the joy, truth, goodness, and beauty of the Gospel in a way that mirrors Christ’s love and mercy, neither forsaking truth nor humanity.

First, youth ministers and related volunteers should love youth with tenderness and understanding of their particular struggles and brokenness, accounting for subjectivity and individuality. Love is the efficient cause of true dialogical communion, requiring vulnerability and empathy, catalyzing a pathway toward weaving together the hearts of God and men (Matthew 9:36, Philippians 2:5-7, 1 Corinthians 13:7, John 17:21).[2] Love involves choosing further good, a conscious intent to will the best for the other for their sake, particularly in times of struggle/growth (1 John 3:2-3; Galatians 2:20; Romans 8:29).[3] It is the task of a minister to be a forerunner of the love of God to the Children of God as the disciples are/were for those they serve(d) (Matthew 19:14; Mark 9:36–37). The questions they must always ask are: How can I promote a relationship with God that is at least as good as my own, both individually and in a group setting? How can I reflect God’s love to these people, especially in whatever they choose to share? How can I demonstrate the joy of my own relationship with God to them? How can I think beyond myself and foster true communion with each individual in the group? Love has an epistemic aspect, once one experiences love in a small way, one is opened to greater forms of love (Luke 16:10). The minister ought to recognize and be intentional about fostering this, and even learning from the youth (Matthew 18:1-10). To make youth feel heard and understood, a minister should practice active listening and empathy to make youth feel valued and worthy of human dignity.

“Empathy is a connection with the heart, and cannot be expressed without touching our own vulnerability… ...The three relationships of [Relationship-Based Care, relationship with the patient/family, relationships among colleagues, and the nurse’s relationship with self] provide a structure with which to explore vulnerability, allowing their principles and practices to help us open our hearts and lead us to the empathy we seek when serving our patients, ourselves, and each other.”[4]

To affirm and validate the Children of God, the minister/volunteer should try to ask questions, recognize truth in a partial response, even a partially wrong response, and co-ruminate with the Children of God on a given subject, especially if personal.[5] Not always does a Child of God apparently desire to participate in the small group and so partake in the communion of faith, but they do inherently desire to have the opportunity to be included and be in a dialogical state of self-gift as mentioned in love.[6] The American Psychological Association understands inclusion as “an environment that offers affirmation, celebration, and appreciation of different approaches, styles, perspectives, and experiences, thus allowing all individuals to bring in their whole selves (and all their identities) and to demonstrate their strengths and capacity.”[7] Ironically, the same culture that lauds inclusion is exclusive to Christian ideals and practices, which produces an even greater need for creating a space to share the reality of our faith in a holy communion, marked by its difference from cultural trends. In like manner, our culture lauds individualism and superficial, virtual connections, giving an illusion of connection without reality. “Social isolation was positively associated with psychological distress and negatively associated with life satisfaction and happiness.”[8] Contemporary, Children of God have an increased perceived need to feel safe and protected, especially from condemnation, in light of the aforementioned observations.[9] While ministry is not primarily a space for physical affection, the human need for touch and comfort remains significant. Comfort and care, however, extend beyond physical touch and can be provided through other meaningful forms of connection and support. In times of tragedy, a minister/volunteer should share the aspects of faith that will both equip them to handle grief, placing events in the context of all God has done for us, and validate the reality of difficulty in the Christian life in general and the moment of tragedy in particular. Inversely, in times of grace and joy arising from God's gifts, the minister's task is to remind Christians of God’s love, revealed through His original authorship of all that is good and the providence of His grace, which transforms and transcends human folly and corruption. Children of God desire to be chosen and wanted. A minister/volunteer should show human interest in the Children of God's lives, well-being, and relationships with God. Children of God desire to be blessed and transcendent. Often our sins, the sins of others, and the enemy, each in manifestly cumbersome ways, undermine our identity as Children of God (1 John 3:1-2, cf. Luke 15). Love, at least God’s, is unconditional, undeterred by brokenness or struggle. “Love is indeed 'ecstasy,'...a journey out of the closed inward-looking self towards its liberation through self-giving”[10]

Second, youth ministers and related volunteers should guide the Children of God with a loving discipline that inspires responsible and intentional actions, and offer them objective/general metrics for relationships. As we strive to emulate Christ in our acceptance of each person, we are called to imitate His love through correction and instruction by guiding the youth to welcome all, while helping them see the reality from which sin separates and blinds us (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21, Proverbs 3:11-12, Matthew 18:15-17, Galatians 6:1, James 5:19-20, Proverbs 27:5-6).[11] Children of God are often uneducated when it comes to the objective aspects of relationships that are not easily intuited. Our culture teaches more implicitly than explicitly that love is purely emotional and without reference to objective reality and this contradicts the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Catholic faith. Studies that analyze the neurochemistry of love understand love as merely a feeling, i.e. an optional, unexplained, and material phenomenon rather than being a spiritual and material reality, resulting from both truly willing someone’s good and recognizing them as good (fulfillment of purpose and affection/desire for connection, respectively).[12] If love as a concept is divided into two parts, the first is our desire or willingness to love: our relationships are shaped by our love for God, from human desires to live in harmony, experience peace, and be loved, and our affection for a particular person, which stems from our longing to be united with those we love.[13] Being intentional about love also means being intentional about fostering and applying these feelings from the love of God first, which makes the difficult inconvenient aspects of love, such as forgiveness and discernment of the good, readily endured. The second aspect, the good itself to be willed or chosen, must answer the question “what is their good?” This, too, is informed by our love for God, noting both who/how He loves them and what is the ultimate good/flourishing of the human person, each incorporating a sense of eternal destiny. As ministers, this is the primary mode by which we are called to love our fellow Children of God.[14] If the latter is the general, eternal, and objectively verifiable goods, the particular, momentary, and subjective goods remain. This takes great intentionality, knowledge of the person/their context through effective communication and understanding i.e. their maturity, their personality, their interests, the role in their life one plays, one’s own virtue, and the tenderness and compassion examined in the prior paragraph, thereby applying all of Christ’s commands (1 Corinthians 13:4-7, Philippians 2:4, James 1:19, Galatians 6:2, 2 Peter 1:5-7, Colossians 3:12). Sometimes love is irascible, meaning that it may require something of us which is not always foreseeably simple, or may require self-control and intentional discernment. Each of these aspects draws upon God’s grace and one’s affection for the particular other. Once love is understood as such, one should, then, help the Children of God understand that a loving act is pure and good when its intention is simply to love (will another's good for their sake), the action or object itself is good, and is appropriate in the circumstances.[15] All of this should be considered a part of the definition of love. Establishing a framework for responsibility for their actions makes the Children of God more engaged, even those with attention disorders, and helps them see the reality of their actions.[16] Ultimately, the purpose of these aspects of this "loving the youth" approach to youth ministry is to guide them in understanding objective truths that are essential components of a genuine relationship, under which the subjective aspects flourish.

Third, youth should be engaged with the joy, truth, goodness, and beauty of the Gospel. Although the previous points focused on the material and formal aspects of evangelization in educating for human formation, this point considers the efficient cause i.e. God’s grace and the minister’s relationship with God. Our own social-emotional formation is essential in order that we may convey it both materially and formally. The object of a minister’s love is the education of the ignorant as mentioned above (Proverbs 22:6; Matthew 18:6). Naturally, then the content of truth is essential, namely, Christ Himself (Matthew 19:14). The respective program determines the circumstance, but the intention is where variability in goodness can lie, both for the Child of God and the minister. This is where joy needs to serve its role, if a minister cannot be joyful (as opposed to unstable, sad, or angry), then neither will the Child of God be motivated to receive that which does not apparently produce/concern joy (Matthew 19:14).[17] Ministers should catalyze and present the joyful and life-giving environment of the Church, which they would ideally partake in, flowing naturally from a heart transformed by God’s grace and intentionally aimed at extending His Kingdom.[18] Ministers are called to embody Catholic education by helping Children of God come to know Christ deeply, fostering an environment where they grow in love, service, and responsibility, and guiding them to be active witnesses of the Gospel in both words and actions.[19] The Child of God's motivation should go beyond simply engaging with attention; it should also involve internalizing and reflecting on what the minister communicates. Thus, initial apathetic skepticism, which correlates to popular existentialist relativism, must be overcome by the recipient's genuine encounter of God and the goodness and beauty Christ embodies within humanity, which ideally a minister would give expression to. Having an established framework can help the Child of God be engaged and allow the minister’s role to be clear and simple, instead of arbitrary.[20]

In conclusion, love cannot be lived without truth nor can truth be lived without love. Ministers must be formed by their experiences in pursuit of God and His will, knowing God’s love, so that they may offer it to those they share the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Gospel with. Ministers must take this charge with deepest solemnity because the souls they are entrusted with cannot be offered something the minister does not have. In doing so, they should be equipped to help guide the youth in their successes and struggles as they pursue their One True Lover, making Him their One True Love. Children of God should not be shamed for their lack of virtue or understanding. They should be coached lovingly to follow Christ evermore closely and love Him evermore earnestly, neither forsaking what is true nor attempting to understand what is true without genuinely encountering God’s love. By integrating these elements, youth ministers can guide young people toward a lifelong communion with Christ and the Church, enabling them to overcome cultural barriers to meaningful relationships. A relational approach to youth ministry, grounded in love, truth, and beauty, possesses the power to awaken a new generation to encounter and embody the joy of the Gospel, enabling them to become the light of the world as they are called, by drawing near to and radiating their love of God. As such the Church cannot forget that She is here for no task other than love nor is the Kingdom built of bricks but people (1 Corinthians 12:27).

“Little children, I am with you only a little longer. You will look for me; and as I said to the Jews so now I say to you, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’ I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:33-35).

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

John Paul II, Address on the Pastoral Letter to the Bishops of Bordeaux and Poitiers: The Church's Mission in the Spiritual Formation and Evangelization of Youth (13 February 2004), §5.; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation on the Bishop, Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World Pastores gregis (16 October 2003), §53.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 257.
CCC, 1822.; Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 26, a. 4, at New Advent, www.newadvent.org.
Sarah Ann Lackey, “The Role of Relationship-Based Care in Developing Empathy Through Vulnerability: Visual Cues for Conversation and Change,” Creative Nursing 26, no. 4 (2020): e97.; Francis, Apostolic Exhortation on the Growth in Personal Vocation to Young People Christus vivit (25 March 2019), §291-298.
Yang, Hongfei, Chenzhi Huang, Carolyn Maccann, Yujin He, Haixia Jiang, and Guoqing Yu. "Development and Initial Validation of the Positive and Negative Co-Rumination Scale." Psychological Reports (2023).
Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et spes (7 December 1965), §24.
American Psychological Association. “Dictionary of Psychology: Inclusion.” at American Psychological Association, (1 January 2020,) at https://dictionary.apa.org/
Qi, Xiang, Wei Zhang, Katherine Wang, Yaolin Pei, and Bei Wu. "Social Isolation and Psychological Well-Being Among Older Chinese Americans: Does Resilience Mediate the Association?" International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 37, no. 8 (August 2022).
Benedict XVI, Pastoral Letter on the Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland: Path to Healing and Renewal (20 March 2010), §12.
Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter on the Christian Love Deus caritas est (25 December 2005), §6.
CCC, 2690.
Donatella Marazziti, Stefania Palermo, and Federico Mucci, "The Science of Love: State of the Art," Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1331 (2021): 249–254
CCC, 1822.; ST, I-II, q. 28, a. 1.
CCC, 1822.
CCC, 1697, 1750.
Jennifer Elizabeth Sanders, Investigating Whether Teacher Provided Structure and Autonomy Support Predict Engagement for New Zealand Children of God with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015), 90.
Caroline Fulton, Building Teachers’ Emotional Competence: A Transactional Training Model (PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2019), 55.; Rocio Dresser and Jolynn Asato, "Coaching, Not Correcting: An Alternative Model for Minority Children of God," Multicultural Education, 22 nol. 1 (2014), 49.
Benedict XVI, Pastoral Letter on the Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland: Path to Healing and Renewal, §12.
1. John Paul II, Address on the Speech to High School Children of God gathered at the Madison Square Garden (3 October 1979).; Christus vivit, §30.
2. Jennifer Elizabeth Sanders, Investigating Whether Teacher Provided Structure and Autonomy Support Predict Engagement for New Zealand Children of God with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2015), 90.

A Catholic Evaluation of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

2025-02-16T00:00:00.001-06:00

Every approach to therapy is based on a particular theoretical interpretation of empirical evidence and experiences, it seems to me one should approach such theory much the same way the Catholic Church understands other religious frameworks and science. Namely, “The Catholic Church rejects nothing true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”[1] Similarly, my practice and evaluation of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (and its variants), or any other form of therapy, does not claim that it alone is true while others are false. Rather, it acknowledges the truth found in the diverse anthropological perspectives within psychological theories. Together, these provide a cohesive and yet multifaceted understanding of human nature: recognizing man as broken and sinful while also being open to his ultimate purpose and destiny, exemplified in Mary and united to Divinity in Christ. Every therapy recognizes part of the truth of man, but the best will incorporate the most truth, and the others will address the particular things they concern themselves with, from belief in self to conditioned response. Nevertheless, to look at psychotherapy with Catholic eyes is to see the human as a singular confluence of his aspects: biological, psychological/logical, free/moral, sociological/moral, anthropological/teleological, eschatological/spiritual, corrupt, and destined for salvation and everlasting life with God. When integrated with the Catholic understanding of the human person as a unity of the aforementioned aspects, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can effectively aid individuals in addressing inner conflicts rooted in a world marked by contra-human tendencies and spiritual antagonism, fostering growth toward their ultimate good, and cooperating with grace on a more fundamental, wholistic level.

First, we must define CBT by examining its ideal final cause i.e. behavioral health, substantial causes i.e. how it is recognized by its incorporation of both conditioning and reasoning, and its efficient cause i.e. its origin and development. What is CBT’s final cause/end? Simply, the ultimate goal of CBT is purifying a client’s reasoning and behavior to allow for a life conformed to both truth and virtue, resulting in a life with considerably fewer negative emotions and maladaptive behaviors.[2] What is the substance of CBT i.e. material & formal cause? CBT incorporates both reasoning and instinct adjustment. CBT implies man’s emotional state is an intelligible, yet subjective response to an interpretation of external, objective realities. “Under stressful conditions, some individuals tend to feel pessimistic and unable to solve problems. CBT promotes more balanced thinking to improve the ability to cope with stress.”[3] After recognizing the framework of influential thoughts at play, the therapist and client work together to correct these instinctual dispositions to unwanted thoughts and behavior. “The origins of CBT can be traced to the application of learning theory principles, such as classical and operant conditioning, to clinical problems”[4] The development (efficient cause) of this therapy began in the United States:

In the US, Albert Ellis founded rational emotive therapy to help clients modify their irrational thoughts when encountering problematic events, and Aaron Beck employed cognitive therapy for depressed clients using [Ellis’s] model. Behavioral therapy and cognitive therapy were later integrated in terms of theory and practice, leading to the emergence of “second-wave” CBT in the 1960s. The first- and second-wave forms of CBT arose via attempts to develop well-specified and rigorous techniques based on empirically validated basic principles. From the 1960s onward, the dominant psychotherapies worldwide have been second-wave forms of CBT.[5]

Second, any treatment of the person, to be effective, must cooperate with and improve human nature in statu quo. This improvement can only be accomplished if it indicates something true of the current condition as well as the destination of human nature in terms of one’s present health/journey and future eternal destination. Catholicism seems to reliably/consistently describe both the nature of man’s condition and the matter of his destination.

“As the Scriptures suggest, there is an unbreakable link between authentic freedom and truth (cf. Jn. 10:47); indeed, "freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth" (John Paul II, Centesimus annus, 46) It follows that no genuine therapy or treatment for psychic disturbances can ever conflict with the moral obligation of the patient to pursue the truth and to grow in virtue.[6]

The above quote seems to imply, by mention of human virtue and truth, the existence of human volition and reason. Humans are rational i.e. bound to find and follow what is true. Further, the quote above also implies it is both possible for human reason and volition to fall short of virtue and truth, i.e. sin and error which both undermine salvation and health (as described in the latin word “salute” in the Nicene Creed), bringing the necessity of psychological, philosophical, and theological help.7 This next quote will further assist our derivation of the Church’s interpretation of man:

The dignity of human life flows from creation in the image of God (Gn 1:26), from redemption by Jesus Christ (Eph 1:10; 1 Tm 2:4-6), and from our common destiny to share a life with God beyond all corruption (1 Cor 15:42-57) Catholic health care has the responsibility to treat those in need in a way that respects the human dignity and eternal destiny of all. The words of Christ have provided inspiration for Catholic health care: “I was ill and you cared for me” (Mt 25:36).[8]

The quote calls to mind our being made children of God, unfolding three truths: our source, our nature, and our destiny. Humans are created good, in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Each of us is made to be a single, unified, and yet relational self (John 17:21-24, John 13:34-35). Humans are called to membership in the Body of Christ through faith and baptism; i.e. communion (John 17:21-24, John 15:1-17). The Catholic understanding of the human person is that of a substantially unified creature of body and soul, made in the image and likeness of God, endowed with reason to govern free will (matter and form), yet corrupted if reason is neglected or misused—acting against this nature (contra-efficient and contra-final cause)—and thereby weakened in sin and error, but called, through grace in faith and baptism, to salvation from both sin and error, and restored to the communion for which humanity was created and longs (efficient and final cause).[9] In brief, man is, at once, 1) biological, 2) psychological/logical, 3)free/moral, 4) sociological/moral, 5) anthropological/teleological, 6) eschatological/spiritual, 7) corrupt, and 8) destined for salvation and everlasting life with God.

Third, given the antecedents, CBT is very compatible with Christianity, and therefore, is potentially very effective in improving the human condition. 1) Humans are bodily/biological. CBT recognizes the logical circuitry of behavior, namely that there is a logically discernible and dialogical cause-and-effect with any given behavior that results from both willed and unwilled beliefs, both of which form circuitry, i.e. conditioning is possible. 2) Humans are rational/logical. CBT recognizes that reason is the primary efficient cause of behavior, but reason is influenced by other factors as well. This is perhaps even more true for the standard behavior therapy. Successful CBT involves understanding the "middle premise in the old circuitry," recognizing how one's past and present reality is connected to a negative self-perspective and maladaptive behavior. Effective CBT aims to place good logic or “new circuitry” back in control of the will in place of the “old circuitry” by reprogramming this “middle premise”. 3) Humans have volition/will and thus a moral aspect. CBT recognizes the human has a will and is responsible for their behavior. This suggests that our emotions, influencing instinctual patterns, can impact our behavior in an unwilled fashion, thereby taking the helm of our will, reducing but not eliminating our freedom of will. 4) Humans are relational, social, and communion-bound. CBT accounts for social context, recognizing the human as a part of a social environment and thus relational, in that it considers behavior which always affects others. 5) Humans are substantially unified beings i.e. finite, singular entities. CBT breaks from psychoanalysis, which posits the human as a confluence of separate entities, rather than aspects.[10] It does not necessarily completely exclude this concept, but it does seem to suggest a human is substantially unified. 6) Humans are created in the image of God. CBT, naturally, makes no reference to this, but does not exclude it, and it even suggests that there is a discernible cause for any defect, thus implying we are inherently and otherwise good. 7) Humans are weakened by sin. If by sin one means maladaptive behaviors caused by preceding related, faulty beliefs, then behavior therapy does account for this. CBT does not in itself define right belief, but still recognizes the effect of error and sin against us i.e. our health. 8) Humans are called to membership in the body of Christ through faith and baptism. CBT makes no direct reference to divine filiation, but it does not exclude it. It does hold that our behaviors, inspired by faulty beliefs, can disintegrate us interiorly and from communion with others, thereby it does suggest that we have an objective integration of parts to which we are best directed and destined. Destination is what Catholics/Christians understand to be Life in Christ. No therapy would/could perfectly embrace all truths of the human person, nor subsequently, in itself detect and aim to cure the whole condition of the human person. Even so, it is reasonable to focus on a particular aspect of the person and work intelligibly with that aspect (eventually integrating other therapies). CBT addresses the content of one’s reason and how they act upon it, which naturally embraces much of the human reality.

Fourth, let us observe an example situation. It is reasonable to suspect a therapist would apply this theory and therapy in the case of addiction, as later to be shown. Let us take the case of Patrick, who now struggles with alcoholism and suicidal thoughts. He had a largely normal childhood, with the exception that his father gave himself more to hobbies of solitude and work than family time. This behavior left Patrick questioning himself and developing rebellious tendencies in his adolescence, creating perpetual openness to whatever temptations came from resisting authority by indulging in behaviors considered taboo, most prominently among them (at one point underage) drinking. We may note the nature of the problem being, from a therapist’s perspective, a faulty means of coping with the belief “authority is always illegitimate, because it imagines itself good, while not truly knowing and working toward the common good” and “I don’t deserve good things especially if difficult”. In applying CBT, a therapist would begin by investigating the logical flow from the childhood context to the current behavior of acting out, treating alcohol at certain moments as a necessary good, as if believing that the prior parts of his life had alcohol sustaining him. The therapist would address the fallacious beliefs by introducing a broader perspective, replacing maladapted conclusions and behaviors ("old circuitry") with more effective ones ("new circuitry") to improve reasoning and acceptance of the current situation. Subsequently, they would consider what undoing the hard-wired aspect of holding and acting upon said framework for years may require.11 The therapist may consider having the client repeat truths to himself or recognize how other behaviors affirm or assume the old framework and rather suggest that he do his best to act as if the new framework is true, because it is. Here is an example of what Patrick may believe: All children rely on parental love, attention, and guidance to develop a sense of self-worth and security (Premise 1.1, natural assumption). However, Patrick’s father prioritized hobbies of solitude and work over family time, failing to demonstrate consistent affection, care, and attention (Premise 1.2, father’s behavior). When a child does not receive consistent affection, care, and attention from a parent, they may conclude that they are unworthy of love or inherently flawed (Premise 1.3, therapist rationalization/client wound). Consequently, Patrick interpreted his father’s neglect as evidence that he was unworthy of love, undermining his sense of self-worth (Conclusion 1, father’s love to self-worth). Furthermore, all children who perceive themselves as unworthy of love seek ways to cope, often through rebellion or external affirmation (Premise 2.1, therapist’s rationalization/client’s actions). In Patrick’s case, his perception of being unworthy of love led him to question the legitimacy of authority, particularly that of his father (Premise 2.2, Patrick’s response to Conclusion 1 extrapolating a particular situation). When authority is seen as illegitimate, rebellion becomes a tempting outlet, including engaging in taboo behaviors like underage drinking (Premise 2.3, correlated assumption overthrowing the conscience). Therefore, Patrick’s feelings of neglect and unworthiness fostered a rebellious attitude and openness to temptations like underage drinking as a form of self-soothing and defiance (Conclusion 2, permission to override conscience). Behaviors initially adopted as a form of rebellion or coping can become habitual and escalate into addictions when the underlying emotional pain is unresolved (Premise 3.1, effect of Conclusion 2). Patrick used drinking to cope with his feelings of unworthiness and distrust of authority, but this behavior failed to address the root emotional issues (Premise 3.2, effect of Conclusion 2 and Premise 3.1). As drinking became habitual, it reinforced Patrick’s negative self-perception and created a cycle of dependence, deepening his despair (Premise 3.3, circular logic/negative feedback loop originating in Premise 2.3 and 3.2). Consequently, Patrick’s drinking escalated into problem drinking, as it both numbed his emotional pain and perpetuated his belief that he was unworthy of love and incapable of breaking free from his struggles (Conclusion 3, “justified” destructive behavior). After determining the status of the logic and conclusions, the therapist identifies the logical issue present (which due to being unconscious logic, the client will likely see the fallacy involved once presented with it, and the degree to which they don’t can be an indicator of the severity of struggle), noting when it binds behavior and emotion in order to work against it. For instance: Premises 1.1 and 1.2 describe reality, although Premise 1.1 can be applied by degree (as one should be able to qualify their expectations of parents by seeking identity and safety first in God (or themselves if atheist)) Premise 1.3 is necessary in fostering Conclusion 1. The therapist must help the client correct the logic by acknowledging that the father’s behavior is more an indicator of his values, which may be maligned, but that has no bearing on the client’s own goodness. Indeed, a parent should ascribe the full meaning of a person to a child and recognize that persons deserve more good than hobbies. The client can learn from this error and, when appropriate, advocate for change, perhaps even directly in reconciliatory conversation. The client may also recognize that his father might have thought he was showing love by providing rather than being present, believing it was his role or that he was socially inexperienced or perceived Patrick as always disgruntled in his presence. The therapist can help the client address these emotions as they arise with better conclusions and premises to repeat and act upon, such as: they are loved at least by God (when others seem to fail in this effort and often will, given our depravity); they are safe in Him; feelings can be converted into logical claims to share and enhance communion rather than suppress them; and they can be invited to new opportunities for love, which may clarify similar situations. Although the successive conclusions are dependent on those prior, it can be helpful to extend this process to all problematic permutations and applications of Conclusion 1, i.e. dismantling the “old circuitry” of implicative reasoning to prevent adverse behavioral outcomes. It is well worth noting that no good conclusion can come from the idea that one is “unloved and justly so,” and if that conclusion is ever felt to be true, then the “old circuitry” will be reinforced. In the second syllogism of the “old circuitry,” the assumptions or fallacies include responding to pain with a need to numb it, while neglecting its role as a signal of something wrong, extrapolating a particular to the general, defining authority solely as human and not accountable to Divine authority, and engaging in self-destruction to express the absurdity of apparent reality. Pain should be understood as a sign of a problem improper to one’s nature, indicating that the matter or form of a person is being undermined; thus, that understanding and mitigating the problem is worthwhile. Authority is meant to protect, guide, steward, and assist in the perfection or implementation of virtue in the governed. To the extent that authorities fail in this, they become tyrants, abusing power or neglecting responsibility for personal gain or convenience. If the system is well-ordered, authoritative personnel can be confronted or held accountable, either in time or at Divine judgment. Even though others may bear blame for damage done to us and the degree of its effect on us, one should not justify nor perpetuate self-destructive actions as testimony to such damage. Instead, the individual should address it with God and, if possible or appropriate, with the relevant persons to the extent they appear blameworthy. Broken parts of ourselves should neither be ignored nor exclusively lived out. In the third syllogism of the “old circuitry,” assumptions or fallacies include the belief that if a method and its extent seem insufficient, then the method itself should not be questioned and the conclusion that “this is what I deserve” remains unchallenged. A therapist may point out, if appropriate, that taking a depressant to mitigate depression is illogical and destructive. No one is worthy of receiving destructive behavior from within or without, as such self-pity leads nowhere helpful. Through this analysis, Patrick may learn how to love himself, give himself room to confront and forgive his father by seeing the offense as external to his identity, and take on the difficult task of loving himself rightly. Beyond the cognitive, narrative, and reasonable aspects of a person’s struggle lies the behavioral, and for Patrick, the behavioral transformation is accomplished ultimately by himself and those who support him. However, he begins this process by habitually changing his beliefs and using reason to follow up on true beliefs.

Fifth, given that each therapy has a specific focus, it will inevitably have a corresponding application that ensures its effectiveness/ideal impact. As can be seen in the example above and in its connection to the truth of a person as understood by the Catholic Church, CBT can have a positive effect across many situations. CBT dialogues with the whole person's body and mind so that the soul may be well, and in this way, CBT is at least a generalized help. If one is to claim the title Christian meritoriously rather than associatively, truly there must be a noteworthy change in the person, even if from generally moral to holy rather than debaucherous to holy (Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Ezekiel 36:26-27). CBT can reveal alignment, or lack thereof, to the “new circuitry” or new heart in Christ. CBT has also been shown to be effective for particular symptoms. CBT has been shown helpful in cases of “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder (CSBD) which includes problematic pornography use (PPU)”.[12] In children and adolescents, CBT has been shown to help with “internalizing disorders including anxiety, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder” in both efficacy studies and in routine clinical care.[13] CBT is shown to have efficacy in both university and clinical applications in externalizing disorders, especially Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder (CD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), and Internet Addiction/Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD).[14] CBT has also been shown to be effective in reducing the frequency and magnitude of psychosomatic symptoms such as migraine headaches and insomnia.[15] CBT has also been shown to be efficacious in cases of co-morbidity in psychosomatic symptoms, internalizing disorders, and externalizing disorder combinations/permutations.[16] CBT works in combination with other therapies in the treatment of substance use disorders.[17] Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), a derivation of the original cognitive therapy, has been shown effective in treating anxiety.[18] In summary, it seems CBT is effective anywhere a faulty life narrative is bringing negative effect, whether a reduction of life to a particular good (addiction) and/or to a particular struggle (emotional disorders).

Sixth, due to the aforementioned fact that a given therapy has its particular applications, it will certainly also have its particular limitations. However, there is a very particular set of limitations which are due more to its specificity of application than its effectiveness, since as stated above, CBT dialogues with a significant portion of man’s aspects and yet not all and not perfectly.[19] The most fundamental limitation exists in the extent of CBT application by the client, not unlike the old adage, “one can lead a horse to water, but may still not be able to get the horse to drink.” CBT cannot be effective without the client following through, it is likely that the “old circuitry” will remain a struggle for the client to varying extents, and the clients will vary (individually and moment to moment) in their desire to follow through. It is necessary for the client to form a “new circuitry,” ideally on what is true and virtuous, lest a new problem develop or the “old circuity” still persists, given man’s nature. Disorders which merit the use of CBT signal a need for total, internal, belief-framework adjustment, which can be done only by therapy follow-up via a client’s consistent, affirmative choice and action. Follow-up (or follow through) by the client requires genuinely putting effort forth outside of counseling sessions to alter habitual faulty beliefs, and living a narrative which does not hold the problematic behavior or emotion as necessary. Addictions are not usually solved only by therapy alone but also by a context of love and self-improvement, twelve-step groups often apply principles from CBT in a loving accountability, mitigating motivational issues concerning follow through.[20] Often, CBT requires knowledge of self in ways that may make clients uncomfortable, so they have to be willing to choose what is difficult, but this is a universal requirement to all forms of recovery (and often growth), even physical. Sometimes emotional conditions persist, even if improved, in spite of the client’s best efforts and keenness of self-knowledge, due to complexity or the subconscious nature of conditions, but again, this is the nature of all forms of recovery (also in light of man’s nature). Ultimately it is up to the client whether the therapy will be properly tailored to them by way of self-knowledge and communication, and whether it will be effective given that it is not a pill or surgery. The client alone can work with their own neurological reality, even if aided by pharmacology, counseling, support, etc.

In conclusion, cognitive-behavior therapy is the most compatible with Catholic anthropology, and as such, it is no surprise that it is the fundamental methodology of the twelve-step process, because the twelve-step framework is based on the Catholic understanding of man and conversion/salvation. A given therapy cannot have broadly positive efficaciousness unless it is united to more than one aspect of man. Since cognitive behavior therapy holds humanity is moral, biological, autonomous, and reasonable without opposing the spiritual, teleological, and eschatological aspects, it can bring positive healing in those areas. The limitations of CBT stem from the same human struggles it seeks to address, such as the stability of choices and diligence. CBT helps clients take action, guided by their therapist, to change harmful patterns of thought and behavior. These harmful patterns largely originate from one’s social and spiritual environment, and thus to recover with CBT, one must refute the error given to them. CBT does this by improving the matter and form of reasoning, challenging faulty assumptions and thereby replacing unhealthy habits with healthier habits. This effort opens the way for God’s grace—His intimate help in our journey toward healing and salvation. The Latin word salute in the Nicene Creed highlights this purpose of Christ’s Incarnation, Suffering, Death, and Resurrection.

Written by Carter Carruthers

Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra aetate (28 October 1965), §10.
Mutsuhiro Nakao, Kentaro Shirotsuki, and Nagisa Sugaya, "Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy for Management of Mental Health and Stress-Related Disorders: Recent Advances in Techniques and Technologies," Biopsychosocial Medicine 15, no. 1 (3 October 2021), 1
Nakao, Shirotsuki, and Sugaya, "Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy for Management," 1.
Nakao, Shirotsuki, and Sugaya, "Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy for Management," 1.
Nakao, Shirotsuki, and Sugaya, "Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy for Management," 1-2.
John Paul II, Address to the members of the "American Psychiatric Association" and the "World Psychiatric Association" (4 January 1993).
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 1849.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Church Document on the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Sixth Edition (1 June 2018), 10.
E. Christian Brugger, "Psychology and Christian Anthropology," Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology 3, no. 1 (2009), 5.
Gerald Corey, Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, Enhanced, 10th ed. (Brooks/Cole, 2020), 280.
Gerald Corey, Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, 294.
Sebastian Antons, Jana Engel, Peer Briken, Tillmann Krüger, Matthias Brand, and Robert Stark, "Treatments and Interventions for Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder with a Focus on Problematic Pornography Use: A Preregistered Systematic Review," Journal of Behavioral Addictions 11, no. 3 (2022), 662.
Gro Janne Wergeland, Eili Riise, and Lars-Göran Öst, "Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Internalizing Disorders in Children and Adolescents in Routine Clinical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Psychology Review 83, no. 1 (2021), 12-14.
Eili Riise, Gro Janne Wergeland, Urdur Njardvik, and Lars-Göran Öst, "Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Externalizing Disorders in Children and Adolescents in Routine Clinical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Psychology Review 83 (2021), 13.; Chuan-Hsin Chang, Yue-Cune Chang, Luke Yang, and Ruu-Fen Tzang, "The Comparative Efficacy of Treatments for Children and Young Adults with Internet Addiction/Internet Gaming Disorder: An Updated Meta-Analysis," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 5 (2022), 2.
Riise et al., "Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Externalizing Disorders," 13.; Elisabeth Hertenstein et al., "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Patients with Mental Disorders and Comorbid Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Sleep Medicine Reviews 62, no. 1(2022), 12.
Elisabeth Hertenstein et al., "Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Patients with Mental Disorders and Comorbid Insomnia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," 12.
Lara Ray, Lindsay Meredith, Brian Kiluk, Justin Walthers, Kathleen Carroll, and Molly Magill, "Combined Pharmacotherapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adults With Alcohol or Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," JAMA Network Open 3, no. 6 (2020), 11.
S. Ghahari et al., "Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Generalised Anxiety Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," East Asian Archives of Psychiatry 30, no. 2 (2020), 52.
Molly Magill, Brian D. Kiluk, and Lara A. Ray, "Efficacy of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Alcohol and Other Drug Use Disorders: Is a One-Size-Fits-All Approach Appropriate?" Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation 14, no.1 (2023), 2.
Lorenzo Zamboni, Francesco Centoni, Francesca Fusina, Elisa Mantovani, Francesca Rubino, Fabio Lugoboni, and Angela Federico, "The Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Techniques for the Treatment of Substance Use Disorders: A Narrative Review of Evidence," The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 209, no. 11 (2021): 835.

Does Therapy Work? What does it do?

2025-02-09T00:00:00.020-06:00

The question we are after here is "What does therapy offer us that friendship does not?" If it offers anything it would have to be something beyond close and healthy relationships. To answer this question, we must ask and answer a few others:

What is the human person?
The human person is a confluence of past, present, and spirit. Spirit is not a gnostic principle but rather a signal to reason—a framework of logic, judgment, and experience. We recognize that angels are understood by their frameworks: Satan is known by division (dis-communion), individualism (ego-theism), and the resolute refusal to serve God (contra-willing good, contra-willing, contra-good). In contrast, Michael is identified by the meaning of his name ("Who is like God?"), Raphael by "God heals," and Gabriel by "God is my strength." For humans, this experience differs, especially when viewed through the lens of humanity's finite, temporal, and material nature. Since we are material beings, the capacity for change is constrained; fundamentally altering one’s logic or reason requires corresponding changes in empirical experience. Our current state reflects the intersection of our present bio/psycho/social/spiritual experiences with those of our past. Further, anthropology is worth applying for comprehensive analysis, but for our current purpose, nothing further is necessary.
What is friendship?
Friendship, in its varying degrees and magnitudes, represents a genuine confluence of each other's bio/psycho/social/spiritual experiences and realities. Marriage elevates this relationship, introducing a substantial union that adds greater depth on every level. Discipleship, while less directly and intentionally therapeutic than a professional therapeutic relationship, can be understood as a step toward a therapeutic dynamic—distinct from marriage by degree.

Concluding thoughts

The therapeutic relationship, however, is specifically oriented toward the mutual purpose of improving the client’s bio/psycho/social/spiritual experience through the expertise of the therapist’s own bio/psycho/social/spiritual knowledge, particularly their academic and empirically evaluated insights. Therapy operates by:

Removing unnecessary reasoning-based elements that contribute to negative bio/psycho/social/spiritual experiences.
Planning for the improvement of these experiences.
Equipping the client to effectively interpret and respond to past and present challenges.

Therapy is distinct from friendship because its aim is not a confluence or communion of persons, but rather the utility and specific purpose of the relationship, the psychological client's healing. Friendship, by contrast, should remain free from utility as its defining feature. While one party may require more emotional support during a difficult season, this need should remain accidental in the relationship.[1] Otherwise, there is a risk of forming a habitual interpretation of the other as being present solely for one’s utility, rather than for mutual communion—a good in itself—or for the pursuit of an extrinsic good. Any more particular distinction is often dictated both by ethics and the respective therapy chosen. In times of our need, we should turn to those through whom He extends His healing and providential arm. We should not always and everywhere treat our fellow man as if God only exists in them and they are only here to bless us but also to serve, where we can, our fellow man. The truth is every person needs Christ, not in some abstract fashion nor in a "do better" sort of way but for providence in health, formation, salvation, and communion. If you take your problems to prayer, but the issues raised need a miraculous appearance you should seek spiritual direction as it pertains to following Christ well or counseling for a particular struggle against human nature in which simple desire, prayer, and more grace are not at issue. [2] Simple friendship will not help you answer what God's will is for you in terms of vocation, nor should be where you turn only for healing. In any case, there cannot be any shame in needing to take action for health, even mental health (as central as it is to personhood), because sin is the origin of all ailments, and none is free of that under the sun (Romans 3:23). [3]

Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Psychology in Theology

2025-02-02T00:00:00.001-06:00

Christ's Farewell to Mary

Those who cannot understand the Church and what She actually teaches, hastily take up a loose statement or common condemning, one-line tropes which apparently discredit Her. The issue is it becomes a strawman fallacy, condemning something without truly knowing beforehand and looking elsewhere for truth wandering and settling for a normal that is believed to be the best possible as if one themselves has a monopoly on truth. Tragically, this is the state of the culture and because of this, there is no one grand reason in particular for the deference from the faith on the personal convictions of those who hold this or that in contempt whether it be that the Church contains sinners to the fact She must make decisions. The false but powerful narratives drive the darkness that man has invited in place of God and man remains there shocked at the killing of a world at war in every way feeling trapped and alone. This gives a particular expression to what Christ's mission must look like and tragically it cannot only be the proclamation of love or simple mathematical truths, rather it must be dialogue with every individual about what ails them and a true encounter with what humanity ought to be that we may understand the intent and benevolence of Our Creator in a deeply personal fashion. Understanding the intricate relationship between psychology and theology illuminates how the human mind, heart, and soul are united in their journey toward wholeness in Christ.

Freudian Psychoanalysis particularly when viewed through a theological lens, provides profound insights into the reasons behind our emotions, actions, and struggles. As Christ teaches, “What comes out of a person is what defiles them”, suggesting that the roots of sin and dysfunction lie within the human heart (Mark 7:20-23). Often, these internal struggles stem from misunderstandings or misapplications of our "inner programming." Trauma, sin, and societal influences distort our understanding of ourselves and lead us to misuse or mistrust the very faculties meant to draw us closer to God. Resetting this "programming," as guided by grace, requires both introspection and a willingness to confront the parts of ourselves we have rejected or misunderstood.

Adlerian therapy’s focus on life narratives, for instance, aligns with the Christian understanding of each individual’s unique story and purpose. By examining a person’s earliest memories and family dynamics, we uncover patterns that reveal strengths, vulnerabilities, and areas needing healing. This approach echoes St. Thomas Aquinas’ assertion that grace builds upon nature; understanding our nature, therefore, allows us to receive God’s grace more fully. For example, when a client recalls a traumatic disciplinary experience, a minister or therapist might affirm the client’s inherent dignity while gently guiding them to reinterpret the event through the lens of God’s justice and mercy, fostering both healing and virtue.

Existential and person-centered therapies further highlight the importance of dignity and meaning in a Christian’s life. Existentialist anxiety often arises from a lack of hope or understanding of one’s divine purpose. Integrating the Gospel’s message of God’s unconditional love addresses this void, showing that our struggles are opportunities for growth in virtue and communion with Christ. Similarly, personalism, as reflected in person-centered therapy, mirrors the Christian call to accompany others—walking with, suffering with, and rejoicing with them—grounded in their inherent worth as children of God. This approach underscores the Catechism’s teaching that “Man’s dignity rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God."[1]

Gestalt therapy’s emphasis on resolving “unfinished business” resonates with the Christian understanding of sin and redemption. The lingering effects of sin—whether personal, societal, or inherited—can lead to feelings of disintegration and despair. Yet, by surrendering our burdens to Christ, who “reconciles to himself all things”, we allow God’s love to integrate our fragmented selves and bring healing to our deepest wounds (Colossians 1:20). This process requires acknowledging and letting go of the false narratives and harmful attachments that have taken root in our hearts, enabling us to fully embrace our identity as God’s beloved.

Behavioral therapies, particularly when informed by Catholic moral theology, guide us toward aligning our actions with God’s will. The Catechism notes that “Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.[2] Recognizing these influences helps us understand the interplay between our fallen nature and God’s grace, encouraging us to strive for virtue despite our limitations. By reframing our habits and thought patterns, we move closer to the moral perfection exemplified by Christ and Mary.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), in particular, complements theological reflection by addressing the false premises that underlie many of our struggles. For instance, someone who believes they are unlovable due to a parent’s neglect might internalize this as a fundamental flaw in themselves. Reframing this belief through a theological perspective—acknowledging God’s perfect love and the limitations of human love—challenges the faulty premise and opens the door to healing. Aquinas reminds us that truth is transformative: “Man’s ultimate happiness consists in the contemplation of truth”.[3] By aligning our thoughts with God’s truth, we replace despair with hope and disorder with peace.

In conclusion, the integration of psychology and theology reveals that human flourishing is rooted in love—both human and divine. The Incarnation addresses something in particular within our nature i.e. the disparity between our ideal existence and our fallen, broken state. The disparity is characterized by our communion with God within ourselves. As ministers, counselors, or friends, we are called to accompany others on their journey toward healing, offering both compassion and the truths of the Gospel. Ultimately, the journey toward healing is, yes a path to integration within the self, but also a course of action that will bring us back to integration with God, divinity, and humanity. By addressing the psychological and spiritual dimensions of their struggles, we participate in God’s work of restoration, helping them to embrace their true identity as His beloved children. Indeed, here is where the Church has always been and will always be ahead of the curve in the psychological science as we previously established, but God did not see fit that the Church alone would be the only source of Truth but that it would be confirmed by the sciences, and somehow the sciences approach, albeit asymptotically, the mission of Christ, which He imparts to His Body the Church and allows His most zealous lovers the Saints to assist in the revelation of humanity to man.

A Chat GPT Summary of half a semester's worth of work, Written by Carter Carruthers

FN:

Vivat Agnus Dei

Cohabitate, why not?

Chance, Intelligibility, and the Watchmaker Argument

Reflection on the Readings for Third Sunday of Advent - Year A

Divine Simplicity: The Essence and Existence of God

What is Happiness?

I: Virtuous Enjoyment

Part II: Eternal Meaning

Part IV: Satisfaction

Conclusion: Integration and Intersection, the Path of the Joyful, Peaceful, and Self-Giving Christian

Footnotes

See also

Rolling Stones, Satisfaction, 1965.:

Johnny Lee, Looking for Love, 1980.

G-Easy and Halsey, Him & I, 2017.

Starset, Dark things, 2025.

The "Hour of the Son of Man", Suffering, and Mary's Maternity

The Strengths and Limits of the Argument from Miracles

Where the World’s Definition of Freedom Leads

The Role Sad Songs and Rock Can Have in Healing and Conversion

Law & Virtue: Freedom Refined for True Goodness

I. Freedom: License vs. Ordered Power

II. St. Thomas on Law and True Freedom

III. Divine Law and Human Fulfillment

IV. Virtue and the Practice of True Freedom

Specific Virtues as Examples

Conclusion

Evangelizing Cultures and the Freedom Brought by Christ

Humility: Respecting Human Dignity in Everyday Life

Human Dignity and Soul

Letter from Rome: A Historical Fiction Sequel

An Intro to Lectio Divina and considering Practicing what One Preaches

Introduction

Opening Prayer

Luke 21:25-28, 34-36

Lectio

Meditatio

Oratio

Contemplatio

Operatio

Free-Will, Moral Evil, and Disposition to the Good

Misattribution of Blame via Falsehood and Deceitful Reasoning

The Argument Summarized

Or, more precisely and explicitly the Formalized Argument:

Premises Related to Anti-Abortion Laws and Their Supporters

Premises Related to Abortion Justification

Conclusion Against Anti-Abortion Views

Consequences of Anti-Abortion Laws

Evaluating the Justification for Abortion

Addressing the Safety Argument Against Anti-Abortion Laws

Final Thoughts: The Error of Justifying Evil

Freedom, Morality, and Purity of Heart

Confession: The Call to Forgiveness Pt. 2

Confession: The Call to Forgiveness Pt. 1

Fostering Hope and Evangelization Among Youth

1. Hope in Youth

2. Authentic Accompaniment

3. The Christian Life as a Struggle

4. Guidance and Evangelization

5. Learning from Youth

Written by Carter Carruthers & Arranged by ChatGPT

Footnotes

Educating for Relationship: An Approach to Youth Ministry

A Catholic Evaluation of Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

Does Therapy Work? What does it do?

Psychology in Theology

**Rolling Stones, Satisfaction, 1965.:**

**Johnny Lee, Looking for Love, 1980.**

**G-Easy and Halsey, Him & I, 2017.**

**Starset, Dark things, 2025.**