Pope Leo has called for a meeting of the presidents of the world’s bishops’ conferences to Rome in October. The topic? The controversial document Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis’s document on the family that opened the door for divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion. My (unrealistic) hope is that they decide to scrap it completely. Beyond the infamous footnote 351, the whole thing is a mess, and reflects a remaking of Jesus into a modern image.
Clergy Spine Alert!Father Jakob Rolland faces prison in Iceland. Why? Because he defended Catholic teaching on homosexuality, which is verboten in Europe these days. But he’s not backing down, saying he will “fight for the Lord.” More like this, please!
In the highest-ranking resignation in years, Director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center and close MAGA ally Joe Kent resigned from his post. He made clear his two-fold reason: “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” While I know he’ll be maligned by supporters of the war (rather than addressing his concerns), he’s a hero in my book. I hope more resignations follow (are you listening, Tulsi Gabbard?).
I’m loving my Ignatius Study Bible, Personal Size.No one would mistake it for a small bible, but it’s a convenient size when doing serious study of the Scriptures at a desk. The commentary is wonderful and helps bring out deeper meanings of the Word of God. You can get one here. I personally recommend the hardback instead of the leather cover.
Death doesn’t take Chuck Norris; Chuck Norris permits Death to come. Legend Chuck Norris is dead at the age of 86. Although we can all have fun with jokes about how tough Chuck Norris was, it’s a good reminder that all of us—without exception—will one day face death. Memento mori!
Two weeks ago in my Editor’s Desk column, I asked, “Will we go to war with Iran or won’t we?” A few hours later, we found out: we will. I’ve been clear that I believe this war (and yes, it is a war) does not satisfy the conditions of Just War Theory. Further, America’s involvement is primarily fueled by heretical Protestant beliefs about the End Times. I realize many Crisis readers support this war, but it’s my strong belief that Catholics should oppose it both for both political and religious reasons. Regardless of your views, however, we should all pray for peace, especially through the intercession of Blessed Karl.
Blowback is all-too-common yet all-too-ignored when it comes to military actions. Osama bin Laden stated openly that the reason for 9/11 was his opposition to America’s first Iraq War and its continuing military presence in the Middle East. Now we already see blowback from this new war: a Lebanese man who recently lost family members in an Israeli attack in Lebanon drove his truck into a Detroit-area synagogue. Fortunately, no innocents were harmed (only the attacker was killed). This is just one of the consequences of war: it can create enemies even in our own midst.
I haven’t been on X as much lately, but I did have the “honor” of being reposted by Senator Ted Cruz recently. Well, more accurately, he reposted a post of someone criticizing me. I noted that “Christian Zionism, fueled by Sola Scriptura, has deadly consequences,” and the popular account “Insurrection Barbie” replied, “Once you see it you can’t unsee it. These people are telling you reading the Bible has deadly consequences. Wake up America. This was never about Israel,” which Senator Cruz reposted. Of course, that’s not what I was saying, but one can’t expect a country build on Protestant (and therefore sola scriptura) foundations to understand that saying not everyone has authority to interpret the Bible does not mean that we should not read the Bible. Having Ted Cruz against me is nice, but I’ll know I’ve really arrived when Ben Shapiro goes after me…
The SSPX still plan to consecrate bishops this summer, which could lead to the formal excommunication of the consecrating bishops and the priests consecrated. I’m still hopeful something can be worked out, and it’s good to see one of the world’s holiness and best bishops, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, is working to reconcile the Vatican with the Society. Even if you don’t support the SSPX, you should be praying for His Excellency’s efforts, for in this time of crisis, Church officials should be embracing Catholics serious about their Faith, not pushing them away.
In a world of conflict and division, what can we do resolve today’s crises? Podcast more? Post on social media more? Argue with our friends more? How about: Go to Mass more. It might seem simplistic, but Mass is our greatest weapon in the spiritual battles of our age (or any age). But it’s important that we understand the true purpose of the Mass, or we could be undermining the graces it produces.
Traditionis custodescontinues to rear its ugly head: a Brazilian archbishop has declared that anyone attending a TLM at an unapproved location (and there’s only one approved location in the archdiocese) is automatically excommunicated for “schism.” This is insane and clearly an abuse of power by a canonically-ignorant bishop. There’s no way this would hold up on appeal to the Holy See…assuming the Holy See judges things rightly. We need to pray for traditional Catholics persecuted by their shepherds for just wanting to attend the Mass of our ancestors.
Speaking of insane, the Trump Administration has blacklisted the AI company Anthropic because it wouldn’t play ball in allowing the Pentagon to use its software however it wanted. Trump officials say it would only be used for “lawful purposes,” but Anthropic is worried its AI could be used for massive surveillance or for fully autonomous weapons, i.e., weapons in which an AI could kill a human without any human approval. AI companies are exactly known for their moral code, but in this case it’s clear that Anthropic is in the right: do we really want AI that can kill on its own? It’s the stuff of dystopian novels.
Cardinal Pizzaballa continues to be the voice for the suffering in the Middle East. He recently noted the hypocrisy of the international community for holding Israel and Russia to two completely different standards. Actions by Russia that merit swift condemnation are ignored (or even supported) when conducted by Israel. God bless His Eminence and may he continue to be a voice for the victims in Palestine and throughout the region.
Will we go to war with Iran or won’t we? If nothing else, this Trump presidential term has been anything but boring. Trump continues to consider an attack on Iran, and it seems like every week there’s another invented justification for it. We need to pray, through the intercession of Blessed Karl of Austria, the Peace Emperor, that things are settled without violent conflict.
ICYMI: If you want to get caught up in the latest on the SSPX plan to consecrate bishops without Vatican approval, and the Vatican’s response to this plan, be sure to check out this week’s podcast episode on the topic.
Do you recognize this photo? It went viral after the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville in 2017, and the man on the right became the online face of white supremacists. Next week here at Crisis we’ll tell the wonderful story of redemption for this young man. Be sure to check it out.
Next week will mark the 34th anniversary of my decision to become Catholic. When I look back on that time, I’m amazed by how little I knew, and how Our Lord and Our Lady guided me into the Church in spite of my ignorance. I was also hopelessly naïve: I saw the Church through rose-colored glasses, and had I known then the true depth of the crisis in today’s Church, I might not have converted.
But Our Lord is merciful, and He never gives us more than we can bear. Over the years I’ve come to recognize the evils that exist in the Church, yet I can honestly say that I’m more excited to be Catholic today than I was three decades ago. Why? Because I’ve seen the wonderful works of God inside the Church—works that far outweigh any evils that man can commit. I’ve seen hardened souls (including my own) converted, families earnestly serving the Lord in spite of hardship, and priests glorifying God by their quiet and faithful service to Him.
I recently sat down with Keith Nester, a former Protestant pastor who converted to Catholicism ten years ago, to discuss my journey. It’s the most in-depth and intimate interview I’ve ever given: I detail my conversion, my work in evangelization over the years, and how I view today’s crisis in the Church. Ultimately, it’s a message of hope: that God is with us and is converting souls, no matter how bad things might look around us.
I’ve recently been reading Nicholas Carr’s 2011 book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, in which Carr recounts how the medium in which we receive information changes how we interact with and receive that information. Even a seemingly small difference, such as reading a hardback edition of a book rather than a paperback, can impact our reception of what we receive. And of course major differences like those between a physical book and a short internet video can have a significant influence.
The last century has seen a dramatic change in how we consume content. We’ve gone from reading physical books hundreds of pages long to scrolling through 20-second TikTok videos. Even 30 years ago, before the advent of the consumer internet, most people still read books or at least newspaper or magazine articles. That’s no longer the case.
In response to these changes, most media outlets have swum with the current, adapting their content form to what’s culturally popular at the time. This holds true for both secular and Catholic outlets. We here at Crisis have done so as well—in 2007 we dropped the physical magazine and went completely online after 25 years of print publishing. We added a podcast five years ago, and now produce video shorts from those podcasts.
Yet I’ve become increasingly convinced that here at Crisis Magazine we need to swim against the cultural tide—not just in what we say (we’ve always done that), but in how we deliver what we say. In a world in which news and commentary is increasingly reduced to headlines and sound bits, we will re-embrace deeper dives into the news.
This initiative will primarily entail two aspects. First, we will publish more long-form articles. Our article word limit has been 1,500 words, with rare exceptions. Now I am encouraging our writers to submit longer, meatier pieces, with lengths up to 5,000 words. Occasional lengthier articles will be opportunities to provide more in-depth analysis of the crises in today’s Church and today’s culture.
As I’ve already noted, this goes against the grain. While success at most websites is typically measured by the number of clicks a post receives, we’ll be measuring an article’s effectiveness by the total time our readers engage with it. We won’t aim for “click-and-bail” articles, but “click-and-read-deeply” pieces. We plan to make some cosmetic changes to our website as well to make reading these longer articles easier.
Does this go against today’s prevailing trends and our increasingly attention-deficient culture? Sure, but I don’t think 20-second videos and clickbait articles can provide a way forward for Catholics. If we’re going to reform the Church and impact the world, we need to be serious about it instead of chasing clicks and influencer status. We need to zag while everyone else is zigging.
Secondly, we’re committing more time and resources to the Crisis Point podcast by investing in new equipment and crafting a plan to increase our release schedule. Our podcast episodes will also cover a wider range of topics, including deeper looks into how Catholics can live faithful lives in our confusing age, while continuing to comment on the latest news.
Don’t worry, faithful readers, we have no plans to scale back our article production—we’ll keep offering two insightfully written commentaries a day during the week, as we have for years now, and, as I already mentioned, some of those articles will be more in-depth than before. But since the podcast also allows for longer-form commentary and draws a different demographic, we believe it’s essential to our mission to invest in that medium.
I would encourage any readers who have not yet checked out the Crisis Point podcast—or haven’t listened in a while—to give it a try. You can access all past episodes as well as links to find us on the major platforms like YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts on our main podcast page. I also host a live podcast on Tuesdays at 3pm ET that streams on YouTube, Rumble, Facebook, and 𝕏—join in and contribute to our spirited live chat.
One final change we’re making here at Crisis: we’re officially implementing an AI policy. As now noted on our Submission Guidelines page:
We expect all our articles to be fully written by the (human) author, but it is acceptable for writers to use AI for assistance in cleaning up and tightening an article. To this end, we will check every submission with an AI detector and use the results as a significant factor in considering the article for publication.
This new world of AI is controversial and its use can raise moral questions. We’re not planning an anti-AI jihad here at Crisis, but we know our readers expect our articles to represent the well-thought-out and well-crafted views and voice of their authors; they should not simply be the result of an AI prompt. We’ve already rejected a few submissions for being AI-generated, and we’ll continue to monitor all submissions to ensure as best we can that our commentary is produced by man, not machine.
It’s an exciting time to be Catholic, and it’s an exciting time for Crisis Magazine. I look forward to deeply engaging with you here at this site and on our podcast in the months and years to come.
This Sunday, January 4, marks five years since I took the helm at Crisis Magazine. At the time we were in the midst of the Covid madness, Pope Francis was confusing faithful Catholics, the 2020 election was being disputed, the January 6th “riots” were only two days away. It was clear then that we were in the midst of a crisis, ecclesiastically, politically, and culturally, and so the mission of Crisis was vitally needed. After five years, while some of the issues have changed, the crisis is still with us and so I still believe in the mission of this magazine. Let’s take a look back at the previous five years and what articles most resonated with our readers.
2021
My first year at Crisis, 2021, was dominated by Covid-related news. This was the year the vaccines were first rolled out, and masking mandates were imposed everywhere, including many Catholic parishes. Online censorship became rampant as social media companies tried to prevent an honest accounting of the Covid response. We here at Crisis took a lot of heat that year for our stand against these measures (we were one of the few mainstream Catholic publications to do so), but history has proven us correct. More than anything, the Covid pandemic was an opportunity for the powerful to take more control over the world, but fortunately there was pushback from many quarters, including this one.
2021 also saw one of the worst papal documents in history: Traditionis Custodes, promulgated by Pope Francis in July 2021 to severely restrict the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass. We here at Crisis have been strongly opposed to this unjust decree and we continue to pray that it will be fully rescinded in the near future. One bright spot from this motu proprio was the resistance to it by many bishops around the world, including here in the United States. Most of this resistance wasn’t outspoken, but instead involved implementing it as minimally as possible or even ignoring it altogether.
The political news in 2022 was dominated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here again we took heat for refusing to blindly follow the neocon unquestioned American support for Ukraine. We did not put a Ukrainian flag on our social media profiles. For this we were called “Putin stooges” and other names, but again history has shown the wisdom of our more balanced view of the situation. Covid-related restrictions were still in place in many places, and I wrote my most controversial article ever with the provocatively titled “Pachamama Did This.”
Probably the biggest story in the Church in 2023 was the removal of Bishop Joseph Strickland from the Diocese of Tyler, Texas in November. There wasn’t even an attempt to give cause for this removal; instead it was just another instance of the pettiness of Pope Francis. 2023 was also the year that the Synod on Synodality officially began, which was the Vatican’s attempt to be as out of touch as possible with the faithful.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an attack on Israel that led to an overwhelming response by Israel against Palestine, particularly Gaza, with full United State support. Here at Crisis we were willing to be critical of this US support as well of what we believe is Israel’s disproportionate response, which has led to much criticism from some conservatives. In fact, our criticism of Israel has led to a few Crisis writers leaving our fold and a small but significant number of Catholics disassociating with us. But we feel our position is consistent with Catholic moral teaching as well as political prudence.
I felt like 2024 was a waiting period for Catholics: we were anticipating the death of Pope Francis throughout the year and contemplating a post-Francis Church. While he didn’t pass away in 2024, it was a time to look forward with guarded hope.
And of course 2024 was a presidential election year, with Donald Trump being re-elected after four years out of office. It was also the year that podcasts became mainstream, replacing legacy media as the platform where news really happens.
2025 was a year of transitions: we got a new president here in America and a new pope in the Catholic Church. Early indications from both new occupants are promising, but 2026 will likely reveal more clearly the direction of both the United States and the Church. This past year was also when Gen Z began to dominate the headlines, changing the conversation in both politics and Catholicism (in mostly positive ways, in my opinion).
With your indulgence, I need to set the record straight.
I don’t want to defeat progressive Catholics or purge them from the Church.
I want to help convert them so they see how beautiful tradition is and how it leads people to Christ.
What most certainly does NOT lead people to Christ is a self-centered, endless committee-based synodal Church. Whatever that means. Imagine how the fifteenth subcommittee of the eighth session of the synod on synodality might. . . what’s the word. . . reimagine Our Lord’s Great Commission from Matthew 26.
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and hold meetings of all nations, synodizing them in the spirit of the age, teaching them to observe all that the world commands.”
Your support for Crisis Magazine has a far larger impact than you know. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard from priests how our articles have been shared among them, and how encouraged they are to read the truths they’ll never hear from the chancery.
And we have a LOT of priest subscribers. More than a few bishops too.
In fact, I can be even more specific: Your support today goes directly to the support of traditional, orthodox Catholicism, including a constant and strong defense of the Latin Mass and teachings that remain true in and out of season.
You see, Catholic Tradition can’t be killed. It can be attacked. It can be subverted. It can even be ignored, as you and I know too well.
But it will always come back stronger than ever.
With the blessing of Pope Leo, Cardinal Raymond Burke recently celebrated the first traditional Mass in more than two years at St. Peter’s, and thousands of Catholics were present. Two other cardinals and around 200 clergy were there to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well.
This ideological assault on tradition launched under the previous pontificate has done more to draw attention to the ancient liturgy than it has to dissuade anyone.
But we have more to do if we’re going to make the most of this hopeful moment.
This is where you and Crisis Magazine come in. Right now, we need timely reporting on what is going on in Rome, insightful analysis, and a fearless commitment to the truth.
In other words, the Church needs Crisis. And in this fraught moment, we need all of our donors’ most generous support so we can increase our coverage, grow our podcast platform, and reach more faithful than ever before. Already 544 readers have supported our Year-End Campaign with $80,533 (thank you if you were one of them!), but we still have $19,467 to go.
And right now, every first-time Crisis donation will be matched dollar-for-dollar by an anonymous donor. This match technically lasts until December 31, but only for the first $13,000 in donations!
Are you with us? I hope you will be. It’s a great time to be Catholic. None of the darkness of our culture or the confusion in the Church can dull the edge of a Church that is alive in Jesus Christ—that is unafraid to bring the truth with love, with or without permission, to a world starving for the truth of Christ.
Let’s rest in Christ this Christmas season, a season of hope and restoration.
Boomers run the Catholic Church. Now, I know that many in the Baby Boomer cohort react to the term “Boomers” like a black person reacts to a white Republican using the N-word, but hear me out for a minute. By “Boomer,” I simply mean the views that dominate that age group and what it’s most known for. I don’t mean that every actual Baby Boomer has this mentality.
In the Catholic world, it means an allergy to any devotional or liturgical practice from before 1960; a horizontal rather than vertical spiritual focus; an innate desire to please the world; and an equating of all religions as equal, with Catholicism just one option among many. Pope Francis was the poster boy of this way of looking at the Church and the world. This Catholic Boomerism worldview is firmly entrenched among our Church leaders, no matter their physical age.
Fortunately, more and more Catholics in the pews are recognizing this warped worldview for the shallow fraud it is, and so are rejecting it. Yet there are dangers in how one reacts to Catholic Boomerism as well. I refer to the “Doomers.” These are the Catholics—often either de jure or de facto sedevacantists but sometimes just traditional-minded Catholics—who are so upset by the Boomer leadership that they believe the Church’s sky is perpetually falling. No action by any prelate is seen as good news: they’re either an insidious plot to fool “true” Catholics or just a way to have us drop our guards and actually—gasp!—trust our leaders. And you know what makes these Doomer Catholics most upset? That not everyone else is upset as they are.
Don’t get me wrong: obviously I believe things are going poorly in many ways in the Church, and we can and should criticize the actions of our Church leaders when necessary. We shouldn’t be “happy-clappy” Catholics who refuse to ever speak up when souls are scandalized, believing any criticism, however slight, is somehow the sign of a bad Catholic who doesn’t trust Jesus. That’s a silly and immature way of looking at things. But the Doomers don’t just want constructive criticism on select occasions: they want every moment to be DEFCON 1, every controversy to prove that everything sucks in the Church, and every single action of Pope Leo to be an act of the anti-Christ (or at least an anti-pope). A Doomer’s identity as a Catholic is wrapped up in constant and unrelenting attacks on the Church hierarchy—a spiritually destructive way of life that undermines trust in Christ’s promises that he will always protect the Church. It’s also spiritually sterile; it leads no souls to conversion.
Which brings me to the other group I want to address, the Zoomers. They, of course, are the members of Gen Z, which everyone seems to be talking about these days. There’s a growing cohort of young cradle Catholics serious about their faith, and one of the miracles of the past couple years is the increase in Gen Z conversions to Catholicism (and, if I’m being fair, also to Eastern Orthodoxy). While it would take more than a few articles to fully dive into the reasons for these conversions, one thing is clear about these young Catholics: they reject both Boomerism and Doomerism.
The shallow practice of Boomer Catholicism holds no attraction for these young people. They don’t want felt banners and insipid homilies and bland liturgies. They reject the religious indifferentism of 1970’s Catholicism. They want something solid and secure, clear and convincing—not the embraced ambiguities that have dominated Church life since Vatican II.
But before the Doomers—who are mostly trads, after all—get excited, the Zoomers aren’t interested in the nonstop negativity of the Doomer worldview. After all, why would they be? Like all youth since time immemorial, they tend to be optimistic about the future, even if they are realistic about what’s wrong in the world (and the Church) today. Why follow a Christ who apparently failed to keep things together in his Church? While these young Catholics—both the converts and the faithful cradles—recognize with clear eyes the problems in today’s Church, they still trust Christ and His Promises, and they have hope for the future.
So what does this mean for those of us who aren’t Zoomers? No matter what other generational group we fall into—Boomer, Gen X, or Millennial—we need to recognize that the future will not be defined by the battles of the past. Zoomers can and should learn from the wisdom of their elders, to be sure, but at the same time, they are wise to jettison a lot of the battles that have defined the Church since the 1960’s, battles which frankly become increasingly irrelevant with each passing day. Zoomers have no emotional attachment to Vatican II—or to the incessant arguments about Vatican II. They love many aspects of Tradition, but don’t want to be associated with the negativity that often overshadows the traditional movement. Ultimately, they look with optimism to the Church’s future, one that’s led by neither Boomers or Doomers.
There’s wisdom there for Catholics of every generation, if we are willing to listen.
For more than 40 years Crisis Magazine has worked to expose and oppose the cultural forces both inside and outside the Church that turn us against the good, the true, and the beautiful. I believe Crisis has been fulfilling that mission admirably, and we will continue to do so going forward.
Yet, exposing and opposing the rot is not enough—we must also create an alternative culture, one that points people to deeper truths than those the world offers, in ways that are both enlightening and entertaining. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of seeing ads for the latest movies, TV shows, and books that clearly aim to mock basic morality and denigrate the Faith.
In that vein, I’m excited to announce the publication of my first novel, Shard of Eden, a futuristic tale of six men on a perilous mission in deep space.
At the dawn of the 22nd century, mankind finds itself recovering from the Chaos Wars—a global AI revolt that decimated much of the planet. An unprecedented wave of conversions to Catholicism has brought millions into the Church, and the Vatican has taken on a mantle of world leadership unseen since the Middle Ages. Now, Church scientists have detected a Signal from deep space that seems to indicate the possibility of undiscovered intelligent life. Hero of the Chaos Wars Pope Gregory XIX sends a ship to investigate; what the crew finds will have profound implications for humanity.
If this sounds interesting, I encourage you to pick up a copy of Shard of Eden. The novel has a deep Catholic ethos, but it avoids being preachy. According to early readers, it is, above all, a good story. One reviewer wrote,
Excellent first fiction effort from Mr. Sammons: he develops a good sense of mystery for the characters as they travel toward their mysterious signal and does a good job of explaining each character’s background in flashback chapters. The plot twists are well done with the epilogue leaving a sense of foreboding & mystery. Highly recommended and very worth your time and money!
Shard of Eden is also a great gift for the book lover in your life; though written for adults, the content is clean and appropriate for teens.
The most powerful public statement of my lifetime—a statement so revolutionary it could transform our society and culture in ways we can’t foresee—was uttered by a grieving widow this past Sunday.
“That young man…I forgive him.”
The widow, of course, was Erika Kirk, the wife of slain Christian activist Charlie Kirk, and the “young man” was his alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson. At a memorial service full of amazing speeches (Secretary of State and Catholic Marco Rubio explaining the Incarnation and the Gospel in 90 seconds was just one of many highlights), Mrs. Kirk unleashed a spiritual weapon beyond all human comprehension, beyond the wisdom of this world: forgiveness. She did this on a personal level, as only she could do as a widow, but her public act of forgiveness might very well impact us all.
Before we talk about the public consequences of Mrs. Kirk’s act, however, let us not gloss over the difficulty behind it. I remember living in Steubenville, Ohio in 1999 when three Franciscan University students were slain. At a memorial service, the mother of one of those students forgave the killers. At first I thought it was a nice gesture, but one that any Christian should and would do. But then I considered what I would do if someone killed one of my children or my wife, and I realized forgiveness is not something I’m not sure I could offer. It hit me what an extreme and formidable act forgiveness can be.
If a loved one is killed in cold blood, the natural—the human—reaction is anger and then hatred toward the one who took away your beloved. To forgive in such a situation is literally humanly impossible: you need Christ and his grace to do it. And Erika Kirk accepted that grace and did the impossible: she forgave the one who had committed this incredible evil against her. After she made her act of forgiveness, the crowd immediately recognized what it meant and what it took and rose to their feet in appreciation, with very few dry eyes in the building (or among the millions of people watching online).
As I said, this was a personal act by Erika Kirk, but it unleashed a spiritual power that can make a lasting impact on society by showing clearly for all to see that there are two sides in this battle, and one is good and one is evil. When George Floyd died in 2020, it unleashed Satanic forces that threatened to tear our country apart. There was no talk of forgiveness; just payback in the form of destruction and death. Yet when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, it unleashed perhaps the greatest proclamation of the Gospel in this country—in word and in deeds—we’ve seen since perhaps the 19th century. That’s the difference between the two sides fighting for control of our country’s future. It’s not to say that the side of good doesn’t make mistakes or at times supports things that are contrary to the good, but no objective person can act any more like the two sides are morally equivalent.
We simply cannot overestimate the impact Mrs. Kirk’s beautiful act might have. St. Paul wrote that when we do good for our enemy, we “heap coals on his head” (Romans 12:20). It’s not that we do good in order to crush our enemies, but instead that our good acts shame our enemies and lead outside observers—and even our very enemies—to recognize we are on God’s side and they need to join us. Since our battle today is primarily a spiritual battle (and when isn’t it?), our primary goal in defeating our enemies is their conversion. That’s ultimate victory. That’s what makes our true enemies—the devil and his fallen angels—completely and utterly defeated. Mrs. Kirk put the Gospel in action, and there’s no telling what might now happen.
A final point. Some people were concerned that Mrs. Kirk’s forgiveness of her husband’s killer might mean that the assassin shouldn’t face justice by the State. That somehow Christian mercy conflicts with temporal justice. That’s not how it works. Christianity has always been built on forgiveness as its central doctrine—after all, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness—yet it has always supported the viability of the death penalty (no matter what some quarters these days might say).
These two beliefs are not incompatible or contradictory ideas. The Christian person is commanded to forgive, both for his own personal salvation as well as for the hoped-for salvation of the criminal. The Christian state, however, is required to mete out justice so that the social order can be preserved in order that the proclamation of the Gospel might flourish. So Erika Kirk is right to forgive her husband’s killer, but so is the State right to execute him if it finds him guilty.
It’s quite possible our country is on the verge of a Great Awakening, one that leads many souls to Christ. Pray for our government leaders and their role, but also pray for our Church leaders that they may recognize the moment we are in and use it to bring many souls into Christ’s Church.
Back in March I wrote an article “Catholics Are Rapidly Losing Ground” in which I commented on a recent Pew Survey showing dire numbers about Catholicism, including the fact that for every person who becomes Catholic, over eight leave the Church. I didn’t try to sugar-coat the news and bluntly stated that this was very bad news for the Church, and that radical changes were necessary. The article went viral (it’s our most visited article in 2025 so far), and many other articles quoted it; in particular, many non-Catholics quoted me as a Catholic source proving that Catholicism was dying in this country.
However, since that article there’s been a growing narrative that the Catholic Church in America is on the upswing; in particular, that it seems like the number of converts to Catholicism is exploding. Just this week Catholic Michael Knowles was interviewed on the Tucker Carlson Show, and Carlson joked that “everyone is becoming Catholic.”
So was I (and Pew Survey I based my article on) wrong? Is the Church shrinking, or is it experiencing a revival with a new wave of converts?
Actually, the answer is that both are true. The Church is definitely shrinking, and there does seem to be an upsurge in conversions to Catholicism. The reality is that millions of cradle Catholics, particularly young Catholics, are leaving the Church. At the same time, an increasing number of non-Catholics, particularly young non-Catholics, are becoming Catholic. Yes, the former number dwarfs the latter number (by 8 to 1), but the latter number is becoming more significant.
But how can these two apparently disparate things both be true? The cross-traffic into and out of the Church is due to each person’s personal experience of Catholicism.
Consider the average cradle Catholic growing up in the Church today. His primary experience of Catholicism is his local parish, which is sadly often effeminate, non-threatening, and weak. It’s full of 1970’s musical ditties and insipid homilies and hordes of older women dominating parish life (picture the army of Extraordinary Ministers invading the altar when it’s time to distribute Holy Communion). There’s nothing about this experience to suggest that Catholicism has the answers to today’s nihilistic culture. It doesn’t fight against the lies young people experience every day—lies about human sexuality, lies about the family, and lies about the purpose of life. Instead it just tells them to be nice. When the average young cradle Catholic thinks this is what Catholicism represents, he simply leaves as a young adult in his search for real answers to today’s problems.
Now consider the average young non-Catholic today. He’s never stepped foot in a Catholic parish. He might know a few Catholics, but most of them aren’t serious about the Faith so they don’t talk about it much. But he does encounter and interact with Catholics online. And these Catholics are far more likely to present a Catholicism that’s masculine, robust, and offering real answers (the Church’s answers!) to today’s problems. It rejects the weak Catholicism that became dominant starting in the 1970’s. This is attractive, and so a growing number of those non-Catholics are deciding to become Catholic. Further, they’re much more likely to then enter the Church through a parish that’s more traditional and more unapologetic about being Catholic.
So yes, the Catholic Church is shrinking—far too many souls are leaving Christ’s Church. But there’s much room for hope, because more and more people are recognizing that Catholicism has the words of eternal life, words given to us by Christ Himself. Our challenge now as Catholics is to transform more and more parishes to become hubs for the revival taking place, to become those masculine, robust, traditional parishes that answers today’s problems. Then we’ll have far fewer cradle Catholics leaving, and increase the already-growing number of non-Catholics entering.
Let me be direct: other than Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I’m no fan of modern depictions of the life of Jesus. Whether it’s Jesus of Nazareth or The Chosen or just about any other attempt, modern portrayals of Christ’s fall flat. They typically insert too much of our modern world into the scenes—either subconsciously or in a misguided attempt to make Christ’s world more understandable to moderns. Mary ends up being a whiny teenager or Peter a big goofball or, worst of all, Jesus becomes a modern therapist. While I appreciate the desire to make the story of Jesus more accessible to today’s audiences, most attempts do nothing other than demonstrate how difficult the task remains.
This is no small matter, either. How we view Jesus is perhaps the most important question in the world: Who do you say that I am? Due to the power of books as well as cinema, a faulty depiction of the life of Jesus Christ can have far-reaching, even eternal, consequences.
I say all this to emphasize my trepidation when I picked up the book My Brother’s Keeper: A Novel About the Family of Jesus by Bill Kassel. I was interviewed on the author’s podcast about an unrelated topic, and he asked me if he could send the book to me to check out. I agreed, but to be honest, I groaned a bit inside when he described it, based on my views explained above. I figured I would read the first chapter or two, then set it aside and forget about it.
That’s not what happened, however.
Instead I found myself quickly engrossed in the story and ended up reading the 581-page book in about a week (I’ll admit, I was helped by the fact that I was on vacation that week). Most importantly, I felt like I came away after reading the book with a better understanding of the Gospels and the story of Jesus and the movement he inspired—which is saying something considering that one of the prime focuses of my study over the past 30 years has been the life of Jesus.
So why does My Brother’s Keeper succeed where so many other similar attempts fail? Aside from Kassel’s talents as a writer, I’d say the primary reason is that the novel is not focused on Jesus directly, but instead upon James, the “brother of the Lord,” who became the bishop of Jerusalem after Pentecost. By limiting direct references to Jesus, Kassel avoids the pitfalls of directly depicting the God-man—an almost impossible task if you aren’t being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, Jesus does appear and speak in a few instances, but Kassel wisely limits the Lord’s words and actions, rarely going much outside of the biblical testimony.
While a good choice, that doesn’t eliminate the potential pitfalls in Kassel’s task. Aside from the biblical texts, which are sparse on details, there are various accounts of the life of Jesus and Mary in the Catholic tradition, some of which contradict others and some which stretch credulity. With both a lack of hard information as well as an abundance of questionable information, Kassel has to make difficult choices in crafting his narrative.
For example, Kassel chose to depict Joseph as an older widower when the carpenter agrees to be betrothed to Mary. James is the youngest child of Joseph from his first marriage, thus making James the step-brother of Jesus. This is one legitimate possibility, although there are other traditions that Joseph was a never-married young man, and that James was a cousin of Jesus. Further, in Kassel’s telling, James is not the apostle James the Less. This is the most common belief among scholars today, although there is a strong tradition that identifies the two as the same person. One could nitpick Kassel’s choices, but each one does have strong evidence behind it. Ultimately, none of Kassel’s choices take away or distract from the narrative, and never does his story contradict or undermine Scripture or Church teaching.
The question that most Christians ask at one time or another is: What would it have been like to be alive during Christ’s ministry? Would I have accepted him as Messiah…and God? Here is where My Brother’s Keeper excels. It depicts the family members of Jesus, including Joseph but most especially James, and their growing acceptance of Jesus and who he really is. We know from both Scripture and tradition that James was a devout Jew with a reputation as a righteous man; he was called “James the Just” by his fellow Jews. How did this Jew come to accept his relative as the promised Messiah, and so much more? By focusing on that evolution, Kassel helps us to enter into how we might have perceived Jesus had we been alive then—and how we should perceive him now.
After reading My Brother’s Keeper: A Novel About the Family of Jesus I feel as if the Gospels are more alive than before. While cognizant of the dangers of accepting too much of a modern reimagining of the life and times of Jesus, I’m happy to have read this book, and I highly recommend it for any Catholic who wants to know Jesus better.
Last month, Detroit Archbishop Edward Weisenburger severely restricted the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass in his archdiocese—an archdiocese that has had some of the most flourishing Latin Mass communities in the country, if not the world. Not content, however, with one act of pettiness, this week Archbishop Weisenburger decided to double down on his attack on faithful Catholics, expanding beyond the typical traditionalist punching bags to target established and well-respected seminary professors.
On Wednesday night, news broke that Dr. Ralph Martin and Dr. Eduardo Echeverria had been removed from their positions as theology professors at Sacred Heart Seminary, which is based in Detroit but serves seminarians from dioceses and religious orders throughout the country. Sacred Heart, in fact, is considered by many Catholics to be one of the best seminaries in the country, and many of its faculty have served on Vatican committees over the years (including Dr. Martin, who served as a consultor to the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization).
Martin is well-known in the Catholic world and is one of the leaders of the Catholic Charismatic movement. He has written many books and is in high demand as a speaker at Catholic events. His book Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization is one of the best on a topic near and dear to my own heart: the salvation of non-Catholics.
Echeverria is less well-known than Martin, but he is also a formidable scholar. I have interviewed him on my podcast twice (here and here), and I found him to be a deep thinker who takes seriously all theological perspectives before reaching any conclusions. He has written many valuable books, including one on religious relativism titled Jesus Christ, Scandal of Particularity: Vatican II, a Catholic Theology of Religions, Justification, and Truth.
So why would two distinguished theologians, with no hint of scandal associated with them, be unceremoniously fired from their positions without warning or even explanation? Simply put, they dared to criticize the regime, and for that they must be purged.
What do I mean when I say “they dared to criticize the regime”? More specifically, what do I mean by “the regime”? By that I mean the men who rule the day-to-day workings of the Church, including many bishops and Vatican officials. I’m not speaking of the divine nature of the Church or of her infallible teachings. I’m speaking of petty men—like Archbishop Weisenburger, like Cardinal Cupich, and yes, like Pope Francis—who see their role not as keepers of a tradition handed down to them, but as tyrants who crave power and control. Men who abuse their authority in their attempts to remake the Church in their image, jettisoning thousands of years of tradition to slavishly imitate the surrounding cultural fads of the day. These are the men who make up the “regime” I’m talking about.
Through the years, both Martin and Echeverria have been willing at times to speak out in defense of the Catholic faith against these regime men. They have always been charitable and measured in their criticisms, always focused on explicating theological truth rather than attacking personalities. But for the regime men, that’s not enough. Men like Archbishop Weisenburger demand total submission to the regime (but not to Catholic teaching), and woe to anyone who dares step even slightly out of line. They must be eliminated, even if it means kicking two honorable and dedicated husbands and fathers to the curb with no warning or official reason given. Despicable.
Sadly, Weisenburger’s actions likely mean that the days of Sacred Heart Seminary being a beacon of orthodoxy are numbered. It is my hope that bishops from around the country—particularly bishops who send their seminarians to Sacred Heart—will speak out against this injustice and even send their men elsewhere if it appears that Sacred Heart no longer values faithfulness and orthodoxy in its professors.
One final thought: What about Pope Leo? Do these actions by Weisenburger mean that it’s true that “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”? I think it’s far too premature to say that. Weisenburger was one of Pope Francis’s final episcopal appointments, and like Bishop Michael Martin in Charlotte, he was clearly one of the late pope’s more ideological appointees. He was given a job by Francis, and he’s doing it. The question is: will Pope Leo intervene? And if he does not, does that mean he supports these actions?
Like I said, I think it’s too premature to come to conclusions in this regard. Popes traditionally don’t get involved in local affairs like the hiring and firing of seminary professors, so it’s highly unlikely that Leo will say or do anything about these specific firings, even if he personally thinks they are a bad idea. Yet it will be interesting to see what his own episcopal appointments do going forward: will they be regime men like Weisenburger, or will they cut a different path? Time will tell, but it is a good reminder that we need to continue to pray and fast for Pope Leo and also beg God to convert the hearts of the regime men to become true shepherds who care more about souls than power and control.
Ten years ago Donald Trump came down the golden escalator and fundamentally changed the American political scene…or at least, so it seemed. While everyone assumed the 2016 Presidential election would be between the two political dynasties of America—the Bush Family vs. the Clinton Family—Trump upended all that.
One of his primary weapons was to discredit the neocon war machine, which backed both the Bushes and the Clintons. Trump mercilessly mocked Jeb! Bush’s connection to his brother’s ill-conceived Iraq war, stating flatly that the claim of Iraq’s WMDs was a lie. This anti-war stance was consistent with what Trump had been advocating for years—he had blasted Barack Obama numerous times for his willingness for foreign interventionalism, even accusing Obama of wanting to attack Iran just to help boost his failing presidency. And he consistently criticized Hillary Clinton’s own warmongering ways during her stint as Secretary of State.
Trump’s attacks on the neocons were vilified by the Republican establishment (remember him being booed at a GOP debate?) which supported any war, any time, and in any place. Yet his message resonated with voters who were tired of forever wars and the lies that supported them.
Trump of course won the presidency in 2016, shocking every expert and infuriating the neocons, and during his first term he essentially kept to his promise to not engage in new wars overseas. Eight years later, his animosity toward foreign wars seemed to have hardened, and during the 2024 campaign he made it clear that he would start no new wars, and this pledge helped lead to his victory.
Promise made, promise broken.
With the US entering the Israel-Iran War, and with Trump now indicating he supports regime change in Iran, there’s no way to put it other than Trump broke his promise to not enter the United States into any new wars. I know some Trump sycophants will try to argue that we’re not really at war, but that’s semantic games. We’re bombing another country, advocating for regime change in that country, and demanding its unconditional surrender. If it walks like a duck…
Why did Trump do it? Why did he decide to listen to the voices of the likes of Lindsey Graham and Mark Levin—men who were never his allies—while ignoring and even ridiculing those who helped lead him to victory in 2024, men like Thomas Massie and Tucker Carlson? It’s hard to say.
Does he feel beholden to big donors like Miriam Adelson who support Israel? Does the Deep State and/or Israel have something on him (or did they threaten him somehow)? Was he lying all these years about his opposition to foreign wars? Did he finally believe that somehow now was different and that Iran really was about to develop nuclear bombs after 30 years of claims to that effect from Benjamin Netanyahu and his neocon supporters? Again, it’s hard to say.
What I can say is that I’m incredibly disappointed. After years of half-hearted support for Trump, I went all-in for him in 2024, and one of my primary reasons was his die-hard opposition to entering into foreign conflicts. Was I dumb to believe him? I know all politicians lie, but I really believed that Trump had a fundamental disposition toward peace and that after all these years no agency or foreign service had anything incriminating on him to make him their puppet. How tragically wrong I was.
Many are arguing that this time it’s different, and that we’ll be able to easily defeat Iran and overthrow its government. Color me skeptical, for I’ve heard this song before. We supposedly defeated Iraq in weeks in 1991, and then we had our “mission accomplished” in 2003. Yet what actually happened: a quagmire which lasted decades and cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars, a country which is many ways worse than before we began our attacks (just ask the many Christians who had to flee), and a deep-seated anti-American animosity in the region.
Do I regret voting for Donald Trump in 2024? No, because I voted based on the best information available to me at the time. Like I said, Trump had a long record against starting foreign wars, so there was no reason to think he’d be so idiotic to start one on such flimsy pretenses as he did this past week.
I will no longer look at Donald Trump the same after this. I don’t doubt that he will still do some good work as president, and I’ll praise him when he does. But he fundamentally broke his word on an issue of supreme importance (and didn’t even bother giving a good reason for doing so), and for that he is never to be trusted again. Sadly, the saying “no matter who you vote for, you’ll end up with John McCain” has proven to be true yet again.
A decades-long strategy of the Left that has been used to much success is name-calling. If that sounds like a juvenile way to describe what the Left does, that’s because it’s a juvenile tactic. Any criticism of Leftist policies is met with shouts of “racist” or “homophobe” or “misogynist” in an attempt to shut down debate. Why did the Left engage in this behaviour? Because it’s highly effective. No one wants to be tagged a racist, for example—it can lead to a loss of status, a loss of a job, and public ostracization. It silences critics before they even speak out.
The Right refrained from such methods in spite of their effectiveness because they are fundamentally dishonest. Calling someone racist because he opposes the effectiveness of a social program for the poor is a sinful abuse of the term and character assassination. It also empties the term of any real meaning. If a conservative who believes free market solutions will best lift minorities out of poverty and a Ku Klux Klansman are both racists, what does the word even mean anymore?
Sadly, however, some on the Right have fallen into this juvenile Leftist tactic in recent years, and with the granddaddy of accusations: antisemite. I myself recently experienced this.
This past Friday the venerable conservative publication National Review published an article entitled “An Antisemitic Meltdown by the Online Right’s Israel Foes.” The article included a list of supposed antisemites who were criticizing Israel for its preemptive strike against Iran last week. It’s unclear if the author of the piece—a recent graduate of Hillsdale College—believes it’s possible to oppose Israel’s actions without being an antisemite, but she definitely believes those she calls out in the article are antisemites (including comedian and podcaster Dave Smith, who is Jewish).
I am included in this list as well, with the author stating, “Crisis magazine’s Eric Sammons doesn’t think Catholics can support Israel’s attack on Iran.” I’m assuming she is referring to a 𝕏 post I made shortly after Israel began their attack on Iran, in which I stated, “If you are Catholic, you can’t morally justify ‘preemptive’ strikes.” Note that I did not even mention Israel specifically, nor the Jewish religion. I was simply repeating a general principle of Catholic Just War Theory. Yes, I obviously meant it in the context of Israel’s preemptive strike on Iran, but I would also state it against any country that preemptively attacks any other country. I also make the radical claim in another post that “The default position of every Catholic should be for peace and negotiated resolutions…as every pope of the past 100+ years has insisted.” Somehow opposing unjustified bombings earns me the label of “antisemite” in some conservative quarters.
I could write many words trying to convince people I’m not an antisemite, but that would be a waste of time…because I don’t think even the author of the National Review piece thinks I’m antisemitic. Instead this was just the Leftist tactic to silence dissent. She might realize that I won’t shut up about the immorality of most modern wars and the need for America to not be involved in these overseas conflicts, but she also knows that if she labels people like me as antisemitic, then it will silence many other people who might have qualms about Israel’s actions but are afraid of the consequences if they speak up. It’s essentially online bullying, and the best way to take down a bully is to stand up to him (or her, as in this case).
Now there’s no doubt that among the opponents of Israel’s actions are some actual antisemites. Perhaps a few are even in the list given by the National Review. But the lack of distinctions only furthers my point that this name-calling is only done to silence the debate. No one who is not antisemitic wants to be associated with actual antisemites, and by lumping all critics of Israel together, the name-callers make it even more publicly unpalatable to criticize Israel.
Along with silencing debate, name-calling actually can have the opposite effect of increasing antisemitism. If even mild criticism of Israel is going to be called antisemitic, some people may (and do) conclude that they might as well just begin to embrace actual antisemitism, since they’re going to be called the name no matter what. We can see this reaction especially among those who value being “based” above all. This of course is not the Catholic reaction, which neither blindly defends Israel and all Jewish people nor markets in ridiculous conspiracy and race theories.
When it comes to the modern State of Israel, Catholics are free to either support or oppose its politics, and I know many Crisis readers disagree with my opposition to America’s unilateral support of Israel. While there’s no Catholic theological basis to support Israel or Zionism, I understand that Catholics of good will can disagree on whether American support of Israel is politically prudent or not (of course, support of Israel can never extend to any immoral actions taken by the State). Yet those who oppose modern Israel are not antisemites, any more than those who might oppose welfare programs are racist.
We need to allow vigorous debate in the public square on the actions of Israel, and stop the name-calling. It’s juvenile when the Left does it, and it’s just as juvenile (and more disappointing) with the Right does it.
The smoke has cleared from the Sistine Chapel, and Pope Leo XIV has been elected to lead the Catholic Church into an uncertain future. As Catholics around the world look to Rome with a mixture of hope and trepidation, one question emerges above all others: How do we navigate the turbulent waters ahead?
For more than four decades, Crisis Magazine has been a steady compass for faithful Catholics seeking truth in times of confusion. Since 1982, we’ve refused to retreat when the going gets tough. Instead, we’ve leaned in, providing the kind of fearless Catholic commentary that cuts through the noise and speaks directly to the heart of our faith.
The election of Pope Leo XIV marks another pivotal moment in Church history, and you can be certain that Crisis will be there every step of the way. Our writers will be analyzing the significant developments coming out of Rome. We won’t simply regurgitate press releases or offer superficial commentary. Our readers deserve better than that—they deserve the kind of deep, thoughtful analysis that only comes from writers who truly understand both the faith and the crisis we face.
This is what sets Crisis apart. While many Catholic publications either avoid difficult topics or embrace fashionable errors, we occupy that essential middle ground: unwavering fidelity to the Church combined with honest assessment of her current struggles. It’s a delicate balance, but it’s precisely what the Church needs right now.
Consider the caliber of voices you’ll find in our pages: Joseph Pearce, Anthony Esolen, Janet Smith, Austin Ruse, Kennedy Hall, and many others. These aren’t just writers—they’re Catholics who understand that our current crisis demands both courage and charity. They know that authentic Catholic commentary requires interpreting everything through the lens of two thousand years of Catholic wisdom.
The challenges facing the Church today are unlike anything we’ve seen in generations. Scandals have shaken the faithful. Confusion about doctrine has spread even among clergy. Political pressures threaten to reshape Catholic teaching to fit secular agendas. Catholics are leaving the Church in alarming numbers, often because they’ve never heard the faith presented in its full beauty and power.
This is precisely why Crisis Magazine exists. We don’t shy away from uncomfortable truths, but neither do we abandon hope. We recognize that every crisis in Church history has also been an opportunity for renewal and reform. Our job is to help Catholics understand both the scope of our current challenges and the resources our tradition provides for overcoming them.
But here’s the reality: we can’t do this work without your support. Crisis Magazine operates on a shoestring budget compared to secular media outlets or even other Catholic publications. We don’t have the luxury of wealthy corporate sponsors or government subsidies. Our independence—our ability to speak truth regardless of who finds it inconvenient—depends entirely on readers like you.
Every article we publish, every podcast we broadcast, every piece of analysis we offer requires significant investment. Good Catholic commentary doesn’t happen by accident. It requires talented writers who deserve fair compensation for their expertise. It requires editors who can maintain our standards of excellence. It requires the technological infrastructure to reach Catholics around the world.
Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate will bring new challenges and new opportunities. The Church will need faithful Catholics who can think clearly about complex issues, who can distinguish between authentic development and dangerous innovation, who can offer hope without ignoring hard realities.
For more than forty-two years,Crisis Magazine has been preparing for moments like this. We’ve built a reputation for reliability precisely so that when the stakes are highest, Catholics know they can turn to us for guidance they can trust.
The question now is whether we’ll have the resources to continue this vital mission. That decision rests with you. Will you help ensure that faithful Catholics have a strong, independent voice during Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate and beyond?
Your donation today will directly support the kind of Catholic commentary our Church desperately needs. Please consider making a generous contribution to Crisis Magazine right now.
As I’m sure you’re all aware, we have a new pope: Leo XIV, formerly known as Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, O.S.A. Although somewhat of a dark horse candidate, before the conclave he was seen as a potential “compromise” choice. However, his election on only the 4th ballot makes it hard to see that being the case; many Cardinals must have had him in mind before the doors were locked.
To learn more about our new pope, check out the College of Cardinals Report dossier on him here.
First and foremost, we must offer our prayers and penances for our new Holy Father. Whether he was your choice or not, he is now the successor to St. Peter and the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. We don’t have the right to deny him our prayers.
Second, we must give Pope Leo XIV the benefit of the doubt as he begins his pontificate. Back in 2023, I wrote that Francis had lost such a benefit, but that was only because a decade of scandals had removed all doubt about his pontificate. That is not the case with Leo XIV. His pontificate has just begun, and so we must allow him a fresh start and be willing to interpret charitably his words and actions as far as we can.
People will want to analyze his first appearance on the loggia, but we should not read too much into anything he said at that moment. I’m sure the weight of the office was bearing down on him, although I did notice he looked far more comfortable in his first appearance than did his immediate predecessor, Pope Francis.
It would be spiritually unhealthy to nitpick his every word in his first days as pontiff, trying to divine his orthodoxy or his plan for the Church from a three-minute address. Nor should we examine his history trying to find something “wrong” with him. Today’s 24-hour news and social media cycle pushes us in that direction, but let’s allow the new Holy Father time to fill the shoes of the fisherman.
Or perhaps people want to overanalyze his choice of the papal name “Leo.” Does he see it as continuity with Pope Leo XIII or Pope Leo the Great or did he just like the name? Let’s not worry about that and let him explain when the time is right.
Catholics must firmly believe that God gives special graces to the occupant of the Petrine Office. It’s true that not all popes have faithfully accepted those graces, but we pray that Leo XIV would hear the Holy Spirit and respond to His call.
At the same time, I’ve been beating the anti-hyperpapalist drum for years now, so I’m not saying we need to “popesplain” every statement the new pope makes, either. We don’t believe popes can’t make mistakes, even serious ones, so if, God forbid, Pope Leo XIV were to cause any scandal by leading people astray, we stick to the Catholic Faith as it has been handed on to us for centuries. The pope is the servant of the Deposit of Faith, not its master, and so we always cling to that sacred Deposit first and foremost.
Another thing to remember: style of governance matters. One of the biggest criticisms of Pope Francis was that he was a “dictator pope,” seemingly running the Church according to his personal whims. So even if the new pope is closely aligned with Francis in ideology (although we shouldn’t assume anything yet), he may run the Church in a very different manner. I know many conservative and traditional Catholics who would be content if Rome were to just leave them alone.
I am hopeful for the future of the Catholic Church, even in the midst of our decades-long crisis. Many young people are embracing the fullness of our tradition; they have a fervor and love for the Faith that is deeply encouraging. Let us pray that Pope Leo XIV will shepherd us to a true renewal in the Church, and ask God to give him the grace to do so.
We live in strange times. Our culture has long been looking to Sodom and Gomorrah not as warnings but as models to emulate. We lived through a worldwide pandemic that we’ve since discovered originated not from nature but from man’s hubris…and there’s reason to suspect another “plandemic” might be coming. Technology threatens to blur the distinction between human and machine. And instead of being a light of the world, the Church herself staggers under the weight of confusion and apostasy.
It’s no surprise, then, that some Catholics, especially those of a traditional bent, look at the chaos and whisper, “The End is near.” The Book of Revelation starts to feel less like a symbolic vision and more like a news ticker. I get it—believe me, I do. I’ve felt that same tug, that urge to connect the dots between our crumbling culture and the apocalyptic warnings of Scripture. But here’s the thing: obsessing over the imminent End of the world is a spiritual trap, one that can lead us away from the very faith we’re trying to defend.
Let’s be clear: the Church has always taught that Christ will return. The Second Coming is no mere metaphor—it’s a dogma etched into the Creed we recite every Sunday: “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” The well-formed Catholic mind doesn’t shy away from eschatology; we know history has a climax, and it’s not a utopian dream cooked up by secular progressives. But there’s a vast difference between acknowledging the reality of the End Times and fixating on them as if we’ve cracked some cosmic code. Too many of us are falling into the latter camp, and it’s doing more harm than good.
This isn’t a new problem.Catholics have been here before. Back in the year 1000, some Christians—lay and cleric alike—were convinced the millennium marked the end. The Book of Revelation speaks of a thousand years, after all, and surely the round number meant something. Historians debate how widespread the panic was, but we know it existed. Rodulfus Glaber, a monk of the time, chronicled tales of apocalyptic fervor, with people hoarding food or abandoning their fields. Yet the sun rose on January 1, 1001, and the world kept spinning. The Church didn’t collapse; Christ didn’t descend. Life went on.
Fast forward to the 19th century, and you’ve got the Millerites in America predicting Christ’s return in 1844. When it didn’t happen—termed the “Great Disappointment”—some doubled down, birthing groups like the Seventh-day Adventists, who still carry an apocalyptic streak. Catholics aren’t immune either. These days you’ll find traditionalist corners of the internet buzzing with claims that the latest advancement in artificial intelligence or supposed alien sighting is proof of the imminent rise of the Antichrist. Or that the latest controversy coming out of the Vatican is “proof” that Christ’s return is right around the corner. The pattern is sadly the same: a fixation on the End blinds us to the present reality around us.
From a Catholic perspective, this obsession is dangerous not because it’s entirely wrong—Christ will return someday—but because it distorts how we’re meant to live our faith. The Church has never encouraged us to play eschatological detective. Our Lord Himself said, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36). If the Second Person of the Trinity didn’t claim that knowledge in His human nature, what makes us think we can pin it down?
The first danger of this apocalypse-now mindset is spiritual pride. When we convince ourselves we’re living in the final act, we start to see ourselves as the elect, the remnant who “get it” while everyone else stumbles in darkness. It’s a short step from there to a kind of Gnosticism—a belief that we’ve unlocked secret knowledge unavailable to the average pew-sitter. Catholicism, however, has always rejected that Gnostic temptation. Our faith isn’t a treasure hunt for hidden signs; it’s a call to humility and holiness rooted in the sacraments, the liturgy, and the unchanging deposit of faith. The moment we trade public revelation for a conspiracy chart, we’ve lost the plot.
Another problem with an obsession with the End Times is that it blinds one to the good in this world. Good news in the Church or an exciting scientific or technological discovery are automatically seen in a negative light; such news is twisted into yet another sign of the coming cataclysm. Such a relentlessly negative outlook is not consistent with a proper Catholic attitude, which sees God still working in this fallen world of ours.
At its worst, this fixation can twist our view of God. If we’re always scanning the horizon for the apocalypse, we risk turning God into a cosmic killjoy, a deity who can’t wait to smite the wicked and wrap things up. That’s not the God who offers Himself daily in the Eucharist for our salvation. It’s not the God who invites us to meditate on His Divine Mercy. Catholics know (or should know) that God’s justice and mercy aren’t at odds—they’re two sides of the same divine coin. Obsessing over the End Times tilts the balance, making us forget the mercy that’s available right now.
Beyond the spiritual, there’s a practical cost. When we’re consumed with apocalyptic thoughts, we neglect the duties of the present. The father who spends his evenings decoding the latest apparitions might miss tucking his kids into bed. The mother stockpiling candles for the “Three Days of Darkness” might not notice her friend’s quiet struggle with faith. I’m not saying we ignore the signs of the times—our culture’s rejection of natural law and the Church’s internal crises are real—but we’re called to focus on those around us far more than potential “signs” around the world.
The Church, in her wisdom, has always steered us away from this trap. St. Thomas Aquinas warned against speculating on the timing of the end, writing that “The day of the last judgement is altogether uncertain… and it is not for us to know the times or seasons which the Father hath put in His own power” (Summa Theologiae, III Suppl., q. 88, a. 3). Even the great popes of the past, like Pope St. Pius X, who saw the storm clouds of modernity gathering, didn’t waste time predicting Armageddon—they fought for the faith.
So where does that leave us? In the here and now. I don’t deny that we’re in dark times—maybe even the darkest since the Arian crisis—but we shouldn’t leap to the conclusion that the credits are about to roll. Instead, we must cling to the Mass, the sacraments, and the daily grind of sanctity. We should pray the Rosary, not to ward off an imminent apocalypse, but to align our hearts with Our Lady’s. We should teach our kids the Baltimore Catechism, not because the world’s ending tomorrow, but because truth endures.
If the End comes in our lifetime, so be it—if we’re faithfully praying, doing penance, and following the precepts of the Church, we’ll be ready. But if the End doesn’t come soon, we won’t have wasted our days chasing shadows. The danger of thinking the apocalypse is imminent isn’t that we might be wrong; it’s that we might miss the real battle: the one for our souls, fought not in some future cataclysm, but in the quiet of this very moment.
I grew up a science fiction nerd. The first movie I ever saw in a theater was the original Star Wars. I loved watching reruns of Star Trek after school each day. (For those wondering my opinion on this important matter, I believe that Star Trek is far better than Star Wars. Of course, the 21st century versions of both franchises are trash.)
As a kid I would dream of aliens coming to earth and what that would be like. Even into early adulthood I enjoyed a good science fiction book or movie or TV show; without embarrassment I still consider Independence Day one of my all-time favorite movies. Although I don’t watch or read much science fiction anymore, I’ll never fully abandon my nerd roots.
As a kid I just enjoyed the stories and imagining what it would be like to travel the stars and meet alien races. But as I grew older and studied my Catholic Faith more, I began to consider the theological implications of intelligent alien life. Is it possible that God created intelligent life somewhere else in the universe? How does that impact our teaching on original sin and redemption? What would it actually be like, theologically speaking, if aliens came to earth? And, as Vatican Observatory Director Br. Guy Consolmagno asks, would you baptize an extraterrestrial?
These are serious questions and Catholics have rightly been debating them in recent decades. While there are real dangers in the modern UFO movement, an exploration of the ramifications of intelligent life in the universe only helps us to better understand our faith.
With all that being said, it should come as no surprise that I was delighted when I discovered a newly published science fiction book that tackles these questions. Pilgrims by M.R. Leonard is the story of first contact with aliens…who land at the Vatican, speak Latin, and are Catholic. It’s a fascinating premise, and I was curious how Leonard would work out the theological consequences of such an event.
However, to be honest, that wasn’t my first question. What I really wanted to know was, is this a good story? I’ve read and watched enough bad Christian fiction over the years to know that too often authors put “The Message” before The Story. Characters are one-dimensional, plot devices are contrived, and the dialogue is stiff, but Christians (including Catholics, who should know better) praise the work because it promotes a message that they agree with. Fortunately, this isn’t the case with Pilgrims. There are a few times in the book where it gets a little preachy, but those are exceptions, not the rule. Overall it’s actually a good story with interesting characters.
The main character, Austin, is no stick figure; he has serious flaws, and those flaws drive the story forward. He’s a Latin teacher who finds his skills are quite in need now that aliens are using that language to communicate with the human race. We see things from his perspective, and we witness as he makes mistakes and is driven by all-too-human desires.
Leonard also does a great job of world-building. Mankind finds out about the aliens years before they actually arrive, and as the alien ship makes its slow approach our world receives no contact from the extraterrestrials. As such most people assume that their arrival will mean the end of the world, and Leonard deftly describes how that would impact day-to-day life as mankind awaits its presumed doom.
So the story is good, but still…Catholic aliens? How in the world (or more precisely, worlds) can there be Catholic aliens? Did God reveal Himself to them? Did they fall like Adam and Eve did? I was intrigued to discover how Leonard would address these theological issues. I won’t give it away, but ultimately I was satisfied, even surprised, by how he tied it all together. It’s not that he directly answered every single possible objection to the idea of alien intelligent life, but his explanation of why the aliens are Catholic comes across as plausible and theologically sound.
As I noted, I don’t read a lot of science fiction anymore, but I’m glad I made an exception for Pilgrims. It was not only entertaining but it made me think about deeper questions, which is what the best science fiction always does. At the end of the book it says that Austin’s story is not yet over, and I’m looking forward to Mr. Leonard’s next foray into the world of Catholic aliens.
[Note: Due to some adult themes, including lust, violence, and alcoholism, Pilgrims is not appropriate for younger children, but should be fine for older teens and up.]
At least, that’s the assessment of Boston College theology professor Fr. Mark S. Massa, S.J. In his recent book Catholic Fundamentalism in America (Oxford University Press), Massa warns of the threat of Catholic fundamentalists, who “combine a sectarian understanding of religion with an aggressive anti-progressive stance.” He highlights in particular seven individuals and movements “that embody the Catholic fundamentalist impulse,” and one of those case studies is me as the editor-in-chief of Crisis Magazine.
In a chapter entitled, “On the Dangers of Swimming the Tiber: Crisis Magazine and the Premillennialist Embrace of Catholicism,” Massa takes special chagrin at my Protestant background. Mind you, it’s been thirty-three years since I became Catholic (and I was only twenty-one at the time, so I’ve been Catholic much longer than I was Protestant), but that doesn’t stop Massa from suspecting that my conversion didn’t really take. In the best line of the chapter, he writes, “Sammons may have indeed swum the Tiber, but he did so in a Protestant wetsuit that left him untouched by Catholic holy water.”
So why does Massa believe I’m still holding on to my Protestant faith, in spite of spending the last thirty-plus years working to bring people into the Catholic Church? My greatest sin apparently is that I actually believe that what the Church teaches is unchanging. Massa warns, “There is…a consistent argument in Sammons’s postings at Crisis that seems to presume that Catholic doctrine rests on an unchanging and propositional ‘deposit of faith’ almost exactly analogous to how Protestant fundamentalists understand the King James Bible.” My crime, according to Massa, is that I treat Catholic doctrine as if it were “static and unchangeable” and not “marked by development and evolution.”
Massa then invokes St. John Henry Newman to his defense, apparently assuming I’m unfamiliar with the 19th century English Cardinal. I have to chuckle, however, since as I write this I’m looking at a large portrait of Newman on my office wall, and if I turn my head I can see a whole shelf full of books either by Newman or about Newman. He’s one of my favorite saints, and I’ve read extensively about his life and his teachings. In particular, his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was instrumental in helping me understand how Christian doctrine develops over time, which in turn helped me see how what the Church Fathers taught was fundamentally Catholic, even if at times the trappings weren’t always exactly as they are today.
But because I understand Newman’s teachings on doctrinal development, I also know that the term “evolution,” which Massa uses, is completely contrary to Newman’s views on the matter. Evolution, as it is typically understood, can include the change of something into a wholly different species. The Darwinian theory of evolution, in fact, posits that a single-celled organism can eventually evolve into a fish, or a mammal, or even a man. Doctrine, however, can never change like this. Our understanding of a particular teaching can deepen and therefore develop over time, but the core doctrine remains intact. If this is “fundamentalism,” then Newman was a fundamentalist.
Massa also wants to be sure you know that I’m not as smart as him (which is likely true, to be honest). After all, for progressives, stupidity is a hallmark of fundamentalism. He writes, “Sammons…holds an MA in Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville. So, unlike previous editors [of Crisis], he was not trained in academic theology or philosophy.” Only holding a Master’s Degree in theology is not enough to protect you from fundamentalism, apparently. He later notes, in response to an old article in which I call his friend Fr. James Martin a heretic, “It is, of course, unclear how Sammons himself—lacking both ecclesiastical credentials like a Licentiate in Sacred Theology and hierarchical office—believed he possessed the authority to publicly declare anyone a heretic.”
Massa got me: I’m not able to make an official declaration to that effect. But then again, I doubt anyone will confuse an article in Crisis as an official ecclesiastical sanction. In truth, I rarely call anyone a heretic because it is a serious charge, but I’m comfortable using that label for Fr. James Martin, who devilishly hides behind vague comments to advance beliefs contrary to the Catholic Faith. Massa just wanted to use my article as an opportunity to remind readers that I am not as official as he is. Which is true: I’m just a Catholic dad trying to help people draw closer to Christ during this crisis in the Church; I’m not a professor of theology at a Jesuit college notorious for leading souls astray.
What really rankles Massa and so many progressive Catholics like him are converts like me who actually believe what the Church teaches and want others to embrace those teachings as well. They recognize that their life’s work of trying to remake Catholicism into the world’s image has failed, and in particular, has failed to produce any converts. They are a dying breed and they know it. So they hate actual converts with a deep passion.
Just look at how triggered they get when Vice President J.D. Vance, a Catholic convert, schools them on Catholic theology. It’s not that converts like me are better educated (although many—like Scott Hahn and John Bersgma—are just as educated); it’s that we are willing to accept all of Catholic doctrine as we’ve received it. We don’t feel a need to change it, for we believe it is truly the words of everlasting life. Massa and other progressive Catholics think Catholic doctrine is something to be shaped into their image of a liberal religion much like Episcopalism.
To be honest, I’m honored that Fr. Massa picked me and Crisis Magazine as prime examples of Catholic fundamentalism in America. It must mean we are doing something right, for the label “fundamentalist,” when used by a progressive Catholic, just means “faithful.” Here at Crisis we will continue to preach a Catholic “fundamentalism” that is faithful to the Church’s perennial teachings, and unlike Fr. Massa, we are willing to proclaim those teachings even when they fall out of step with the latest progressive fads and trends.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
This website uses cookies
Websites store cookies to enhance functionality and personalise your experience. You can manage your preferences, but blocking some cookies may impact site performance and services.
Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.
Name
Description
Duration
Cookie Preferences
This cookie is used to store the user's cookie consent preferences.
30 days
These cookies are needed for adding comments on this website.
Name
Description
Duration
comment_author
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
comment_author_email
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
comment_author_url
Used to track the user across multiple sessions.
Session
Google Tag Manager simplifies the management of marketing tags on your website without code changes.
Name
Description
Duration
cookiePreferences
Registers cookie preferences of a user
2 years
td
Registers statistical data on users' behaviour on the website. Used for internal analytics by the website operator.
session
Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us understand how visitors use our website.
SourceBuster is used by WooCommerce for order attribution based on user source.
Name
Description
Duration
sbjs_session
The number of page views in this session and the current page path
30 minutes
sbjs_udata
Information about the visitor’s user agent, such as IP, the browser, and the device type
session
sbjs_first
Traffic origin information for the visitor’s first visit to your store (only applicable if the visitor returns before the session expires)
session
sbjs_current
Traffic origin information for the visitor’s current visit to your store
session
sbjs_first_add
Timestamp, referring URL, and entry page for your visitor’s first visit to your store (only applicable if the visitor returns before the session expires)
session
sbjs_current_add
Timestamp, referring URL, and entry page for your visitor’s current visit to your store
session
sbjs_migrations
Technical data to help with migrations between different versions of the tracking feature
session
Stand for bold orthodoxy and traditional liturgy today!
Young converts are flooding into Catholic Churches hungry for the real thing. Our community at Crisis is holding the line. Help us raise $100,000 to fund long-form articles and fight brain rot in defense of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
