Be Watchful

Be Watchful
Resist the Adversary, Firm in Your Faith
Eric Sammons
Copyright © 2016 Eric Sammons
Published by Saragossa Press, Cincinnati, Ohio.

www.saragossapress.com
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 0-692-81876-6
ISBN-13: 978-0-692-81876-3
Cover Art: “The Calling of Saint Matthew” by Caravaggio.

DEDICATION
For all Catholics – clergy, religious, or lay –

who are fighting the good fight.
CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................. 1
The Church’s Essential Mission:
Conversion, Not Welcome .............................................. 5
Making Mass “Relevant” is
Irrelevant to Evangelization ........................................... 13
How Great We Aren’t:
The Catholic Church in America Today ...................... 19
The New Pharisees: Who Today is
Putting Up Obstacles to Evangelization? .................... 27
Correcting Jesus: The Gospel According to Abner......... 33
A Church That Repels Instead of Attracts ....................... 41
How to Be One Hell of a Catholic Evangelist ................. 47
The Benedict Option: Not for the Faint of Heart ........... 55
The Tyranny of “Dialogue” ................................................ 61
The Missing Ingredient in
Today’s Catholic Evangelization ................................... 69
No More Scraps: Regaining Rightful Catholic Pride ....... 75
New Coke: If Today’s Catholics Were in Charge ............ 81
The Holy Spirit is Not a Control Freak ............................. 89
St. Francis, Pope Francis, and Me ...................................... 95
Meet Amy, the Average Catholic ...................................... 109
Normalcy Bias and Papal Positivism ............................... 115
The Silence of God ............................................................. 121
Accompany the Sinner, or Accommodate the Sin? ....... 127
INTRODUCTION
Ever since I became Catholic in 1993 I’ve been actively

involved in the Church, mostly through evangelization
work at the individual, parish, and diocesan levels. I’ve
met thousands of Catholics and worked with hundreds of
priests, even a few bishops. Much has changed in the
Church in those twenty years, some for the better, some
for the worse. But one constant has remained: the Church
has been in crisis.
Sober reflection on the state of the Church should render

this statement uncontroversial, but for most interested
parties it is a highly debatable claim. It’s difficult to judge
our contemporary situation as dispassionately as we judge
times past, for we don’t know how to weigh the
importance of current events by any unbiased standard.
For example, faithful Catholics might critique a long-dead
pope without qualms, while those same faithful Catholics
will find it exceedingly uncomfortable to censure a living
pontiff.
1
BE WATCHFUL
However, the numbers speak volumes: the modern

Catholic Church has been hemorrhaging members for
decades, and nowhere is this more evident than in the
Church in the United States (see my article “How Great
We Aren’t: The Catholic Church in America Today”).
Many factors have led to our current situation, but one
thing that isn’t helping us escape the crisis is our inability
to be self-critical.
Too often, today’s Catholics mirror the subjects in the

fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Something is amiss,
we all know it deep down, but none of us wants to be the
one to mention it. We’re afraid we’ll be labeled
“reactionaries” or some other epithet. Or we’re afraid that
our criticism will appear to be a criticism of the Holy
Spirit, whom we know guides the Church (see “The Holy
Spirit is Not a Control Freak”). Like it or not, in order to
fix our current problems, we must first acknowledge
them. This is part of the commission St. Peter gave us
when he instructed, “Be sober, be watchful. Your
adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion,
seeking some one to devour. Resist him, firm in your
faith” (1 Peter 5:8-9). Being watchful means recognizing
when our adversary, the devil, is succeeding at keeping
souls from Christ. A watchman who doesn’t cry out in a
time of crisis is useless.
The articles contained in this book comprise my own

attempt at this kind of alertness. They address some of
the issues the Church faces today, mostly focusing on
2
INTRODUCTION
attitudes and issues I have seen firsthand that harm the

Church’s ability to spread the Gospel to the whole world.
My call for self-criticism doesn’t mean I don’t see good
things happening in the Church today. Every day people
are receiving forgiveness in Confession, souls are being
baptized, and Jesus Christ is becoming sacramentally
present on altars all around the world. The work of the
Holy Spirit in the Church never stops, and today is no
exception. But we must strive constantly to cooperate
with the Holy Spirit to make His work present to the
whole world and to acknowledge when we aren’t doing
so.
These articles were written over the last two years for
OnePeterFive (onepeterfive.com), a website dedicated to
“rebuilding Catholic culture and restoring Catholic
tradition.” OnePeterFive, in fact, takes its name from the
passage I mentioned above. I’ve appreciated
OnePeterFive’s willingness to “be watchful” and be
honest about the state of the Church today. This has
come with some controversy, but I’d rather have free,
open discussion than have some topics considered “off-
limits.” I believe there is a need for an apostolate like this
today, and I hope that my own articles, originally found at
OnePeterFive and now found within this book, help us
all to “be watchful” and to rebuild Catholic culture and
restore Catholic tradition.
3
THE CHURCH’S ESSENTIAL
MISSION:
CONVERSION, NOT WELCOME
Originally published October 28, 2014
“All are welcome!”
You can hardly walk into a Catholic parish today without

encountering this slogan. Not so long ago all the talk was
about the “New Evangelization,” but that topic has been
back-burnered in favor of “welcoming.” No one should
feel excluded from the Catholic Church! Who is it,
exactly, that has been complaining about feeling
unwelcome? That’s usually left unsaid. Yet the current
emphasis on welcoming people to the Church certainly
implies, at the very least, that we have been in some way
inhospitable in the past.
The welcome wagon movement has as a foundational

principle the need for changes in the language of the
5
BE WATCHFUL
Church. It posits two problems with the language of our

first 1,981 years:
1) It’s too hard to understand, and
2) It makes people feel bad.
The understandability issue relates to theological

language – doctrines and how they are explained, in the
liturgy and elsewhere. The accusations pertaining to hurt
feelings are more often directed at moral language – how
and when we speak about the moral law of the Christian
life and the effect this has on those who feel implicated.
But is this desire for more understandable and acceptable

language consistent with the Church’s mission? Does it
help, or undermine, the work of evangelization?
Precision Needed
First, the desire to make Catholic language

understandable is, well, understandable. We know from
Catholic history that the Church has had to discover how
to explain her theological truths in ways comprehensible
in diverse times and cultures. Current proponents of
language changes argue that the Church did just this
during the fourth century Trinitarian debates. They
propose that the Church sought to explain the Trinity in
ways people could understand, specifically by using Greek
philosophical terms. However, a closer look shows that
the Church was not primarily concerned with making the
6
THE CHURCH’S ESSENTIAL MISSION:
doctrine of the Trinity understandable. She was interested

in making it precise. If the end goal is “understandable,”
one usually ends up with a dumbed-down explanation
which can easily lead to errors. But if the goal is precision,
then although one might have to work to understand a
concept, he can be assured of arriving at the correct
understanding.
The irony is that when one works for precision he gets

understanding, but when he works solely for
understanding he gets confusion.
The Church’s desire for linguistic precision was the

reason for the recent changes in the English translation of
the Ordinary Form texts. Although the new translations
might not be in commonly-spoken English, they are more
accurate. When we see how many Catholics today have
incorrect understandings of basic Catholic doctrines, the
need for precision becomes clear. As one example, under
the previous terminology Jesus was described as “one in
being” with the Father. Couldn’t such a person still be
simply a man who was very close to God, like St. Francis?
Whereas a Jesus who is “consubstantial” with the Father
demands an acknowledgement of his divinity.
Nor do the Gospels attest that the desire to make

language understandable is a priority for our Lord. After
Jesus tells the story of the Sower in Matthew 13, the
disciples ask him why he speaks in parables. Our Lord
replies, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of
7
BE WATCHFUL
the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been

given. For to him who has will more be given, and he will
have abundance; but from him who has not, even what
he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in
parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they
do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:11-
13). Christ himself makes it clear that the “secrets of the
kingdom of heaven” will not be understood by everyone,
and there is nothing we can do about it. Concentrating
our efforts to do so, then, appears to be for naught.
Acceptable to Men
The second attempt to change the Church’s language is

more pernicious. It aims not just to make the Church’s
language more understandable to modern man, but also
to make it more acceptable to him. We see this in the
desire to soften the Church’s language about sin,
especially in the area of sexual morality. Less than a
generation ago, St. John Paul II called the attempt of
those who had divorced to later marry outside the Church
“evil” (Familiarius Consortio 84), yet today such language
is condemned in many quarters of the Church. People
will only feel welcome and thus enter our doors, it is said,
if we soften our language on the “hard teachings.”
Leaving aside the fact that every religious denomination

that has done this has hurled themselves head-long into
obscurity, this attempt is contrary to the whole of
Catholic tradition. Both St. John the Baptist and St.
8
Thomas More were martyred rather than deny the truth

about the sanctity of marriage. Countless missionaries
have been persecuted and killed in far-flung lands for
refusing to give in to the moral errors that proliferated in
those areas. Furthermore, we see that the desire to make
language related to morality more acceptable is not shared
by our Lord. In the Sermon on the Mount – known today
only for the Beatitudes – Jesus’ language surrounding
various moral questions could not be more forceful:
“Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully commits
adultery with her in his heart,” “whoever marries a
divorced woman commits adultery,” “if your right hand
causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” (Matthew
5: 28, 32, 30). There is no talk of “positive values” in
immoral relationships or actions – just a simple and direct
condemnation of them.
Message of Conversion
Those who desire to change the language of the Church

to make it more welcoming might have good intentions,
but focusing our evangelization efforts simply on a
message of “welcome” is fruitless. Imagine encountering
a person who is lost because he misread a map. Would
you be fearful of using precise language, contradicting his
misreading and possibly offending him, in order to set
him on the correct path? Or picture finding a person
drowning in quicksand. Would your first concern be
greeting her cheerfully and making sure she feels
comfortable in your presence?
9
BE WATCHFUL
Today there are countless souls lost and drowning, and

the mission of the Church is to set them on the right path
to salvation. This is done by a message not of welcome,
but of conversion. Whereas a message of “welcome” often
masks the desperate state many souls are in, a message of
conversion highlights the need for people to leave their
erroneous and sinful lifestyle and embrace Christ. It
confidently asserts that there is a better way: the way of
Jesus Christ as found in the Catholic Church. Too often
Catholics have accepted the mess of pottage that the
world offers – adultery, abortion, birth control,
homosexuality, fornication – as the best some people can
achieve, instead of embracing our birthright – love, joy,
peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control (Gal. 5-22-23) – as something
anyone can obtain through the grace of conversion.
Conversion, however, includes a confrontation with one’s

own misunderstandings and sins, and because of the
fallen nature of man, such a confrontation is, for most
people, unwelcome. For who wants to be told that they
believe something wrong, or even worse, do things that
are wrong? Those who use precise language and preach
conversion therefore are often seen as unwelcoming,
especially in an age of constant affirmation and inflated
self-esteem. Yet Catholics are obliged to instruct the
ignorant and admonish the sinner, as the Spiritual Works
of Mercy tell us. Paradoxically, this message of conversion
will be the most welcoming message of all, for once one
confronts his failings, and, like the prodigal son, decides
10
to convert from his former life and return home, he will

find the greatest welcome possible in the arms of his
loving Father.
11
MAKING MASS “RELEVANT” IS
IRRELEVANT TO EVANGELIZATION
Originally published November 20, 2014
Many Catholics have witnessed or read about

Masses gone wild: polka Masses, life-size scary puppet
Masses, and probably worst of all, Los Angeles Religious
Education Congress closing Masses. In these extreme
cases, it is clear that there is something fundamentally
wrong with how the organizers understand the Mass. Yet
even some sincere, faithful Catholics wish to change the
Mass in order to make it more “relevant.” We see this in
many youth-oriented Masses, as well as the typical
suburban parish’s regular attempts to alter the liturgy to
accommodate the perceived tastes of the congregation.
The intention behind these changes may be noble: the
hope is that if the Mass is more relatable then more
people will come and “get more out of it.” So it would
seem these folks wish to evangelize. But two questions
must be asked: Is the purpose of the Mass evangelization?
13
BE WATCHFUL
And, are these attempts to be “relevant” an effective

evangelization tool?
Only for the Elect
To answer these questions, we need to look back to the

days of the first Christians who lived in the Roman
Empire as a small, often-persecuted sect. What we find
might startle many modern Catholics: attendance at Mass
was strictly controlled, and only those who’d been
baptized were even allowed to participate in the
Eucharistic celebration. Granted, the dangerous nature of
being Catholic certainly had something to do with this
rule. At any time a persecution might flare up, and if it
did, you didn’t want your enemies witnessing your
participation in an outlawed religious ceremony. But this
was not the only reason for this prohibition; the
sacraments of the Church were called “the mysteries,”
and the celebration of them was considered the most
sacred act in which a person could engage. To allow the
entrance of outsiders – the non-baptized – would be to
desecrate in some way the liturgical act. Even after
Christianity became legal, the non-baptized were still
required to leave the Church after the Mass of the
Catechumens (comparable to what the Missal of Paul VI
refers to as the “Liturgy of the Word”) out of respect for
the mystery and sacredness of the Eucharist. We see
remnants of that practice in the Eastern Liturgy’s cry,
“The doors! The doors” that precedes the Eucharistic
prayer: it is a call to the guardians of the doors to ensure
14
MAKING MASS “RELEVANT” IS IRRELEVANT TO
EVANGELIZATION
that the unbaptized do not witness the Eucharistic

sacrifice.
We can learn two lessons from the early Church practice:

(1) the celebration of Mass itself was not considered a
tool for attracting people to the Christian Faith – since
non-Christians weren’t even allowed to attend Mass, it
could not be used to evangelize them; and (2) this
apparent restriction did not negatively impact the early
Church’s evangelization efforts, which were wildly
successful. Christians were able to attract others to the
faith, not by bringing them to a liturgy that they could
identify with, but by living and preaching the power of
the Gospel. It is true that over the centuries the Church
added much pageantry to her liturgies; however, the focus
of those additions was not attracting converts but giving
greater glory to God.
Poor Imitation of the Culture
Also, practically speaking, trying to make the Mass

“relevant” is clearly a project doomed to failure. These
attempts aim to make the Mass more like the surrounding
culture, but the fact remains that we simply cannot beat
the culture at its own game. The most creative minds in
the world spend billions of dollars each year producing
entertainment for the masses. Catholic parishes believe
they can imitate the culture and thereby attract the
disaffected, but they are sadly mistaken. Witness the
cringe-worthy efforts by aging baby boomers to copy the
15
BE WATCHFUL
latest cultural fad in their desire to “reach out” to

estranged Catholics: sad stabs at “hip” music, priests
turning Mass into comedy central, and even light shows
more appropriate to Chuck E. Cheese’s than St. Charles
Catholic Church. If the choice is between Hollywood’s
polished product and the poor imitation found at the
local Catholic parish, most will choose the real thing.
Does that mean the Church is doomed to be unattractive

to the surrounding culture? Not at all. The secret to true
relevance isn’t trying to beat the culture at its own game.
Rather, let’s play our game – one at which we already
excel. For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has celebrated
magnificent liturgies that reverently glorify God. These
liturgies have produced some of the most sublime – and
attractive – celebrations known to man. The paradox is
that by putting the focus on God, not man, many men
and women will be attracted to the transcendent grandeur
of a life of faith. Meanwhile, a banal focus on pleasing
people quickly leaves them unsatisfied and looking to
quench their thirst for the transcendent elsewhere.
Purpose of the Mass
Traditionally, the ends of the Mass are described as four-

fold: adoration, atonement, thanksgiving, and petition.
“Evangelization” is not included in these ends. This does
not mean that the Mass does not have a role in
evangelization efforts; after all, the Mass is the source and
summit of the Christian Faith, so it has a role in
16
MAKING MASS “RELEVANT” IS IRRELEVANT TO
EVANGELIZATION
everything a Christian does. So if evangelization is not an

end of the Mass, what is the relationship between the
two? Though not the Mass’s purpose, evangelization is
a fruit of the Mass. Participating in the Mass,
sacramentally uniting ourselves to the Sacrifice of Calvary,
each Catholic receives the strength to go out and make
disciples of all nations.
By confusing fruit with purpose, many Catholics

denigrate, unwittingly or no, the celebration of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass. Efforts to make the Mass
“relevant” to our times in the end make it irrelevant to
true evangelization. By focusing on the horizontal – being
directed towards man – rather than the vertical – being
directed towards God – our priorities become inverted
and the result neither gives glory to God nor attracts
those who are lost. If we aspire first to give glory to the
Almighty, however, we also receive what is needed to
bring people to Him. Or, as our Lord said, “Seek first his
kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall
be yours as well” (Matthew 6:33).
17
HOW GREAT WE AREN’T:
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN
AMERICA TODAY
Originally published January 5, 2015
Those who follow baseball know that the past

decade has seen what is called the “Moneyball”
revolution in how players are evaluated. In the past,
players were gauged using popular, preconceived
narratives: Who knocks in the most runs? Who gets the
most hits? However, it has been shown in recent years
that these questions are not actually predictive of which
players truly help their teams win games. For years the
experts were analyzing the situation with a preconceived
narrative in place, and were therefore prone to ignore the
data that didn’t jibe with that narrative. Now, however,
new advanced statistical tools have been deployed to
discover exactly how much each player contributes to
team wins. Moneyball advocates stress that the correct
data, looked at dispassionately, is the best way to analyze
19
BE WATCHFUL
a situation and come to accurate conclusions.
Legend in Our Own Minds
Nowhere is a preconceived narrative more entrenched

than in the Catholic Church in America today. Imagine
your own Catholic parish. Can you think of any time that
the pastor got up and said, “Listen, things are not good –
the school is failing to educate kids in the Faith, people
are leaving in droves, and no one believes Catholic
doctrine anymore”? Of course not; usually we are told
how great the school is, how great the parish is and that
we are great, great, great – surely one day we will reword
the classic hymn to “How Great We Art”. The message is
that we should just keep doing everything as we have
done it for the past generation: catechesis, marriage
preparation, liturgy, and so on.
But will an objective look at the numbers show that

everything is in fact fine? In recent years several studies
have been conducted that give an in-depth look at the
practices (and non-practices) of Catholics in America.
A major study1 done by Pew Research in 2009 found that

over 30% of Americans who were raised Catholic no
longer consider themselves Catholic. This is a well-known
figure, but what about those who do still self-identify as
Catholic? These are the people who still have some
attachment to the Church, at least enough to call
themselves “Catholic.” According to one study2, less than
30% of them attend Mass once a week, and according to
20
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AMERICA TODAY
another study3, only 25% go to Confession at least once a

year. Furthermore, only 62% of those who attend Mass
weekly also go to Confession at least once a year.
Putting all these numbers together, we find that less than

10% of baptized Catholics in this country both attend
Mass on Sundays and go to Confession at least once a
year. In other words, less than 1 in 10 baptized Catholics
actually follow the two most measurable precepts of the
Church, which all Catholics are obliged to follow.
Getting back to those who have left the Church, a few

surveys have asked why they left. The Pew Study
referenced above notes that of those who left, most
stated that they “gradually drifted away from the Church”
and that their “spiritual needs were not being met.” A
more recent, smaller survey4 conducted by the Diocese of
Springfield in Illinois details that the majority left because
their “spiritual needs [were] not met” and they “lost
interest” in being Catholic.
The Emptying of the Pews
Although we may draw many conclusions from this data,

all of these numbers are summed up in one fact: Most
people do not see any compelling reason to live as Catholics. This is
true both for those who left the Church and for most
who continue to self-identify as Catholic. For if one
thought it was worthwhile to live as a Catholic, he would
attend Mass faithfully, go to Confession regularly, learn
21
BE WATCHFUL
his faith, and strive to live its teachings, even the hard
ones. Yet so few Catholics are doing this.
Now before you think “But numbers aren’t everything in

evangelization!” let me say that you are correct: numbers
aren’t everything. But surely when vast numbers of
people are saying they are leaving the Church because
their spiritual needs are not being met – the precise
reason the Church exists – then something is
fundamentally wrong. It is true that evangelization does
not always produce large numbers of converts – Jesus
himself was rejected by many of his initial disciples – but
the staggering number of baptized Catholics who don’t
find value in practicing the Faith should give us serious
pause.
We also have to be careful not to take away from these

numbers more than is really there. The studies tell us very
clearly the present situation, but they do not tell us the
reasons behind the numbers. For example, the fact that
many Americans left the Church because they didn’t find
their spiritual needs being met doesn’t tell us why they
believed this. But it does tell us, unequivocally, that
Catholic parishes by and large are failing to meet their
parishioners’ perceived spiritual needs. “How Great We
Art” indeed.
How Not to Respond
So how should Catholics respond in the face of these

daunting numbers? Unfortunately, three improper
22
responses to this crisis have emerged in the past few

decades. They are denial, despair, and desertion:
Denial: This appears to be the most common response

by many Church leaders, both clergy and lay: ignoring or
downplaying the problem and continuing to do the same
things that got us into this mess. But one thing these
numbers make clear: what we have done in the past few
decades certainly doesn’t work. Continuing with the same
strategy and expecting a different result is the definition
of insanity.
Despair: Many faithful Catholics see how bad things are

and just lose hope that the situation can ever be fixed; the
problems of today can be overwhelming and appear
unsolvable. So they make no effort to improve the state
of affairs in their local parish or the greater Church.
Desertion: If things are so bad in the Church, some will

conclude that perhaps it is not THE Church after all. This
occurs with many Catholics-turned-Evangelical
Protestants, as well as some who join “independent”
Catholic churches not in communion with Rome.
The Way Forward
What is the way forward? If denial, despair and desertion

are not the proper Catholic response, how should
Catholics react to the calamity of less than 10% of all
23
BE WATCHFUL
baptized Catholics actually practicing their faith? In a

word, determination.
Determination: The proper way to respond to these

sobering numbers is to first face them squarely without
whitewashing or downplaying them. The old adage, “The
first step in solving a problem is acknowledging you have
one” comes to mind. Second, we ask ourselves, “What
can I do to make a more compelling case for
Catholicism?” After all, the Faith spreads organically,
person to person, so each Catholic has a duty to spread it
to his or her own circle of influence. Finally, we must
open ourselves to radical changes, including scrapping
much of what we have done over the past few decades
for something better.
Of course the debate then becomes “What is better?”

There is not sufficient space here to detail possible
solutions, but two principles should be kept in mind:
1. Just as we’ve used quantitative data to arrive at the

conclusion that something’s wrong, any new initiative
should also be objectively analyzed. If a new marriage
preparation program is started, for example, the
divorce rate among its participants should be tracked
to see if it is reduced.
2. New initiatives should tap into the deep reservoir of

Catholic Tradition. The Church through the centuries
has been the greatest evangelizing institution the
world has ever seen, so we do not need to re-invent
24
the wheel. Although times may change, human nature

does not. Looking to evangelist Saints like Francis
Xavier and Boniface would be a good place to start
when it comes to re-evangelizing Catholics in
America.
The stark truth found in various recent surveys is that

Catholicism is not attractive anymore to a massive
number of Americans. The Catholic Church in America
for the past few decades is like Willie Mays in the twilight
of his career – a once great player that is no longer so.
One can simply ignore the facts and keep putting this
shadow of greatness into the lineup day after day. The
better option, however, is to recognize the reality shown
by his numbers and put in a younger, better player – one
who plays more like Mays did in his prime. The ways the
Church has been doing things for the past few decades
have been proven to be ineffective; we must be bold
enough to recognize this and take them out of the lineup.
Let’s rebuild the ways of living and preaching the Catholic

Faith that converted Empires, nations, and people all
around the world.

1 http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/
2 http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/massattendweek.pdf
3 http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/reconciliation.pdf
4 http://dio.org/uploads/files/Communications/Press_Releases/2014/Joy-and-
Grievance-PUBLIC-FINAL-sep-11-2014.pdf
25
THE NEW PHARISEES:
WHO TODAY IS PUTTING UP
OBSTACLES TO EVANGELIZATION?
Originally published March 5, 2015
Internet veterans are familiar with “Godwin’s

Law.” Formally stated, the adage proposes that “As an
online discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.” No
matter the argument, if it goes on long enough, someone
will evoke the modern epitome of evil – Nazism – to
condemn his opponents.
If a Catholic version of this adage were formulated, it

would state, “As an online Catholic discussion grows
longer, the probability of a comparison involving
Pharisees approaches.” But in the Catholic world, this
comparison is inevitably used against those who defend
any traditional Church teaching or practice. Is this
association of defenders of orthodoxy and tradition with
27
BE WATCHFUL
the Pharisees fair? Or could this accusation have it exactly

backwards? Perhaps it is those who have jettisoned
traditional Catholic teachings and practices, and who have
embraced the “traditions” of the past generation, who are
the New Pharisees today.
To make a determination we should first see why it was

that Jesus condemned the Pharisees so often during his
public ministry. Was it simply because they followed rules
and traditions? No. In essence, Our Lord denounced the
Pharisees because they created barriers to God’s grace by
imposing man-made traditions that kept people from that grace.
This was especially egregious because the Pharisees
wielded religious authority over others and thus were
particularly positioned to block them from drawing closer
to God and His grace. Jesus explains this clearly in
Matthew 15:1-9:
Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from

Jerusalem and said, “Why do your disciples transgress
the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their
hands when they eat.” He answered them, “And why
do you transgress the commandment of God for the
sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor
your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks
evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you
say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What
you would have gained from me is given to God, he
need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your
tradition, you have made void the word of
God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of
you, when he said:
28
THE NEW PHARISEES:
WHO TODAY IS PUTTING UP OBSTACLES TO
EVANGELIZATION?
‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
The problem is not rules or traditions themselves. After

all, Jesus himself said, “I have come not to abolish [the
law and the prophets] but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17).
In addition, he told his followers, “Whoever then relaxes
one of the least of these commandments and teaches men
so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he
who does them and teaches them shall be called great in
the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19). And St. Paul
wrote to the Thessalonians, “Stand firm and hold to
the traditions which you were taught by us, either by
word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Although it is common in today’s antinomian world to

condemn anyone who supports a tradition or rule as
“Pharisaical,” this clearly was not the point of Christ’s
warning. Instead, he condemned only those who support
traditions that lead people away from a relationship with
God, i.e., those who “make void the word of God.”
So who today is advocating man-made traditions that

deny people access to God’s grace? Who teaches as
doctrine the precepts of men? Imagine the following
scenarios, and see if any of them seem all-too-familiar:
29
BE WATCHFUL
• A parish offers the Sacrament of Confession for only

a half-hour each Saturday, at an inconvenient time,
and makes no announcements promoting
Reconciliation. The defense is that “no one goes
anymore” and the priests are too busy.
• Requests for more traditional hymns to be sung
during Mass are turned down with the response that
“the songs we sing now are the songs our
parishioners have always enjoyed the most.”
• Communion is advocated for the divorced and
remarried, with the argument that to withhold it
would be to violate the Church’s great tradition of
“welcoming.”
• When an effort is made to institute a new marriage
preparation program that includes substantial Church
teaching, the existing volunteers resist on the grounds
that the current program is “how we have always
done it.”
• A priest who decides to withhold the Eucharist from
a publicly same-sex couple is quickly removed and
told that his actions show a “lack of pastoral
sensitivity” and make the Church appear judgemental.
• A parishioner suggests to the pastor a door-to-door
campaign to try to bring people into the Church, but
is turned down on the grounds that “Catholics don’t
do that.” Additionally he is told that “proselytization”
isn’t in keeping with ecumenism.
30
THE NEW PHARISEES:
WHO TODAY IS PUTTING UP OBSTACLES TO
EVANGELIZATION?
In each case, people are being directed away from the

truth found in Christ and His Church, away from healing
and reconciliation, away from a lasting relationship with
Christ – and the reasons given amount to no more than
“that’s how we do it now.” In other words, these are our
“traditions.” The New Pharisees of today downplay
Catholic doctrine, minimize the importance of the
Sacraments, ridicule traditional Catholic devotions, scoff
at Catholic moral teachings, and diminish the uniqueness
of the Catholic Church. The man-made traditions they’ve
instituted over the last 40 years have become encrusted in
the life of the average Catholic parish, even though, as I
wrote recently (“How Great We Aren’t – The Catholic
Church in America Today”), there is no evidence that any
of these programs or practices actually draw people into
Christ’s Church. The evidence, in fact, is overwhelming
that it draws people away from Christ and his Church. In
other words, “For the sake of their tradition, they have
made void the word of God!”
Sadly, all too often it is exactly these New Pharisees who

hold positions of authority in many Catholic parishes
today. But, in keeping with Our Lord’s example, we must
confront and resist their efforts. We must continue to call
sin “sin” and call on people to avoid it at all costs – even
sin that is now culturally acceptable – knowing that these
actions can lead to the destruction of the human person
and his soul. In conjunction with a renewed emphasis on
sin, we must emphasize the Sacrament of Confession, so
31
BE WATCHFUL
that those in need can be forgiven and reconciled to God.

We must also embrace a more reverent Mass, in order to
better worship God. Further, in an age of rampant sexual
immorality, we must clearly explain Catholic teaching on
sexuality and marriage, and urge married couples to live
out the fullness of the Church’s teachings in these areas.
And we must call every person to conversion to the
Catholic Church, so that everyone can receive her
abundant graces.
We must invite – even beg – people to return to Christ in

the sacraments and the Church and to receive God’s
grace, and to reject beliefs and practices that keep them
from that grace. Ultimately, there is one purpose behind
all these actions: to draw people into a deeper relationship
with the Word of God, Jesus Christ. With this as our
mission, we can hold onto the traditions that deepen that
relationship, and abandon those which, in teaching as
doctrine the precepts of man, lead people away from that
saving relationship.
The New Pharisees fall back on the failed man-made

traditions of the past generation; let us abandon these
futile traditions and instead hold on to the true Catholic
traditions which have stood the test of time.
32
CORRECTING JESUS:
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ABNER
Originally published April 14, 2015
Enthusiastic about Jesus’ message of love, tolerance

and mercy, Abner was one of Christ’s earliest followers.
At times, however, he was concerned that Jesus didn’t
always deliver this core message of acceptance and
compassion. This is his story…
All Are Welcome
At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus declared, “Repent,

for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matthew 4:17).
Abner, though, felt this was getting Jesus’ movement off
on the wrong foot. He confided to his fellow disciple
Judas: “I understand that Jesus might include repentance
in his message, but I don’t think he should lead with that
– it’s not very pastoral. He needs to emphasize that God
33
BE WATCHFUL
is all-forgiving and welcoming. Maybe later he could

mention that people should make some changes, but
that’s a gradual process. He needs to be more
understanding of where people are.”
In spite of Abner’s misgivings, the number of Jesus’

followers continued to grow. Abner was excited to realize
that this had potential to be a mass movement. But one
day Jesus proclaimed, “Enter by the narrow gate; for the
gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction,
and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is
narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those
who find it are few.” (Matthew 7:13-14) Abner again was
concerned.
“I’m worried, Judas. Overall I love what Jesus is saying,

especially the part about leading people to life, but I don’t
know if it’s a good idea for him to emphasize how hard
that way might be. It can discourage people. Look at the
Romans: most of their religions don’t make any
unreasonable demands, and their numbers are booming.
And you can forget about attracting young people with all
this talk about narrowness and hard ways. Instead we
need to emphasize this movement’s teachings of
acceptance toward all.”
Shortly afterward, Jesus told those around him, “Not

every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my
Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me,
34
CORRECTING JESUS:
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ABNER
`Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast

out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in
your name?’ And then will I declare to them, `I never
knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matthew
7:21-23).
Abner was starting to get uneasy. At mealtime he

expressed his frustrations with Judas: “First Jesus says
that few people will follow the path to life, and now he
says that even those who call him ‘Lord’ might not make
it? Isn’t our central message ‘All are welcome in this
place?’ We need to be making it easier for people to be
disciples, not harder! Jesus really needs to tone down the
negativity and be a little more positive.”
Follow When You Like
Abner continued to follow Jesus, however, hoping that he

would focus more on mercy and tolerance, and less on
the demands of discipleship. Then a scribe came up and
said to Jesus, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you
go.” Abner was excited: another follower! But Jesus said
to the scribe, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have
nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his
head.” And another man came up to Jesus and said to
him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.” But Jesus
said to him, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their
own dead.” (Matthew 8:18-22)
Both the scribe and the other man left, but as they walked
35
BE WATCHFUL
away, Abner ran to them and said, “Guys, guys, don’t take
Jesus so literally – of course he wants you to follow him!
He was just speaking metaphorically. Take care of your
business, and whenever you have some free time, just pop
on by and see what Jesus is doing. If you like it, feel free
to join – but no obligations. If you don’t want to follow
him, that’s fine too. There is no sense of judgement here
among Jesus’ followers. We understand not everyone will
live exactly like Jesus teaches and we are fine with that.”
Even with Abner’s best efforts, however, they turned
away and went home.
But Abner was undeterred: a few weeks later he was

telling his friend Japheth about Jesus, and how Jesus was
accepting of everyone and just wanted people to get
along. “That is the essence of his message, Japheth:
welcome and tolerance.” Japheth was interested, so
Abner brought him to Jesus, who was preaching. Jesus
said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on
earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I
have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter
against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own
household. He who loves father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter
more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not
take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”
(Matthew 10:34-38)
“Um, Jesus doesn’t sound very tolerant or welcoming,
36
CORRECTING JESUS:
Abner,” Japheth said.
“Well, perhaps Jesus is just having a bad day. It happens

to the best of us, “Abner hastily replied.
“I guess so, but I think I’ll pass on following Jesus.”
“That’s fine too, Japheth! That’s the great thing about

following Jesus (or not) – he is tolerant of everyone –
what matters to him is if you are happy with yourself.”
“If you say so, Abner…”
The Way Should Be Easy
Later Jesus had only his closest disciples with him. Abner
was honored to be included. Peter had just declared Jesus
to be the Christ, and Jesus had put Peter in charge of his
followers. Now things were going to get moving! But
then Jesus started talking about his suffering and death,
and Abner again became distressed. Fortunately, Peter,
much to Abner’s approval, reproved Jesus, saying, “God
forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” But Jesus
rebuked Peter, saying, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a
hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but
of men” (Matthew 16:23).
Abner was floored. Didn’t Jesus know that Peter was

trying to help the cause? Peter knew that talking about
suffering and death was just going to turn people off.
Why was Jesus so angry? And Jesus just put Peter in
37
BE WATCHFUL
charge – was that any way to talk to a leader? Didn’t he

know that any criticism of Peter could undermine Peter’s
authority with the other disciples? And calling Peter
“Satan?” Abner found that intolerably offensive. Jesus
really should have been more sensitive to Peter’s feelings
– there was no place for name-calling in the Jesus
movement.
Abner reached a crisis point: he really believed a new age

of tolerance and mercy for all could be ushered in,
regardless of people’s lifestyle choices. But with each
passing day he wondered if Jesus was the one to do it.
Then Jesus moved from talking about his own suffering
and death to suggesting that his followers might face it
too: “If any man would come after me, let him deny
himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matthew
16:24). Abner vented to his good friend: “I just don’t
know if Jesus gets it, you know, Judas? All this talk about
‘denying oneself’ – how is that going to attract anyone?
And it isn’t really healthy anyway. All the experts say that
repressing your desires leads to a whole host of
psychological issues. Sometimes I wonder if Jesus really
understands human nature. He doesn’t seem to live in the
‘real world.’”
Finally came the straw that broke the camel’s back. Some
Pharisees approached Jesus and tested him by asking, “Is
it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” Abner
immediately perked his ears up. He was a divorcé himself,
and he was getting serious with another woman he had
38
CORRECTING JESUS:
met recently. He had felt a bit uncomfortable about the

relationship, but he hoped that Jesus would pardon the
youthful mistake of his early marriage and want him to be
happy. But Jesus responded to the Pharisees, “For your
hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your
wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to
you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and
marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9).
Abner was devastated. He had hoped – assumed even –

that Jesus would relax the current rules about divorce, but
here he was making them more difficult! How was that
loving and accepting? How was that compassionate? How
on earth would this attract people to his movement?
Didn’t Jesus know that you only turn people away with
rules and regulations? And how dare he label a
committed, loving relationship as “adultery!”
What Would Jesus Do?
Abner realized that his time with Jesus was over. He

approached Jesus, saying, “I can’t follow you anymore.
Your intolerance, lack of pastoral sensitivity, and
judgementalism of other lifestyles goes against my core
values of mercy and acceptance. I prefer to live by the
motto, ‘What would Jesus do?’”
Jesus protested, “But I am Jesus!”
Abner replied, “Not the Jesus that I follow.”
39
A CHURCH THAT REPELS
INSTEAD OF ATTRACTS
Originally published May 12, 2015
The Pew Research Center just released its latest study

on “America’s Changing Religious Landscape.”1 The
subtitle tells the story: “Christians Decline Sharply as
Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths
Continue to Grow.”
For our purposes, I want to focus on the Catholic

numbers.
Anyone who has been paying attention, either to these

studies or at the local parish, will not be surprised by the
results of the report. It is an unavoidable fact that the
Catholic Church in America is in decline. I wrote about
this in my article “How Great We Aren’t: The Catholic
Church in America Today”), and this report only further
confirms that decline. Let’s look at a few important
41
BE WATCHFUL
findings from the report (although I encourage you to

read it in its entirety).
Catholics declined from 23.9% of the American

population to 20.8% between 2007-2014, and in that time
“unaffiliateds” (i.e. those who do not affiliate with any
religious group) increased from 16.1% of the population
to 22.8%. According to the report, that means that there
are roughly 3 million fewer Catholics today than less than
a decade ago, even factoring in immigration and births.
The really interesting data comes when we look more

closely at “religious switchers.” These are the people who
grew up in one faith tradition (or perhaps no faith
tradition), but then later in life left that tradition for
another. Although, historically, changing one’s faith is
rare, in modern America it is not uncommon. Here are
the top-level results:

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-
landscape/pr_15-05-12_rls-03/
42
INSTEAD OF ATTRACTS
In a nutshell, Americans are leaving mainline Protestant

denominations and the Catholic Church in droves, and
most are becoming “unaffiliated.” Specifically, 31.7% of
Americans grew up Catholic, but only 20.8% are Catholic
now – the trickle of people entering the Church is
overwhelmed by the tsunami of those leaving it.
Or, to put it another way: for every 1 person who left the
ranks of the “unaffiliateds,” another 4.2 people joined.
However, for every 1 person who joined the Catholic
Church, 6.5 people left. It doesn’t take a mathematical
genius to see where those numbers are trending and what
the end result will be.
What Does This Mean?
The first, and most important, take-away should be

this: what we are currently doing isn’t working. I realize this
might come across as blindingly obvious, but for many
Catholic leaders it doesn’t appear to be. If you attend a
typical Catholic event today, most of the talk will be
about how great everything is: our schools, our parishes,
our youth groups, etc. Nary any mention of the reality
that our pews are emptying.
Another take-away should also be clear: this is not a

simple problem with a simple solution. Millions upon
millions of people are leaving the Catholic Church, and to
assume it is for one reason alone would be terribly naïve
and simplistic. Any attempt to stem the tide of fallen-
43
BE WATCHFUL
away Catholics will need to be multi-faceted and address

problems in every aspect of Catholic life.
What Can We Do?
The complexity of the problem doesn’t mean we just

throw up our hands and give up. I think there is
something buried in the Pew numbers that is revealing,
and points to a possible solution. When you look at the
“religious switchers,” it is clear that the mainline
Protestants and Catholics are the worst at attracting new
members, and the best at repelling existing members. Yet
look at other faith traditions, such as Evangelical
Protestants, Mormons, and Muslims: you see that they
were able to maintain their numbers in an era of religious
decline– the Evangelicals actually added more members
than they lost.
Is there anything they hold in common, as opposed to

mainline Protestants and Catholics?
I would argue that they take their faith seriously. There are no
felt banners, content-free catechesis, or silly songs to
endure. More importantly, there are no apologies given
for what they believe: they are robust in their practice of
the faith, or to use the politically-incorrect term, manly.
Such cannot be said of the typical mainline Protestant
congregation or Catholic parish.
Until we take our Faith seriously, no one else will either,

and many will realize it is better to just leave instead of
44
INSTEAD OF ATTRACTS
waste their time with people who, for all intents and
purposes, appear to be just going through the motions.
This applies across the board: liturgically, doctrinally, and
socially. Once Catholics decide that the Faith of Sts. Peter
and Paul, St. Athanasius, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius
of Loyola, St. Therese of Avila and Mother Teresa of
Calcutta is a Faith worth living – and a Faith worth dying
for – then perhaps it will again become the attractive
force it has been for centuries.

1
http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
45
HOW TO BE ONE HELL OF A
CATHOLIC EVANGELIST
Originally published May 19, 2015
If it’s Monday, then my son is hearing the same

refrain from me: “If you keep your bedroom clean this
week, you get a pack of baseball cards.” On Sunday I
check his room, and if it’s clean, he gets his pack of
baseball cards. If it’s not clean…then he gets a pack of
baseball cards. It might appear unconventional, but my
method works perfectly: every week he’s gotten the
reward of baseball cards. I’ll take my Parent of the Year
award now, please.
Why does this sound ludicrous? Because clearly there is

no incentive for the child to actually behave in the desired
way. (By the way, the story is made-up. Except for the
part about wanting my son to keep his bedroom clean.
Any ideas?) Yet this is analogous to the message of
modern-day Catholicism: Live like a saint? Then you will
47
BE WATCHFUL
be in Heaven with God forever. Live as an adulterous,

lying, selfish egotist? Then you will be in Heaven with
God forever. In other words: it doesn’t matter how you
live, we all end up in Heaven! (Except maybe Hitler. And
Stalin. And anyone who draws cartoons of Muhammad –
they definitely won’t make it).
Hell is for Losers
Surprisingly, polls have shown that almost 70% of

Americans believe in the existence of Hell1, but most
believe that few, if any, people actually go there. Even
those who believe that Hell is inhabited do not believe
the place of eternal damnation should be part of the
Church’s evangelistic message. They argue for this
“ignore Hell” approach on the following grounds:
1. Modern Catholics don’t respond to threats of hellfire

and brimstone.
2. We shouldn’t follow God because we fear

punishment, but because we love Him.
Is it true that modern Catholics don’t respond to threats

of hellfire and brimstone? There is no way to know, as
even the mention of Hell has been expunged from almost
every Catholic parish in America. Other than the word
“contraceptive,” there is no word more shunned in the
parish pulpit. Further, it is in this environment of
diligently avoiding any mention of Hell that the Church’s
numbers have dropped precipitously (see my article
48
HOW TO BE ONE HELL OF A CATHOLIC EVANGELIST
“How Great We Aren’t”). So how can we say that

modern Catholics don’t respond to threats of hellfire and
brimstone? All we really know for sure is that they don’t
respond to promises of Heaven for everyone. Otherwise
our parishes would be full today.
So do Catholics avoid proclaiming the reality of Hell

because no one takes it seriously anymore, or does no one
take Hell seriously anymore because Catholics refuse to
proclaim its reality?
What about the objection that we should follow God out

of love rather than fear of punishment? Truly, obeying
God out of love is superior to obeying Him out of fear.
However, the Church has always taught that obeying God
out of fear is still sufficient for Heaven, and often leads to
loving obedience. Every good parent will tell you that
they have to set rules for their young children with
punishments attached to them, or else their children will
disobey (although if you observe the inhabitants of the
local public high school, that common sense strategy
seems to have been lost on many modern parents). If you
do give punishments for bad behavior, over time children
grow to understand the rules and eventually obey their
parents out of love. Although it is a modern conceit to
consider ourselves too mature to need the threat of
punishment, in the practice of the Faith, we are like
children. Our faith needs time to grow, and in that time
our motivations might change. What first is done out of
49
BE WATCHFUL
fear of punishment may eventually evolve into a loving

understanding and acceptance of Catholicism’s “rules.”
Good News, Mercy…and Hell?
On the surface, it might seem that talking about Hell is

antithetical to evangelization. After all, evangelization
means “preaching the Good News” and Hell is the
opposite of good news. “Good news! You might be
consigned to unquenchable fire for all eternity!” Yet
proclaiming the existence of Hell – and the possibility
that we could go there for eternity – is an essential
element of preaching the “Good News.” Why? Because if
there is no bad news to avoid, then people have no
motivation to take seriously the Good News.
However, does teaching about Hell go against the

message of “mercy” the Church is promoting? On the
contrary, admitting that Hell is real and people go there is
fundamental to the message of mercy. Webster’s defines
mercy as “kindness or help given to people who are in a
very bad or desperate situation.” Yet if there is no Hell,
who is truly in a “very bad or desperate situation?” No
one, for eventually even those in the worst conditions of
earthly life – such as the poor, victims of violence, or
faithful Catholics in Germany – will spend eternity in
happiness in Heaven. The reason God’s mercy is so great
is that each and every one of us deserves to spend eternity
separated from God in Hell. Yet He opens the doors to
50
Heaven and makes it possible for us to be with Him

forever…if we are faithful to Him.
Jesus Should Scare the Hell Out of Us
Jesus understood the importance of including the “bad

news” along with the good. Although it is common today
to see Jesus as a 1960s hippie philosopher who preaches
tolerance, acceptance, and ecumenical dialogue, the
Gospels portray a much more complete teacher who
included warnings against Hell throughout his preaching.
Three times in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus warns that

an action will send someone to Hell (Matthew
5:22,29,30). In many parables, the one who doesn’t follow
the course of action Jesus is advocating ends up in Hell
(see the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew
25:31-46). And remember the parable of the Rich Man
and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31): the wealthy man who
ignores the plight of his fellow man is described as being
in torment in Hades, where he begs for just a drop of
water, for “I am in anguish in this flame.” In the Gospel
of Matthew alone, Jesus mentions the “fire” of Hell ten
different times in connection with actions contrary to the
Gospel.
Even when Jesus gives “positive” teachings, he includes

the negative consequences of denying them. For example,
he proclaims, “I am the vine, you are the branches. He
who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much
fruit” (John 15:5). However, what is often ignored is what
51
BE WATCHFUL
our Lord says immediately following: “If a man does not

abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and
the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and
burned” (John 15:6). Also, Christ promises that “he who
eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (John
6:54), but only after he warns, “unless you eat the flesh of
the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in
you” (John 6:53). Not exactly the language you will find
in an inter-religious dialogue committee statement.
Additionally, the idea that one must ignore Hell in order

to preach the Good News was inconceivable to the early
Christians. Consider this passage (Luke 3:16-17):
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water; but he

who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose
sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with
the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his
hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat
into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with
unquenchable fire.”
What does Luke say about this uplifting message of

burning in unquenchable fire? “So, with many other
exhortations, he preached good news to the people”
(Luke 3:18). Unlike the modern gospel — which sounds
more like John Lennon’s “Imagine” than the four
evangelists — this warning of the danger of rejecting
Christ was fundamental to the early Church and remained
a core part of the Church’s message until recent times.
52
The possibility of Hell for those who reject Christ has

always been linked to the promise of Heaven for those
who follow Him.
Today the Church must not only acknowledge the

possibility of Hell, but also warn that many beliefs and
actions praised today actually put one on the path to eternal
separation from God. This does not mean that we have
to lead with the message of Hell, but we cannot ignore it,
either. Warning about Hell is not a “negative” message
any more than warning someone of the dangers of
drowning is.
Ultimately, properly proclaiming the Good News and the

promise of mercy doesn’t ignore the existence of Hell – it
proclaims victory over it by the power of Christ’s
resurrection for those who follow Him.

1
http://www.gallup.com/poll/11770/eternal-destinations-americans-believe-heaven-
hell.aspx
53
THE BENEDICT OPTION:
NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART
Originally published June 15, 2015
In the months after 9/11, some commentators noted

that the tragedy brought America out of the false sense of
peace it had enjoyed since the end of the Cold War. With
the fall of the Soviet Union, many Americans had come
to believe that the era of opposing hostile forces had
ended, and consequently, our focus had shifted to issues
such as social security lock-boxes and stains on certain
dresses. But on that fateful day in September, America
was reminded in a most tragic way that the world was still
a serious – and dangerous – place.
A similar false sense of peace descended upon the

Catholic Church about 50 years ago. After Vatican II,
many Catholics believed that the Church was now
acceptable to the world, and that the Church should work
together with the world for the common good. Some still
55
BE WATCHFUL
cling to this fantasy. However, as our culture rides the

slip-and-slide to paganism, many Catholics and other
tradition-minded Christians are starting to recognize the
signs of the times and are asking themselves, “What is the
proper response to the rapid decline of civilization – and
rapid increase in anti-Christian bigotry – that we see all
around us?” One idea that is gaining more and more
traction is the “Benedict Option.”
The Benedict Option was originated by former Catholic

and now Eastern Orthodox writer Rod Dreher (who
should, by the way, come back to the Catholic Church). It
is an idea that takes St. Benedict and his way of life as a
model for how to respond to a decaying, and hostile,
culture. Anxious about the state of affairs in the West,
Dreher proposes that we must establish communities that
will preserve the faith in the coming Dark Ages, just as
the founder of Western monasticism established his
monastery among the cultural ruins of a dying civilization.
I am personally quite attracted to this concept. By

homeschooling, having a large family, seeking out a solid
parish, and trying to avoid the rot that is pop-culture,
I (and others who have made similar choices) already live
the Benedict Option in ways both large and small.
Every Move You Make, I’ll Be Watching You
There is, however, a significant long-term challenge to the

Benedict Option: the infeasibility of living counter-
culturally in an intolerant, all-powerful Surveillance State.
56
If there is one underlying impulse in today’s growing

paganism, it is control. It is simply not sufficient anymore
to tolerate sin; we are now required to endorse and
support it. Do otherwise and you’re labeled a bigot
undeserving of the same rights as other citizens. We have
already seen people lose their jobs1 for deviating from
today’s group-think, and religious communities forced by
government mandate to reject their own beliefs;2 it
doesn’t stretch the imagination much to see future, more
serious, consequences to non-conformity. Our society is
on a path to becoming as controlling as many Muslim-run
countries, which allow no dissent from their cultural
norms. Although Christian communities have heroically
survived in some of those countries, by and large they are
tiny minorities that haven’t grown or had any influence
for centuries. St. Benedict is a model of success in
resisting a decaying culture, but there are many historical
examples of failure in attempting to do so.
Not only does our culture insist on conformity, it now

has the power to enforce such conformity with ruthless
efficiency. With the rise of the Surveillance State, it is
impossible to keep your beliefs and opinions private. Any
past expression of support for beliefs that are no longer
fashionable can be easily found and used against a person.
Did you show your support for traditional marriage on
Facebook? Refer to Caitlyn Bruce Jenner as “he” on
Twitter? This is already grounds for dismissal in some
industries. In the near future, perhaps it will mean that
57
BE WATCHFUL
you aren’t qualified to raise your children anymore,

citizen. And don’t think shunning social media sites
makes you free from surveillance – the very fact that you
are reading this counter-cultural article is being logged,
and can be accessed by government officials if necessary.
Flabby Catholicism
The creeping lockstep conformity being applied to our

culture – as well as the means to enforce it – exposes an
“in-house” problem with any implementation of the
Benedict Option: we simply aren’t strong enough to
practice it. As a generation that has mostly faced, at
worst, nothing but “soft persecution” in the midst of
material plenty, we have grown flabby. We live in a
Church of felt banners, insipid homilies, and tolerance for
sin. One of the primary traditional means to strengthen
our spiritual life – mortification – is no longer practiced;
in fact, it is ridiculed as a relic of a bygone era. For most
of us, just the basic fasting the Church requires on Ash
Wednesday and Good Friday is considered a high hurdle.
Is this really the generation that can joyfully endure a true
persecution, in which our jobs, our freedom, even our
children are on the line?
Many have been warning that persecution is coming.

How many articles on this site alone have predicted it?
But what are we doing about it now? Are we mortifying
ourselves now? Are we praying now? Or are we just
cruising Facebook with a bag of chips liking everyone’s
58
predictions of a future persecution? Perhaps we should

take the advice of our first pontiff, found in the biblical
passage from which this site takes its name:
Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil

prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to
devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that
the same experience of suffering is required of your
brotherhood throughout the world. And after you
have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who
has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will
himself restore, establish, and strengthen you. (1 Peter
5:8-10)
Wise Words from Our First Holy Father
The First Letter of St. Peter, our first Papal encyclical, can
help us to prepare for a possibly dark future. Written by
the chief apostle to Christians facing increasing
persecution, 1 Peter oscillates between soberness in the
face of suffering, and the “unutterable and exalted joy” (1
Peter 1:8) found in being a disciple of Christ. The whole
letter is marvelous; here are a few excerpts to whet your
appetite:
Therefore gird up your minds, be sober, set your

hope fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the
revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do
not be conformed to the passions of your former
ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, be holy
yourselves in all your conduct. (1 Peter 1:13-15)
59
BE WATCHFUL
For one is approved if, mindful of God, he endures

pain while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it, if
when you do wrong and are beaten for it you take it
patiently? But if when you do right and suffer for it
you take it patiently, you have God’s approval. For to
this you have been called, because Christ also suffered
for you, leaving you an example, that you should
follow in his steps. (1 Peter 2:19-21)
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which

comes upon you to prove you, as though something
strange were happening to you. But rejoice in so far as
you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice
and be glad when his glory is revealed. (1 Peter 4:12-
13)
In a time of deep cultural decline, Catholics are obligated

to preserve the Faith in any way they can, and this
includes creating communities to pass on our spiritual
inheritance, as the Benedict Option recommends.
However, we must not kid ourselves and think that doing
so will be easy; it will take using spiritual muscles that
have atrophied from neglect and laziness. If we are to
take seriously our charge to pass on the Faith to future
generations, we need to begin training now for the dark
times that we may soon be facing.

1
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_ei
ch_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html
2 http://www.lifenews.com/2014/09/09/obama-admin-renews-attempt-to-force-
little-sisters-of-the-poor-to-obey-hhs-mandate/
60
THE TYRANNY OF “DIALOGUE”
Originally published September 16, 2015
Growing up, I saw a lot of sitcoms. Too many: The

Cosby Show, Family Ties, Night Court, Cheers (ok, so I
was an NBC guy). One thing you start to realize when
you watch these shows is how incredibly formulaic they
are: The Teaser, The Trouble, The “Muddle,” The
Triumph, and finally The Kicker. Like anxious teenagers
urgently trying to “stand out” by looking like everyone
else, sitcoms conform religiously to the formula.
Sometimes it seems as if the debates in the Church over

the past few decades are just as formulaic – call it “That
60’s Show,” starring aging Catholic hippies along with a
few of their young “hip” liberal sidekicks, in endless
repeats. The results, however, are anything but funny:
The Teaser: Some fringe radical theologian, or perhaps

even a bishop, proposes a new teaching/practice contrary
to Catholic Tradition.
61
BE WATCHFUL
The Trouble: Progressives come around to embrace the

idea, and begin to promote it more and more vigorously.
Faithful Catholics, on the other hand, resist the proposal,
noting its conflict with perennial Church
teaching/practice.
The “Muddle”: Progressives, as well as their unwitting

lackeys among conservative Catholics, call for “dialogue.”
The Triumph: Progressives continue calling for dialogue ad

infinitum until the progressive proposal is accepted
either de jure or de facto. (Sorry, 60’s progressives – forgot
the trigger warning before all that Latin).
The Kicker: Reset to a new “normal” before beginning the

process all over again for the next, more radical, issue.
This is the playbook progressives in the Church have

used to push continually for acceptance of contraception
(de facto win!), abortion, altar girls (de jure win!), women
priests (keep trying!), and a host of other issues.
Today we see this formula playing out regarding divorce

and remarriage as well as acceptance of homosexual
relationships. Any resistance to these anti-Christian
proposals is met with, “We need to dialogue! We need to
hear from those who have experienced divorce or same-
sex attraction. Their voices are important and need to be
heard.” This sounds noble, so why shouldn’t Christians
embrace the practice of dialogue?
62
The presupposition underlying the modern principle of

dialogue is that there are two equally valid viewpoints,
neither of which is assumed to be “right.” Dialogue then
is the process by which both parties discuss their views
and, presumably, one party eventually comes over to the
other side. Or, two parties reach a mutually agreeable
compromise. If two people disagree, for example, on the
value of priests wearing cassocks, they could engage in
dialogue and try to come to some agreement.
However, progressives have attempted to extend this

concept of dialogue to areas of settled doctrine –
particularly those pelvic issues they are obsessed with,
such as contraception, abortion, divorce, and
homosexuality. Now everything – from doctrine to moral
teaching to disciplinary practices – are supposed to be
subject to dialogue. This is an innovation unheard of in
Christian tradition.
Witness of Our Lord and the Saints
Reading the Gospels you will be hard-pressed to find any

example of Our Lord participating in “dialogue.”
Jesus proclaims the Good News; he does not “dialogue”
with those who oppose his teachings. His biggest
adversaries were the Pharisees, and we are all familiar
with the “dialogue” that Christ engaged in with them:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” “Woe to
you, blind guides!”
63
BE WATCHFUL
Even when Our Lord spoke to sinners in conversation,

there was no hint of dialogue (as it is understood today)
regarding doctrine or moral teaching. Consider the
Samaritan woman at the well (John 4). First Jesus
proclaims his Good News: that he provides “living water”
which will last for eternity. When the woman expresses
interest in this living water, Jesus confronts her with her
sinful lifestyle: in this case, the fact that she has had
numerous husbands and is currently living with a man out
of wedlock. As a thought experiment, imagine what
advice Cardinal Kasper would have given our Lord after
hearing this conversation (“You must affirm the positive
aspects of this woman’s relationships!”)
The apostles, too, eschewed dialogue when it came to

doctrinal and moral matters. Consider St. Peter’s sermon
on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36): the first Pope accuses the
crowd of crucifying Jesus, the promised Messiah, and
then calls the people to repentance and conversion. Such
an approach reaps bountifully: Luke tells us that three
thousand souls were baptized (Acts 2:41). Again, there is
no “dialogue” regarding the truths of the faith.
Some argue that St. Paul’s sermon at the Areopagus (Acts

17:16-34) was an early example of dialogue between
religions. That is only because they haven’t read the actual
sermon since Sunday school. The Apostle does not
dialogue with the pagans – he proclaims the ignorance of
pagan worship and the need to embrace the true God in
repentance. I suspect that if St. Paul were alive today, he
64
would not be the first choice for the Pontifical Council

for Interreligious Dialogue.
The Church Fathers were no different. In one famous

scene St. Polycarp, a disciple of St. John the Apostle,
encounters the heretical leader Marcion. The Heresiarch
asks Polycarp, “Do you know me?” and the Saint
responds, “I do know thee, the first-born of Satan.”
Would this qualify as the “theology of encounter” many
progressives are calling for?
The list of examples could go on and on: St. Athanasius,

St. Dominic, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Theresa of Avila
(read her words on the “Lutherans” some time when
you’re in a particularly unecumenical mood). There are no
examples of saints or theologians embracing dialogue
with sin or doctrinal error.
Tyranny of Dialogue
Unfortunately, many well-meaning people have accepted

this language of “dialogue,” even if they don’t support
changing Church teaching. It is considered arrogant today
by many people to present yourself as having definitive
answers on any question of theology or morality. But this
is a false humility: it is like a man who has won a million
dollars, yet doesn’t want to give any to the poor for fear
of looking rich. When it comes to defined Church
doctrine – such as the inadmissibility of the divorced and
remarried to Communion, or the sinfulness of
homosexual acts – we do know the answers. They are
65
BE WATCHFUL
not our answers – just as the millionaire didn’t earn his

money through his own ingenuity – they are teachings we
have received as part of Revelation through the Church
Christ founded. The saints of old had a bold confidence
to proclaim these truths, not accepting even the
possibility they could be erroneous, because God is Truth
and cannot err.
Ultimately, this insistence on “dialogue” is a form of

tyranny, for it prevents the Truth, who is Jesus Christ,
from being openly proclaimed to, and accepted by, those
in sin and error. By calling for endless dialogue (it is never
made clear how such dialogue should ever conclude),
progressives keep people enslaved to sin and error.
Paradoxically, the never-ending appeal to “dialogue”
becomes a bullhorn to shout down those who support
Church teaching.
Proper Response
When a person is enslaved to sin and error, the absolute

worst thing we can do is to “dialogue” with him. This will
only allow him to continue in his destructive ways and
keep him from receiving the healing of Christ. What then
is the proper Christian response when we encounter sin
and error? We need to follow the model of the saints and
fathers who have preceded us:
1. Be in continual prayer for those who are living

outside Christ’s loving commands.
66
2. Continually study the Church’s teachings so that we

understand them to the best of our abilities.
3. Unapologetically defend those settled teachings

without compromise and without fear.
4. Call those who have embraced sin and error to

repentance and conversion.
Of course our defense of Church teaching and call to

repentance and conversion must be done in charity,
always remembering the dignity of each human person as
an image of God. (Even in comment boxes. Especially in
comment boxes.) But charity does not mean we ignore
the call to repentance; we often forget that the beginning
of Christ’s preaching was “Repent!” (Mark 1:15). We also
must understand that we do not get to set the timeframe
for another’s conversion. Some may respond
immediately, others may take years, even decades for
God’s grace to work in them. We simply remain faithful
to proclaiming the Gospel truth, no matter the results.
Hopefully, if faithful Catholics begin to replace dialogue

with charitable proclamation, eventually the endless
repeats of “That 60’s Show” will be permanently
cancelled.
67
THE MISSING INGREDIENT
IN TODAY’S CATHOLIC
EVANGELIZATION
Twenty-some years ago, I had a typical freshman year

in college: studying, getting acclimated to dorm life, and
training to go door-to-door to get people to “make a
personal decision for Christ.” Wait, what? Didn’t you do
that last one your freshman year? I guess that was unique
to my experience as an Evangelical Protestant involved
with Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant “para-
church” organization that focused on evangelization.
Fortunately for me (and for the poor people I harassed), I
soon became Catholic and my evangelization techniques
changed considerably. But at that time, few Catholics
talked about – and even fewer engaged in –
evangelization. Today the word “evangelization” is much
more common in Catholic circles. We see lots of videos
and conferences and books on Catholic evangelization
69
BE WATCHFUL
and hear many calls for Catholics to evangelize. But what

we don’t see is…results.
No one likes to hear this, and frankly I don’t like to write

about it. But the harsh truth is that fewer and fewer
Catholics are practicing their faith (see my article “How
Great We Aren’t”), and fewer and fewer people are
becoming Catholic (“A Church that Repels Instead of
Attracts”). So although we speak about evangelization, we
are not really seeing much good fruit from the focus on it.
Why is that? Many factors, of course, are at play: poor
catechesis, lackluster and irreverent liturgies, capitulation
to the culture, religious indifferentism. However, one
significant reason for our failure is that we have omitted
an essential ingredient of Catholic evangelization itself.
What is Missing?
Before I reveal the missing ingredient, I want to review

the generally-accepted elements of proper Catholic
evangelization. Obviously, the act of evangelizing itself –
telling others the Good News – is essential. Another
component is prayer – having an interior life as well as
praying for those who are lost. Finally, living a Catholic
life and witnessing to the power of the Gospel in our
actions is required. These three elements of
evangelization are necessary, and most good Catholic
evangelists will usually emphasize them. But almost all
Catholics (including me) forget the final ingredient of
70
IN TODAY’S CATHOLIC EVANGELIZATION
evangelization – the “secret sauce” necessary to make our

evangelization powerful and effective. What is it?
Voluntary mortification.
(That whooshing you hear is the sound of thousands of

readers closing their tabs or clicking away to another site.
But I’ll continue for the three of you who are left.)
Today’s Catholic Church places little or no emphasis on

mortification (also called penance). We seem to believe
that we can follow our crucified Lord and bring others to
him, without having any pain, or suffering, or even
discomfort in our lives. How American. Yet if we look at
the saints who were successful at evangelization we
quickly see that their lives consisted of pain and hardship.
St. Paul, the greatest evangelist the Church has produced,
described his mission as filled with suffering:
Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews

the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been
beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I
have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been
adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from
rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own
people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city,
danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from
false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a
sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without
food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other
things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my
anxiety for all the churches. (2 Corinthians 11:24-28)
71
BE WATCHFUL
But we think we can bring souls to Christ just like this

great Apostle or a St. Francis Xavier simply by posting
Catholic memes on Facebook and Twitter…
The realization that the Church today is missing an

essential ingredient in her evangelization efforts came to
me when I read this simple sentence from Pope Pius XII:
“This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject

of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on
the prayers and voluntary penances which the
members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer
for this intention.” (Mystici Corpus Christi 44, emphasis
added)
What struck me so much was that we would never see

included today the simple phrase “and voluntary
penances” in Catholic writing on evangelization – neither
in official Church documents nor in the writings of most
Catholic thought leaders. I know – I’ve read most of
them. We have completely forgotten the importance of
the practice of voluntary mortifications.
Prayer…and Fasting
Yet our Lord himself told us that prayer alone is often

not enough. When the apostles failed to cast out a
demonic spirit, they asked our Lord why. He replied:
“This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer
and fasting.” (Mark 9: 29). If “fasting” (mortification) was
required to drive out that demonic spirit, does it not seem
72
IN TODAY’S CATHOLIC EVANGELIZATION
clear that mortification is necessary to drive out the

spiritual darkness which envelops modern man?
Why must we suffer in order to help bring about the

salvation of others? This is a mystery, and reflects the
intrinsic bond between Christ and his Church. Just as
Christ suffered in order to make salvation available to the
world, so too must the Church suffer in order to bring
salvation to each person. St. Paul wrote of the deep unity
between the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of the
Church, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,
and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s
afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church”
(Colossians 1:24). No servant is greater than his master:
St. Paul knew that offering his sufferings for the salvation
of others was an integral part of his apostolate for souls.
Voluntary mortification, therefore, is necessary for

successful evangelization, and there are many examples of
voluntary mortifications that we can practice today for
the salvation of souls. Traditionally, it has been the
practice of the Church to fast every Friday – from one
meal, two meals, or more. Throughout the week we can
also give up those things we love so much: coffee, sugary
treats, Facebook, TV. Or we could perform small physical
penances, such as keeping a pebble in a shoe or turning
up the A/C thermostat in the summer. We all know our
own limits and abilities, and the mortifications we choose
should be compatible with our state in life (a nursing
mother, for example, should not practice extreme
73
BE WATCHFUL
fasting). Regardless of one’s state in life, however, every

person can choose appropriate mortifications.
One final note about taking on penances and

mortifications for the good of others – remember the
words of Jesus:
“And when you fast, do not look dismal, like the

hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their
fasting may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they
have their reward. But when you fast, anoint your
head and wash your face, that your fasting may not be
seen by men but by your Father who is in secret; and
your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
(Matthew 6:16-18)
Or, as St. Josemaría Escrivá noted, “Choose

mortifications that don’t mortify others” (The Way,
179). No matter the suffering we accept, we must
continue to be joyful witnesses of the Gospel, leading
others to Christ through our prayers, our lives, our words
and our penances. With all four ingredients many souls
can be won for Jesus Christ.
74
NO MORE SCRAPS:
REGAINING RIGHTFUL CATHOLIC
PRIDE
The movie Braveheart dramatizes the heroic

struggle, led by the commoner William Wallace, for
Scottish independence. In one scene, the Scottish nobles
gather after some initial victories by William Wallace over
the English. The nobles begin bickering over how best to
negotiate with the English King, Edward Longshanks, for
they fear losing their lands and moneys if they push
Longshanks too hard. Disgusted, Wallace begins to walk
out of the room when he is stopped and asked his plans:
Wallace: I will invade England and defeat the English

on their own ground.
Lord Craig: Invade? That’s impossible.
75
BE WATCHFUL
Wallace: Why? Why is that impossible? You’re so

concerned with squabbling for the scraps from
Longshanks’ table that you’ve missed your God-given
right to something better. There is a difference
between us. You think the people of this country exist
to provide you with possession. I think your
possession exists to provide those people with
freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.
Squabbling Over Scraps
I’m often reminded of this scene when I see how Catholic

leaders today – clerical or lay – act in relation to the
world. Although the Catholic Church has been given the
words of everlasting life, most Catholic leaders seem
content to squabble over the scraps from the world’s
table – working to make Catholicism palatable to polite
society, simply satisfied with the continued existence of
the Church and doing nothing to expand her footprint.
When anyone suggests that perhaps we should “invade
England,” i.e., resist the world’s lies completely and work
for its total conversion to Catholicism, these same
leaders are quick to say, “That’s impossible,” for all sorts
of timid reasons – “No one will listen to us,” “We have to
meet people where they are,” and “We can’t be
triumphalistic.” But it is fear of rejection – and fear of
losing their current comfortable positions – that is driving
their timidity. All the while faithful Catholics are denied
their God-given right to something better – a full and
unadulterated proclamation and practice of Catholicism.
76
NO MORE SCRAPS:
REGAINING RIGHTFUL CATHOLIC PRIDE
Proclaiming the Gospel
What would such a proclamation and practice look like?

Here are some starters:
Full-throated defense of the Church’s moral

teaching. No more tepid justifications for why we
should go along with the death march that is our modern
culture: “We must accompany people on their journey.”
“We are just making a pastoral, not a doctrinal, change.”
Instead we need a robust defense and explanation for
why the Church’s moral teachings are the only sane ones
in an insane world, and an exhortation to follow them,
that we may find true joy and peace.
Condemnation of error and those that promote it. No

more acting as if orthodoxy is an option, while souls are
falling deeper and deeper into sin and error. Leaders need
to treat theological error for the serious danger it is:
something that can separate us from God for all eternity.
Further, those who promote error need to be publicly and
strongly resisted, not given tenured positions at
“Catholic” universities (or promoted to Cardinalate
dioceses).
A liturgy that reflects the grandeur of what it is

celebrating. No more insipid, uninspiring liturgies that
either would be more at home in a Gilbert & Sullivan
show or reflect a deep-seated apathy toward the Faith.
77
BE WATCHFUL
We need liturgical celebrations to be reverent, serious,

and awe-inspiring. Did I mention reverent?
Proclamation of the superiority of Catholicism. No

more acting as if every Tom, Dick and Martin Luther has
more religious wisdom than Thomas Aquinas and
Augustine put together. We need to start proclaiming that
the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus
Christ, and that eternal salvation comes through her.
Souls are depending on it.
A concern for the next life more than this life. No

more treating recycling campaigns and government social
programs as if they are more important than the eternal
destination of souls. Our sights have been set so low over
the past few decades that we forget that it is only the
Church that has the means to solve the greatest problems
in existence: sin and death. The guiding principle of every
action of a Church leader must be “Will this help or
hinder souls getting to Heaven?”
For far too long Church leaders – again, lay as well as

clerical – have thought that their positions exist to
provide them with prestige, invitations to dine with the
Important People, and as a means to book deals, TV
shows, and speaking engagements. In reality their
positions exist to provide people with the path to eternal
life. Only if they stop squabbling for the world’s scraps
and instead “invade England” – i.e., confront the world
head-on and work for its complete conversion – can the
78
NO MORE SCRAPS:
REGAINING RIGHTFUL CATHOLIC PRIDE
Church fulfill her mandate, given to her by Christ, to

“make disciples of all nations” and thus conquer, instead
of conform to, the world.
79
NEW COKE:
IF TODAY’S CATHOLICS WERE IN
CHARGE
Originally published December 9, 2015
In April 1985 the Coca-Cola Company introduced a new formula

for their flagship product, Coke. Called “New Coke,” it was a
public relations disaster and within months the company reverted
back to their beloved formula. But what if history were different?
What if Coca-Cola handled the release of New Coke like many of
today’s Catholic leaders handle the current crisis in the Church?
July 1985
Meeting of top Coke executives
CEO: So, it’s been three months since New Coke was
introduced – how’s it going?
81
BE WATCHFUL
Mr. Eldridge, VP of Operations: Not so good. We’re

getting a lot of complaints. People seem to like the old
formula better.
Mr. Newmann, VP of Marketing: Well, it takes time

for people to accept change. I’m sure after a while people
will start to embrace it – after all, all our experts have told
us this is the way to go!
Mr. Eldridge: I don’t know – it seems like most regular

people want to go back to the old formula.
Mr. Newmann: Well, the latest research clearly states

that New Coke is the future and will bring Coca-Cola into
the modern world.
Mr. Eldridge: It doesn’t seem like our customers agree.
Mr. Newmann: Well, there is always resistance whenever

there is change. But we can’t go back to pre-New Coke
days – that would be turning back the clock.
CEO: I agree with Mr. Newmann – visionary companies

like Coca-Cola don’t move backwards. Let’s stick with
New Coke.
October 1985
CEO: Tell me some good news, people.
Mr. Eldridge: I’m not sure if there’s…
82
NEW COKE:
IF TODAY’S CATHOLICS WERE IN CHARGE
Mr. Newmann (interrupting): New Coke is really

taking the world by storm, sir! People are starting to ask
for new formulas for all our drinks: Mello Yellow, Diet
Coke, Sprite…
Mr. Eldridge: But our sales are down dramatically, and

Pepsi’s are up.
Mr. Newmann: Don’t be so negative, Mr. Eldridge,

New Coke is the wave of the future. Just the other day
the Washington Post was praising us for our bold moves
to reshape the beverage industry.
Mr. Eldridge: Didn’t you hear me? Our sales are down
dramatically – it’s clear the people don’t like New Coke!
CEO: That’s enough Mr. Eldridge. We need to be

positive and understand the importance of what we’re
doing here – we must look with joy and hope to a new
and exciting future! Sure, making such a major change
might ruffle some feathers, but the worst thing we could
do is go backwards. On with New Coke!
April 1986
CEO: It’s been a year since we introduced New Coke;

let’s have a status report.
Mr. Newmann: Things couldn’t be better, sir. We are

being praised by all the experts for our commitment to
New Coke.
83
BE WATCHFUL
Mr. Eldridge: Things couldn’t be worse, sir. Our sales

have tanked. 20% of our workforce has left because they
are so disillusioned, and we had to slash another 30%
because of our decreased revenues.
Mr. Newmann: Don’t listen to him, sir. I don’t know

why he’s always so negative. We really are in a springtime
for our company. We’re no longer bound to our old
formulas and can reshape the company in a modern way.
I propose that we change the formula for ALL our
drinks!
Mr. Eldridge: What? Are you crazy!?
CEO: That’s a great idea, Mr. Newmann. In two months

I want every drink we offer to have a new, modern
formula.
Mr. Newmann: I’ll get right on it, sir.
August 1986
CEO: The new drinks have been on the market for a few
weeks – what’s the response?
Mr. Newmann: Great, sir! Every business journal is

lauding our visionary leadership, and universities are
starting to teach your management techniques as standard
in their business schools.
84
NEW COKE:
Mr. Eldridge: But no one is actually buying the drinks!

We had to lay off another 20% of the staff – if we keep
this up, there won’t be a company anymore!
Mr. Newmann: Okay, perhaps we do need a change.
Mr. Eldridge: Finally! So when can we get Old Coke

back on the shelves?
Mr. Newmann: Old Coke? I think you misunderstand

me – I suggest that we introduce another new formula to
Coke – make it “New New Coke!”
Mr. Eldridge: What? But New Coke is only a little over a

year old – and you want to introduce another new
formula?
Mr. Newmann: New Coke is outdated now – that’s why

sales are down. The solution, clearly, is to introduce a
newer, fresher formula. That will bring our customers
back.
CEO: Great idea, Newmann. Let’s get a new, new

formula out on the streets ASAP!
December 1986
CEO: So, how is “New New Coke” doing?
Mr. Eldridge: As I suspected, it’s…
85
BE WATCHFUL
Mr. Newmann (interrupting): Excellent, sir! There is

really a groundswell of support for “New New Coke.”
People were obviously tired of New Coke, and they will
definitely embrace this new product.
Mr. Eldridge: Actually, sales have fallen even faster than

they did when we introduced New Coke. At this rate, the
only people drinking our beverages will be in this room,
and I’ve switched to Bourbon. I really think we should
consider going back to Old Coke.
CEO & Mr. Newmann: (gasp!)
Mr. Newmann: What are you, a reactionary? Why would

we go back to such a time as Old Coke? We are marching
into the 21st century, and you want to go back to the Dark
Ages!
CEO: Newmann is right. We need to stay the course and

continue to lead the beverage industry into the future.
September 1987
CEO: Your reports?
Mr. Newmann: Everything is awesome, sir! Based on

what I read in the papers and see on TV, we have never
been more popular. True, we had to shut down 10 of our
factories, but that is just a sign of the times – nothing we
could do about it.
86
NEW COKE:
Mr. Eldridge: We had to shut down those factories

because no one is buying our drinks! Why can’t you guys
see that our changes aren’t helping, they’re hurting?
Mr. Newmann: Nonsense, Eldridge. It’s clear what we

need to do.
Mr. Eldridge: Please don’t say that we need to change

the formula again…
Mr. Newmann: That is exactly what I am going to say!

“New New Coke” is old-fashioned – none of the young
people identify with it. We need to introduce “New New
New Coke!”
CEO: Another excellent idea, Newmann! Get right on

that.
May 1988
CEO: I’m looking at these sales reports, and they don’t

look so good.
Mr. Eldridge: That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you!
Mr. Newmann: Yes, sir, they don’t look that great, and I
know the reason why.
Mr. Eldridge: Finally!
CEO: What is the problem, Newmann?
87
BE WATCHFUL
Mr. Newmann: The problem is Mr. Eldridge.
Mr. Eldridge: What?!
Mr. Newmann: Mr. Eldridge is holding us back. He’s

always trying to bring back the bad old days of Old Coke,
when people were slavishly drinking our product, instead
of being open to other beverages, like Pepsi or Dr.
Pepper.
Mr. Eldridge: But don’t we want people to drink our

product?
Mr. Newmann: See what I mean? Mr. Eldridge, we

shouldn’t be trying to proselytize others to Coke. We
should allow them to choose their own beverage. After
all, what does it matter which one they drink? We can’t be
saying that our products are better than others, can we?
Mr. Eldridge: But…
Mr. Newmann: Clearly you need to go, Eldridge.
CEO: I agree. Mr. Eldridge, you’re fired!
(After Mr. Eldridge leaves)
Mr. Newmann: Now, how do you like the sound of

“New New New New Coke”?
CEO: I like it…
88
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT A
CONTROL FREAK
Originally published January 27, 2016
Last month I wrote an article imagining what would

happen if Catholic Church leaders were in charge of
Coca-Cola when the company introduced New Coke
(“New Coke: If Today’s Catholics Were in Charge”). I
was being tongue-in-cheek, of course, but my goal was to
show that failed ideas in the Church are sometimes harder
to kill than a horde of zombies. A friend on Facebook
took exception to the article. She wrote:
So, are you saying a) that the Holy Spirit is like a tone-
deaf CEO who doesn’t know what He is doing, b)
that the Holy Spirit was completely absent from VII,
or c) that the Holy Spirit is like the totally right but
ignored subordinate employee, begging and pleading
with pope after pope to erase everything that has
happened in the Church since about 1950 or so but
89
BE WATCHFUL
those darned stubborn (canonized, two of ‘em) popes

just wouldn’t listen?
Now I don’t want to argue here against her specific

objections, and I consider my friend a faithful, orthodox
Catholic. But I do want to challenge an assumption
lurking behind her remarks, because many orthodox
Catholics in the Church today employ the same fallacy.
I’m referring to the assumption that criticism (especially
strong criticism) of the general direction of the Church is
criticism of the Holy Spirit. After all, if the Holy Spirit
guides the Church, then certainly He is guiding it in the
right direction, correct? Sure, many orthodox Catholics
say, there might be problems here and there, but
questioning the overall direction of the Church would be
questioning the wisdom of the Third Person of the
Blessed Trinity.
Was the Holy Spirit Asleep at the Switch?
Imagine you’re an Egyptian Catholic born in 320 A.D.

When you’re a little child, the great Council of
Nicea takes place, defining that the Son is consubstantial
with the Father, equally God. Your parents are faithful to
this orthodox definition and raise you in the true faith.
However, after the Council there is a great conflagration
of the opposite viewpoint, Arianism, until almost the
entire Church – including almost every bishop –
embraces the view that the Son is NOT equal to the
Father. Move forward to 360, and the Church is still
overrun by Arianism. Do you, at this point, assume that
90
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT A CONTROL FREAK
the Church is moving in the right direction, and believe

claiming otherwise amounts to being unfaithful to the
Holy Spirit? Or do you fight to restore the Church to her
proper teachings and practices?
Another example. Imagine you are a French Catholic

born in 1370. Before you reach the age of 10 there are
two men, Urban VI and Clement VII, claiming to be
pope, causing what we now call the Western Schism. Of
course you don’t know it as history, you know it as daily
life. Good Catholics are on both sides of the divide,
although they recognize the great scandal of two papal
claimants. Move forward forty years. Not only is the
papal situation not resolved, but now three men claim to
be pope! You have lived your whole life as a Catholic
under this cloud of competing popes. Do you, at this
point, assume that the Church is moving in the right
direction, and believe claiming otherwise amounts to
being unfaithful to the Holy Spirit? Or do you fight to
restore the Church to her proper teachings and practices?
Guide to Truth, or Micro-Manager?
These examples are not meant to argue that today’s crisis

rises to the same level as the Arian heresy and the
Western Schism – that is for the historian to decide one
day. Instead, they show that the Holy Spirit is not a
micro-manager or control freak who makes sure that the
perfect pope is always picked, that the majority of bishops
are always faithful to Him, and that the Truth is
91
BE WATCHFUL
proclaimed and lived within Catholic parishes throughout

the world. If this were truly His role, history would
condemn Him as an utter failure.
What is, then, the role of the Holy Spirit? First, He

guarantees that the Church will never officially teach
error. Considering how often individual Catholics have
embraced heresy (especially during the Arian crisis), this is
no easy task. But note that protecting the Catholic
Church from error does not mean protecting individual
Catholics from error. Any Catholic – from the lowliest
layperson to priests to bishops to even the pope – can
hold and even promote theological or moral error. There
is one exception, and this involves another role of the
Holy Spirit: He ensures that the pope cannot teach error
in faith or morals when the pontiff speaks (and only when
he speaks) ex cathedra.
Further, the Holy Spirit guides individuals to Our Lord,

while always respecting their human freedom. If we spend
many hours in prayer and practice the virtues, then we
will be more receptive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If, however, we do not, then the Holy Spirit will not force
us to follow His guidance, even if we are a Prince of the
Church.
In Times of Crisis, the Holy Spirit Raises

Up Saints
Throughout Salvation History God works good out of

the evil actions of men. We see this most clearly in the
92
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT A CONTROL FREAK
crucifixion, which turned the most evil act in human

history into the greatest good. Likewise, we have seen
how during the darkest times in Church history, great
saints are raised up to combat the errors of their times.
Saints such as Athanasius and Catherine of Sienna were
not unfaithful to the Holy Spirit when they decried the
state of the Church in their times; in fact, they were
responding to the Holy Spirit and helped guide the
Church to the truth (cf. John 16:13).
Today we too must trust in the Holy Spirit, but not in a

Pollyanna way that refuses to acknowledge problems
within the Church for fear of being unfaithful to Him.
Instead, we must be confident that the Holy Spirit will
raise up Saints like St. Athanasius and St. Catherine who
will lead us out of this crisis. Perhaps even we should pray
that we might be those Saints.
93
ST. FRANCIS, POPE FRANCIS,
AND ME
Originally published March 31, 2016 on ericsammons.com
My favorite saint is Francis of Assisi. Such a statement

isn’t exactly novel – many people count the Poverello as
their favorite. Why I am so attracted to him, however,
might be a bit more unique. It is not his love for creation
that most attracts me, or his embrace of poverty,
although both are essential to who he is. What attracts me
most about Francis is his single-minded devotion to Jesus
Christ and being conformed to his image. In fact, my
family has consecrated itself to St. Francis, and we wrote
a prayer for this consecration that includes the line,
“Through the intercession of St. Francis, we seek the
grace to live out single-minded, consuming devotion to
Christ, bringing the Gospel to the world in our words and
actions.” And for St. Francis, this devotion was all-
consuming – he thought of nothing but Christ and
making him known to others. This is not the safe,
95
BE WATCHFUL
environmentally-friendly St. Francis of popular

imagination, nor is it the Saint of the invented quote,
“Preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words.”
(Did the inventor of that quote even read one life of St.
Francis?). But I believe it is more in keeping with the true
St. Francis of Assisi.
Although I fall far short of the ideal of St. Francis, my life

as a Catholic has been an attempt to model myself after
him. I find St. Francis a man after my Protestant-raised
heart. All that matters is Jesus, and bringing others to
him. Nothing else matters. One of my frustrations as a
Catholic over the past 20+ years is to see so many
Church leaders who seem to put temporal matters above
the things of the Spirit. Which brings me to the Pope
who took on the name of my favorite Saint.
Reserving Judgement
When Pope Francis was first elected, I, like many others,

had no knowledge of the man Cardinal Bergoglio. I saw
some of the warnings from traditional-minded Catholics,
but honestly I figured they wouldn’t be happy unless
Archbishop Lefevere was exhumed and put on the
Throne of St. Peter. I saw no reason – other than him
being a Jesuit, which isn’t exactly a calling card for
orthodoxy these days – to think he wouldn’t be in line
with the previous two pontiffs (the only popes I’ve lived
under as a Catholic).
96
AND ME
I continued in my support for Pope Francis in the early

months of his papacy. I wasn’t happy with his “Who am I
to judge?” quote, and I saw first-hand how it led
Catholics to support homosexual acts. But the actual
context of the quote wasn’t that bad, and his lack of
further clarification I chalked up to his inexperience at
being the most influential spiritual leader in the world.
Other things he did also gave me reservations, but I
didn’t want to judge the man unfairly in light of his two
brilliant predecessors. Who, after all, could fill the large
shoes of both St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI?
Sinking Feeling
When the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium was

announced, I was excited. After all, I was at the time the
Director of Evangelization for a diocese, and this would
be direct marching orders from the pope himself. Who in
my position wouldn’t be excited? Yet as I read the
document, my initial excitement became a sinking feeling
in the pit of my stomach. At first I figured it was just a
bad reaction to his writing style. I absolutely love the
writing of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict; when I’m
reading him, it is like listening to Beethoven (or perhaps
Mozart, his favorite composer, is a more appropriate
analogy). Again, I didn’t want to be unfair to Pope
Francis; just because I don’t like his writing style is no
reason to ignore what he is saying. But the more I dug
into the document, the more apprehensive I got. Other
than a few passages (and there are always a “few
97
BE WATCHFUL
passages” that one can reference with Francis), I found

nothing of the call to evangelization that I found with
John Paul and Benedict (and even Paul VI!). The
document appeared to be a hodge-podge of unrelated
statements that had less to do with evangelization and
more to do with the Holy Father’s personal favorite
issues. I happened to be teaching at that time a graduate-
level course on Catholic evangelization, reading all the
20th century magisterial documents on the subject, and I
simply could not reconcile Evangelii Gaudium with those
documents, pre- or post-Vatican II.
At this point (Evangelii Gaudium was released in

November 2013), I admit, my defenses came up. While I
wouldn’t say that I had become suspicious of all things
Francis, I wasn’t an enthusiastic supporter anymore
either. And the problems kept coming, like some form of
Roman water torture. An interview here, a plane ride
there, and over and over Francis’ words and actions were
making me look at him in a new light. I saw a number of
my fellow Catholics make light of his miscues, or even
defend them, but I saw first-hand, over and over, the
impact his statements were making on the average
Catholics in the pews (as well as on those former
Catholics who don’t fill the pews anymore). I understood
that in most cases his statements didn’t directly contradict
official Catholic teaching, but, honestly, that matters only
to the most die-hard Catholic. To the average Catholic, as
well as all non-Catholics, what the Pope says matters
much more than what the Catechism states. And a pope
98
AND ME
has to realize this and take it into account when he is

speaking. On countless occasions I had to defend Church
teaching against what someone believed Francis was
saying (and often, what he actually was saying in the most
plain reading of his statements). Souls were being led
astray from the Faith by statements of the Pope, and I
couldn’t simply shrug it off as “no big deal” (a phrase I
often heard from some of my fellow orthodox Catholics).
Evidence Mounts
As the evidence mounted that perhaps Pope Francis

wasn’t that good at “poping,” I told myself to make every
effort to be fair to him. After all, being a world leader
whose every word is parsed and minutely examined isn’t
an easy job. So whenever I heard another controversy
pop up – either from the mainstream media embracing
something he said, or the traditionalist Catholic media
denouncing it – I resolved to ignore the headlines and
reports and read the pope’s words directly. What I
discovered was that often what he said, when read in
complete context, was actually worse than the headline;
very rarely did I discover that that controversy was simply
making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
What I found in reading countless statements and

documents from the Holy Father was an almost single-
minded, consuming devotion to this world, and an almost
cavalier attitude to the spiritual world. Never did I see any
calls to conversion to Christ (in fact, I saw some explicit
99
BE WATCHFUL
calls for non-Catholics NOT to convert). Instead I would

read talk of climate change, refugees, and other such
temporal (and usually liberally fashionable) matters.
Additionally, the symbolism of the Vatican under Francis
could not be any more clear as to his priorities – do I
need to mention the climate change light show on the
Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, or the “Earth
Hour” celebrated on the Solemnity of St. Joseph? By
every indication, Pope Francis appears to put the matters
of this world high above those of the next, and his
priorities appear straight out of a mainstream liberal’s
playbook.
Although there have been many, two Francis statements

in particular stand out for me. Both came from plane
interviews, naturally. In the first, Francis made his famous
breeding “like rabbits” comment. Instead of praising the
heroic virtue of a women who had seven children in the
face of cultural opposition, he instead denigrated her by
bringing up the old anti-Catholic canard of Catholics
breeding like rabbits. How did this comment bring
anyone closer to Christ? How did it call anyone to a
higher way of living? I’ll also admit, that as the husband
of a woman with seven children who endured multiple
miscarriages during that time in her dedication to the
Gospel of Life, I was personally hurt by that flippant
comment by our Holy Father.
The second statement, however, was even worse; I’m

referring to his recent comments regarding the Zika virus.
100
AND ME
He made it clear that one could “avoid pregnancy” rather

than risk the possibility of having a child impacted by the
Zika virus. And lest anyone misunderstand, his
spokesman later clarified that he was indeed speaking of
using artificial contraception. Not only is this a case of a
pope publicly contradicting clear Catholic teaching, he is
also suggesting that having a child born with a possible
birth defect is somehow a greater evil than contraception!
There is simply no way for any Catholic to justify, let
alone defend, such remarks.
On a grander scale, let me just mention for a

moment Laudato Si’. First, yes, I did read it. Second, I
wish I hadn’t. The scientifically, economically, and
prudentially problematic document shows both a person
beholden to the most fashionable causes (no matter how
scientifically dubious they may be), but also who
considers them of the absolute highest priority. In the
face of millions upon millions of Catholics leaving the
Faith, a complete destruction of Catholic culture, and
woeful catechesis, our Holy Father has decided to put his
considerable influence behind a cause that is already
embraced by the powerful of the world, and is a
considerable engine for greater control of the poor by the
elites.
Silencing the Critics
As I came to accept the reality that our Holy Father had

dubious priorities and appeared to support positions
101
BE WATCHFUL
contrary to the Deposit of Faith, I marveled at the

defenses of his statements by otherwise sensible orthodox
Catholics. The mental and grammatical gymnastics that
they engaged in to defend what plainly could not be
defended astounded me. I created this test in my mind: if
Cardinal Mahoney had said the exact same thing in 1995,
would these same people have made such an effort to
defend it? If not, then they are simply engaging in papal
positivism of the worst kind.
This takes me to a key point. There appears to exist in

many parts of the Church today a dogged unwillingness
to engage in even the softest criticism of the pope. Any
such criticism automatically brands you a “Radtrad” or
some other infantile moniker, indicating you clearly aren’t
really Catholic deep in your soul as his defenders are.
When I was investigating Catholicism more than 20 years
ago as an Evangelical Protestant, I clearly remember
being told that Catholics need not agree with everything a
pope does and says, and that his words aren’t Gospel.
When was that teaching changed, and why didn’t anyone
tell me about it? Why is it if I disagree with a pope now –
and even disagree strongly – I get tut-tutted for not being
faithful, or not listening to the Holy Spirit as I should? It
seems we tell our Protestant brethren one thing, then do
the opposite among ourselves.
If you look throughout Church history, you see criticisms

– even harsh criticisms – of the Vicar of Christ among
faithful Catholics. But it seems as if the past century and a
102
AND ME
half has changed that. Although Vatican I’s definition of

papal infallibility was intended primarily to limit what
papal statements were considered infallible, in practice it
seems to have elevated his stature beyond spiritual head
to divine oracle. If you look at the writings of pre-Vatican
II popes such as Pius IX through XII, you see a very
strong sense of the papacy and a desire for absolute
devotion to the pope’s every word.
Of course, for many Catholics Vatican II was supposed

to do away with all that. And in fact, for the less-
orthodox inclined, Vatican II was seen as a lever with
which to challenge the authority of the papacy, a
challenge that reached its apex under the pontificate of
John Paul II. But the orthodox reaction was not so much
to stick to strict Catholic teaching as it was to react with
complete and unswerving devotion to the person of John
Paul II. And his person, admittedly, attracted devotion.
The cult of personality that arose under JPII continued,
although with less strength, under Benedict XVI (though
my friends will tell you it increased in yours truly). In
arguing a point with a heterodox Catholic the means was
not to consult the Catechism or the Scriptures or the
tradition of the Church, it was to find a recent papal
statement in our favor. That was the trump card. I was
uncomfortable with that line of action back then,
although admittedly I too sometimes played that card.
Ultimately, as Catholics we must always remember that
the Church doesn’t believe something because the pope
103
BE WATCHFUL
says so, but the pope says so because the Church believes
it.
The Reality of a “Bad” Pope
All faithful Catholics recognize that the Church has seen

many “bad” popes through the centuries. What does it
mean to be a “bad” pope? It could mean that he simply
had great moral failings, with many concubines or young
boys at his disposal for personal pleasure (Alexander VI).
Perhaps at a time of great doctrinal crisis, when the
Church needed a strong voice from the papacy to combat
error, he was silent out of cowardice, or even because he
agreed quietly with the error (Honorius I). Perhaps he
was a terrible person morally – perhaps he lied, schemed,
and murdered his way to the papacy (pick a 10thcentury
pope). Being a bad pope however doesn’t necessarily
mean that every action he takes is evil or even that his
intentions are evil. It just means he didn’t live up to the
very lofty call of being the Vicar of Christ on earth.
But what seems inconceivable to the same Catholics who

acknowledge the possibility of – and historical evidence
for – “bad” popes is that they could be living under one.
In fact, it doesn’t seem to enter their minds that they
could live under an even mediocre one. The only possibility
is that every pope they live under is blessed with
intelligence, a gift for preaching, unquestioned orthodoxy,
and great prudence in all teachings. Heck, the apostles
themselves didn’t have a pope like that! (Sorry, St. Peter).
104
AND ME
I’m willing to say that in many ways our current Holy

Father is at best a “mediocre” pope, and in some ways
even a “bad” pope. The standard I use to make this
judgement is the standard of St. Francis: do the words
and actions of the Pope witness a single-minded,
consuming devotion to bring the Gospel to the world?
Sadly, I have to admit, based on my interactions with
countless “average” Catholics as well as the results of
many surveys I have seen, this has not been the case with
Pope Francis. In fact, many people have been led away
from the Gospel by his words and actions. By saying this
I might have my membership card revoked by the
“orthodox Catholic” crowd, but I still believe that such
thoughts are not only not unfaithful, but in fact faithful to
the Gospel the Vicar of Christ is obligated to proclaim to
the world.
But a few caveats. First, I do think it wrong to judge Pope

Francis’ (or anyone’s) intentions. This, in fact, is the
meaning behind the “do not judge” command of Our
Lord’s. Francis may very well believe that his words and
actions bring people to Christ. I believe strongly they do
not, but I acknowledge I can’t read his thoughts on the
matter. I can only look at his words and actions and their
consequences. Second, I don’t consider Pope Francis the
worst pope in history or a sign of the End Times. I think
some critics of Francis sometimes get a bit too wound up.
Even a cursory reading of Church history finds far worse
popes, but we often cannot be objective about our own
105
BE WATCHFUL
times. Let the future judge how “bad” he was when it can
see all the consequences from a distance. Third, I don’t
spend my every waking hour consumed with thinking of
this pope. I pray for him daily, but I mostly go about
living my faith without too much reference to him (as
Catholics have always done until recently). Finally, I do
not think every action of Francis is bad. On a whole I
believe he has hurt the cause of the Church more than
helped it, but that doesn’t mean he is some anti-Christ
trying to destroy the Faith at every opportunity.
Love the Papacy, Love the Pope
One last point. To a knowledgeable Catholic, nothing I

say here should suggest that I somehow am dissatisfied
with the office of the papacy or the Church in general.
One attack made by the defenders of Francis is to accuse
his critics of being Protestants or sedevacanists in
disguise. However, I believe the papacy to be essential to
Christianity and fully believe Francis is the legitimate
pope. My father-in-law, who was a faithful and simple
Catholic, taught his children one maxim that I think
contains much wisdom: “No matter what, stay with the
pope.” I agree completely with this maxim, and I try to
pass it on to my kids as well. No matter who holds the
office of the papacy, we must stay united to him; if we do
not, we have left the Barque of Peter for the sinking ship
of the world. A mediocre or bad pope does not change
this, nor does it give me any temptation to flee to other
pastures. I would prefer death to separation from Rome,
106
AND ME
no matter what the current occupant of Rome is saying or

doing. Part of St. Francis’ single-minded devotion to
Christ was a deep love for the pope, his Vicar on earth.
As a disciple of the Saint of Assisi, I share this love for
the papacy, as well as for its current flawed occupant.
Nothing he will say or do will change that love.
107
MEET AMY,
THE AVERAGE CATHOLIC
“So you think I’m a sinner?”
I had just finished giving a parish talk to a group of about

40 people on the topic of mercy. In my talk I noted that
everyone needs mercy, because we’re all sinners. I didn’t
particularly dwell on the topic, but I made clear that our
sinful nature, and our sinful decisions, are why mercy is
necessary. The woman continued, “Everyone here has
come to church during the week to hear a religious talk,
so I’d say we’re all good people. Why do you think we’re
sinners?”
Adventures in Catholicland
For over 20 years I’ve been involved in evangelization

work at both parish and diocesan levels. During that time,
I’ve spoken at more than 100 different parishes,
109
BE WATCHFUL
presenting the faith to thousands of people. The vast

majority of my talks have been in parishes, before crowds
of 30-50 people. I have had countless interactions with
those who attend, either during a question-and-answer
period, or chatting afterwards. In addition to the
exchange noted above, here’s a sampling of some of the
encounters I’ve had:
• I gave a talk on Confession, and a man noted, with

pride, that he hadn’t gone to Confession in years, and
the Church didn’t require it anymore.
• In one talk I mentioned the possibility of people,
even people in the audience, going to Hell. Soon
afterwards our bishop received complaints that I was
condemning the audience to Hell.
• After mentioning the Church’s teaching on artificial
birth control in a talk, I was approached by a woman
afterwards who told me, “I’ve never heard that
discussed in a Catholic church before.” She was in her
60’s.
• After speaking at a parish whose pastor was a well-
known dissenter from Church teaching, a man told
me how much he loves his pastor, noting that he
makes everyone feel “welcome.”
• A woman came up to me after a talk to let me know
that the Church was “awful” before Vatican II, but
now it was moving in the right direction. When I
asked her to specify how it had been awful, she
simply said, “in everything.”
110
MEET AMY,
• After referencing Pope Benedict XVI in a talk, I was

asked by a man why I didn’t talk about Pope Francis.
“He’s changed everything that Benedict did.”
To these examples I could add countless more.
Amy the Average Catholic
Over the years I’ve gotten to know my typical audience,

which I would describe as “average Catholics.” They are
not people who have left the Church or are antagonistic
to the Faith. Neither are they hard-core Catholics, the
type that might travel hours to hear Scott Hahn speak or
go to a Steubenville Conference. They attend Mass
regularly (perhaps 2-3 times a month, maybe more) and
identify as Catholic, but do not follow Catholic news or
Catholic blogs. They form their impressions of the
Church and her teachings from hearing the weekly
homily, talking with their fellow Catholics, and following
the mainstream news.
I have encountered many good and decent souls among

my parish visits, but over time I’ve formed an impression
of what I would call The Average Catholic. Let’s call her
“Amy” (the Average Catholic is usually female):
We are all good people going to heaven. Amy the

Average Catholic assumes she – and all her friends – are
going to Heaven. Usually she ignores the topic of Hell;
when pressed she would dismiss it as a medieval
111
BE WATCHFUL
invention. Amy doesn’t believe there is anything

fundamentally wrong with herself. Sure, she might eat too
many sweets, or could work on her patience. But any
problems she might have would only require a life coach,
not a Savior.
The Church’s teachings on sexuality are an

embarrassment. Amy believes the Church can be a force
for good in this world, reminding people to be kind and
to take care of those around us. But when it comes to
moral issues, especially those related to sexuality, Amy is
embarrassed by the Church’s teachings. She wishes the
Church would just avoid those topics.
The Church is a place to socially gather and feel

welcome. If asked, “Why are you Catholic?” Amy would
probably answer vaguely that she grew up Catholic, and it
makes her feel good about herself. She goes to her parish
to see friends and hopefully hear a nice homily. It’s a
place she feels welcome, and it’s what decent people do.
The Church evolves over time, and is better the more

it is like the world. According to Amy, the Church has
an unfortunate history it must get beyond. It’s not really
the Church’s fault; after all, everyone used to be
discriminatory and old-fashioned. But now that we are in
the 21st century, the Church needs to be updated and
become more like the world. Otherwise, the Church is in
danger of being left behind.
Essentially, Amy the Average Catholic is an Episcopalian.
112
MEET AMY,
Conform to This World, or Transform It?
From this experience, I have come to the inescapable

conclusion that how the Church has been teaching and
proclaiming the Gospel for decades isn’t working. It
doesn’t bring people into a deep relationship with Christ,
it doesn’t change their lives for the better (or at all), and it
doesn’t change the world in any measurable way.
Instead of proposing the Church as an alternative to the

world, Church leaders for decades have preached non-
confrontation with the world. This skewed emphasis has had
its impact: Amy cares more about her parish’s recycling
program than she does about the eternal salvation of the
person sitting in the pew next to her.
This problem isn’t confined to leaders who promote

heretical beliefs. Of course hierarchs such as Kasper or
Cupich cause terrible harm. The deeper problem,
however, is one of emphasis. Our Lord said, “Seek first his
kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall
be yours as well” (Matthew 6:33), but too often church
leaders seek first earthly acceptance. They avoid topics
deemed “controversial” by worldly standards, and in
doing so, stick with a spectrum of subjects ranging from
“be kind” all the way to “be nice.” They treat topics like
sin and damnation like embarrassing relatives at a family
gathering. Thus, for years Amy hasn’t heard a word about
her eternal destination, or been challenged to live
differently than the world tells her to live. Into that void
113
BE WATCHFUL
her mind has been filled with the priorities and mores of
this world.
St. Paul wrote, “Do not be conformed to this world but

be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Romans
12:2). Unfortunately, for decades the Church has acted as
if conformity to this world will magically lead to the
world becoming Catholic. Instead the Church has
become like the world. I have seen firsthand the results of
this disastrous policy, and for the sake of Amy and all
average Catholics, the Church must urgently reorder her
priorities.
And in case you were wondering, my answer to the

question “So you think I’m a sinner?” was a simple “yes,”
followed by, “and so am I.”
114
NORMALCY BIAS AND
PAPAL POSITIVISM
Over the past few years, we’ve all seen articles advising
people what to do in an active shooter situation. The
advice usually goes, “run, hide, fight.” But many articles
point out that the biggest challenge for responding to a
crisis isn’t necessarily knowing what to do, but
overcoming “normalcy bias.” What is normalcy bias? It is
the mental state people tend to enter when faced with a
rare and disastrous situation. It is the tendency to deny
the possibility that something disastrous is occurring.
Even though the evidence points to something very, very
bad happening, because we’ve never experienced it
before, we assume it can’t really be happening. Thus,
many people upon hearing a gunshot will first want to
believe it is just a car backfiring. They can’t accept that
they are in the midst of a crisis and need to react
accordingly.
115
BE WATCHFUL
Normalcy bias is prevalent in any crisis. During the rise of

Nazi Germany, the idea that Hitler was historically evil
was simply too horrible to consider. So many Germans
didn’t strongly oppose his rise to power. Normalcy bias
has also been a primary factor in many Catholics’ reaction
to the crisis in the Church today. We want to believe all is
well, even if the evidence strongly suggests it is not.
Nowhere is this bias more prevalent than with the
pontificate of Francis.
Covering Our Father’s Nakedness
Orthodox Catholics instinctively side with the pope. We

are willing to defend the pope – the vicar of Christ and
the rock on which the Church is built – against attacks
from both inside and outside the Church. Even when a
pope does something imprudent, we desire, like the sons
of Noah, to cover his nakedness to protect him from
shame (cf. Genesis 9:23). Furthermore, we live in a time
when the Church has been blessed for centuries with
pontiffs who have generally avoided scandal and faithfully
taught the Catholic Faith. Sure, there have been some
moments when a pope has said or done something
imprudent over the past few generations, but nothing as
scandalous as some popes acted in the late middle ages.
So, for us, it is normal for popes to faithfully and clearly
transmit the Catholic Faith.
Thus, when a pope says something that appears on its

face outlandish, even contrary to the Catholic Faith,
116
NORMALCY BIAS AND
PAPAL POSITIVISM
normalcy bias may predispose us to assume we have

misunderstood him, or the media misquoted him, or the
translation was bad. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, for
we should always give our popes the benefit of the doubt.
However, normalcy bias can be downright dangerous
when these statements reach a crisis level. We can end up
being paralyzed, or, even worse, defending the
indefensible. We become papal positivists, proclaiming
that everything a pope says is orthodox simply because the
pope said it.
While normalcy bias plagues many Catholics today, I

would be remiss if I didn’t mention the opposite
condition: worst-case bias. Someone with worst-case bias
assumes that every situation is a crisis, based on the
flimsiest data. If a Middle-Eastern man walked into a
church, someone with worst-case bias would immediately
assume he is about to start firing shots. Likewise, every
action of a pope becomes a cause for alarm and another
reason to believe we’re in the End Times. This condition
may be uncommon today, but it can be found in some
traditionalist circles, so we should be aware and guard
against it.
Occam’s Razor
So although it is praiseworthy to desire to defend a pope

from attack, there comes a point when the evidence is so
overwhelming that Occam’s Razor should apply: among
competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest
117
BE WATCHFUL
assumptions should be selected. If we are doing mental

gymnastics to make a papal statement mean something
that it clearly does not, this is no service to the truth. Nor
to the pope, for that matter. We should ask ourselves, if I
heard another prelate, say, perhaps the Archbishop of
Chicago, state the same things, would I try to make
excuses for him and explain that he didn’t really mean
what his words in their plain sense mean? Would I try to
dismiss his words as a product of his culture? Or should I
simply take him at his word? Our Lord said that we
should let our ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and our ‘no’ mean ‘no’
(Matthew 5:37). A corollary to this is that we should
accept the words of others, including the pope, at face
value. We should assume they mean what they plainly say.
To overcome normalcy bias, we must reposition what we

think of as “normal.” If you live in a war-zone and you
hear a loud noise in the distance, you will most likely
assume that you heard a bomb explode. That would be
“normal.” But if you hear the same noise in your quiet
suburban neighborhood, you might assume it is the
neighbor’s teenage son messing with firecrackers.
Catholics of every age, however, live in a “war-zone,” not
a quiet, safe neighborhood. For the devil is constantly on
the attack. He attacks in ways both subtle and obvious,
but he always attacks. So we should never assume it is
normal for Church prelates – at any level – to be holy and
orthodox. Instead, we should assume they are under
vicious attack. So when a Church prelate – again,
at any level – says something contrary to the Faith, we
118
NORMALCY BIAS AND
PAPAL POSITIVISM
recognize what it is: a victory for the devil. Excusing or

even defending it does no one any good.
Saints Are Not Normal
In a crisis, the person who first overcomes normalcy bias,

and who has the courage to act, is usually lauded as a hero
after the fact. However, in the critical moment he acted in
a way contrary to most of the people around him – that is
what makes him a hero. After you overcome normalcy
bias and are willing to speak out against the crisis in the
Church today, you will be acting in a way contrary to
most people around you. That does not make you wrong,
however. Saints are not commonplace, and they are
willing to go against the forceful tide of their times to
defend our Lord and his divine teachings. We too must
break free of “normal” and speak out, in charity and
clarity, whenever anyone spreads confusion or falsehood,
no matter what rank that person might have in the
Church.
119
THE SILENCE OF GOD
Originally published August 11, 2016
Holy Saturday is perhaps the most mysterious day in

the liturgical calendar. On this day, God is silent; He is in
the tomb. The Church is silent as well; no liturgies are
celebrated for the day. From the end of the Good Friday
liturgy to the beginning of the Easter Vigil, the Church
contemplates the mystery: Our Lord is dead and buried.
The greatest evil ever committed just occurred – the
murder of the God-man – and yet it appears that God
does nothing in response.
Aren’t we now, in our time, living a long Holy Saturday?

Within the Church, we have Church leaders who
embrace, or at least wink at, heresy and immoral
practices. We have parishes that practice what can only be
considered a fundamentally different religion than
Catholicism. Outside the Church, we have the growing
threat of militant Islam. We have no political candidates
in this election year who want Christ the King to reign in
121
BE WATCHFUL
our society. We have a popular culture which has become

a cesspool of immorality and insanity. Where is God in all
this? Why is He silent? We repeat the cry of the prophets,
“O Lord, how long shall I cry for help, and thou wilt not
hear?” (Habakkuk 1:2).
Living Holy Saturday
Over the centuries the Church has produced a rich

iconography for Holy Saturday. By meditating upon this
iconography we can come to a deeper understanding of
this enigmatic day, which may lead us to a better grasp of
what it means to live out the long Holy Saturday of our
time. Christ has descended into hell. He is lifting Adam
and Eve from the pits while the righteous of the Old
Testament – King David, John the Baptist, and others –
look on and rejoice. So while God is silent on the earth
and it appears that He has allowed evil to reign, in
actuality, underneath the surface (literally!) He is busy
demonstrating the very depths of His love; Christ will
go anywhere men are in need of redemption. He raises up
our first parents, lifting them out of the pits of sin and
death. Of course, Christ does not stop there; he does not
stay in the grave. Instead he rises triumphantly on Easter
Sunday, defeating death by death and overcoming sin
through sinlessness.
When it appears that God is silent, we must remember

the lesson of Holy Saturday. Christ was not lifeless in the
tomb; He was actively working out the salvation of
122
THE SILENCE OF GOD
mankind. Likewise today, even when we are surrounded

by the apparent silence of God, we can be assured that
He is working in the world. His work, however, is often
accomplished beneath the surface, hidden from the
world. The orthodox priest who has been banished to a
far-off parish but celebrates the Mass reverently and
administers the sacraments faithfully – he is raising souls
out of the pits of hell and into the arms of Our Savior.
The stay-at-home mother of six who feels completely
worn out but continues to press on for the sake of her
kids – she is leading them away from the devil and laying
a foundation for a faithful life of Christian discipleship.
The father who works in a dreary job to support his
family, resisting the temptations of the world and the
feminization of the culture – he is dying to self in order
that his family might be saved.
For each of these individuals, God is often silent. They

hear no “well done, good and faithful servant.” God does
not seem to respond to their cries for help against the
ravaging tide of the world. Does He not care? Does He
not hear us? Just as it did for the disciples on Holy
Saturday, all appears to be lost. All the dreams of a
Messianic kingdom in which the pagan rulers would be
swept away are themselves swept away. Instead the
disciples see only failure: a criminal executed by the state.
Yet we know the rest of the story. Christ triumphs over
death and the Word speaks in His most powerful voice
on Easter Sunday: I am the conqueror of sin and death, I am not
silent. No matter what you go through, no matter how bad all seems
123
BE WATCHFUL
to be, I will rescue those faithful to me and bring them into the
everlasting kingdom prepared for me from the foundation of the
world. My silence on Holy Saturday is but a pause before the final
act of your salvation.
Arise, Let Us Go Hence
Yes, today God seems silent. But He is working today as

He did on Holy Saturday, in the depths of the earth,
lifting people out of misery and death and preparing for
the great Easter where He will make all things new. In
an ancient homily on Holy Saturday1, we see that on this
day, and on every day, God is not silent, but is preparing
a place for each of us:
What is happening? Today there is a great silence over

the earth, a great silence, and stillness, a great silence
because the King sleeps; the earth was in terror and
was still, because God slept in the flesh and raised up
those who were sleeping from the ages. God has died
in the flesh, and the underworld has trembled.
Truly he goes to seek out our first parent like a lost

sheep; he wishes to visit those who sit in darkness and
in the shadow of death. He goes to free the prisoner
Adam and his fellow-prisoner Eve from their pains,
he who is God, and Adam’s son.
The Lord goes in to them holding his victorious

weapon, his cross. When Adam, the first created man,
sees him, he strikes his breast in terror and calls out to
all: ‘My Lord be with you all.’ And Christ in reply says
to Adam: ‘And with your spirit.’ And grasping his
124
THE SILENCE OF GOD
hand he raises him up, saying: ‘Awake, O sleeper, and

arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.
‘I am your God, who for your sake became your son,

who for you and your descendants now speak and
command with authority those in prison: Come forth,
and those in darkness: Have light, and those who
sleep: Rise.
‘I command you: Awake, sleeper, I have not made

you to be held a prisoner in the underworld. Arise
from the dead; I am the life of the dead. Arise, O
man, work of my hands, arise, you who were
fashioned in my image. Rise, let us go hence; for you
in me and I in you, together we are one undivided
person.
‘For you, I your God became your son; for you, I the
Master took on your form; that of slave; for you, I
who am above the heavens came on earth and under
the earth; for you, man, I became as a man without
help, free among the dead; for you, who left a garden,
I was handed over to Jews from a garden and
crucified in a garden.
‘Look at the spittle on my face, which I received

because of you, in order to restore you to that first
divine inbreathing at creation. See the blows on my
cheeks, which I accepted in order to refashion your
distorted form to my own image.
‘See the scourging of my back, which I accepted in

order to disperse the load of your sins which was laid
upon your back. See my hands nailed to the tree for a
125
BE WATCHFUL
good purpose, for you, who stretched out your hand

to the tree for an evil one.
`I slept on the cross and a sword pierced my side, for

you, who slept in paradise and brought forth Eve
from your side. My side healed the pain of your side;
my sleep will release you from your sleep in Hades;
my sword has checked the sword which was turned
against you.
‘But arise, let us go hence. The enemy brought you

out of the land of paradise; I will reinstate you, no
longer in paradise, but on the throne of heaven. I
denied you the tree of life, which was a figure, but
now I myself am united to you, I who am life. I
posted the cherubim to guard you as they would
slaves; now I make the cherubim worship you as they
would God.
The cherubim throne has been prepared, the bearers

are ready and waiting, the bridal chamber is in order,
the food is provided, the everlasting houses and
rooms are in readiness; the treasures of good things
have been opened; the kingdom of heaven has been
prepared before the ages.

1http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010414_omelia-sabato-
santo_en.html
126
ACCOMPANY THE SINNER,
OR ACCOMMODATE THE SIN?
Originally published October 19, 2016
A woman asked a friend to take her to the doctor’s

office. She had a stressful medical procedure planned,
and she needed her friend’s support. Her friend willingly
agreed, and accompanied her throughout the process.
The woman was happy to have this support during this
stressful time.
Her medical procedure? An abortion.
Ecclesiastical Buzzwords
The latest buzzword in Catholicism today is

“accompany.” By this is meant a “journeying together”
with others, especially those who are in need or in
irregular situations. A recent example of the emphasis can
be found in Cardinal Donald Wuerl’s letter to the priests
in his Archdiocese of Washington, DC1. The subject of
127
BE WATCHFUL
the letter is Amoris Laetitia, but a major theme is

“accompaniment.” A few examples (emphasis added):
The emphasis [of Amoris Laetitia] is on pastoral

discernment and accompaniment…
The second activity on which the document focuses is

ACCOMPANYING, the pastoral accompaniment of
families by the community of the Church. In many
ways this is an extension of listening and of the
synodality to which it gives rise. The journeying
together of all of the members of the Church implies
this accompaniment. But it also calls for a change in
pastoral style and intensity…
Amoris Laetitia is not a list of answers to each

individual human issue. Nor is it directed solely to the
question of the reception of the Eucharist. The
apostolic exhortation calls for a compassionate
pastoral approach to many people – married, single,
and divorced – who are struggling to face issues in
life, the teaching of the Church, and their own desire
to reconcile all of this. The exhortation is a call to
compassionate accompaniment in helping all to
experience Christ’s love and mercy…
I’m not picking on Cardinal Wuerl in this article, but he is

an excellent bellwether for how the wind is blowing
among high-ranking Church leaders. And there is no
question that the promotion of “accompanying” has
become the latest flavor of the month for many prelates
and priests. But what does “accompanying” mean in the
context of Christian evangelization and ministry?
128
Unfortunately, and as usual today, Church leaders

promote such buzzwords as doctrinal certainties to be
accepted by the faithful (with any questioning harshly
condemned), but nebulously define them. So each is left
to determine for himself what is meant by
“accompanying.” As we saw in the example given at the
beginning of this article, however, accompanying itself is
not an objective good – it is a morally neutral activity
whose goodness or evil depends on what activity is being
accompanied. If accompanying involves accommodating
sin, then it is no Christian virtue.
Our Lord’s Accompaniment
As always, we should look to our Lord as the model for

the proper way to practice accompaniment. No matter
how popular a word – such as tolerance or mercy or
accompany – may become in the Church, if its practice is
not based on the example of Jesus Christ, then it should
be rejected and resisted. One example of the Lord
accompanying another in an “irregular” situation is his
encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well (John
4:1-42). Jesus and his disciples are passing through
Samaria, whose inhabitants had a strained relationship
with the Jews. They decide to take a break in the city of
Sychar. As the disciples go off to refresh their supplies,
Jesus rests next to Jacob’s well. A woman approaches the
well, and Jesus asks her for a drink of water. Note first
that in a sense Jesus is already accompanying her: he isn’t
rejecting her as a Samaritan or a woman – he talks to her.
129
BE WATCHFUL
He is, in a popular phrase used today, “coming alongside

her.” As is typical for the Lord, he uses this common
exchange as an opportunity to dive into deeper, spiritual
issues. This is another example of accompaniment. Jesus
takes a physical need of the woman’s – thirst – and uses it
to launch into a more important discussion about spiritual
needs, telling her,
“Every one who drinks of this water will thirst

again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give
him will never thirst; the water that I shall give him
will become in him a spring of water welling up to
eternal life.” The woman said to him, “Sir, give me
this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to
draw.” (John 4:13-15)
So Jesus is using this moment of “accompanying” to lead

this woman to a deeper understanding of spiritual
realities. He is not content to merely walk alongside her,
however. He wants to lead her to a specific destination:
discipleship. What is interesting for our purposes here is
the response Jesus gives the women’s inquiry, right when
he has the Samaritan woman on the cusp of that
discipleship.
Before looking at Christ’s response to the Samaritan

woman, think of the typical response someone today is
expected to give when an inquirer comes looking for
spiritual answers. We will bend over backwards to
welcome him, and we will do all we can to answer the
questions in a way that satisfies his curiosity. In short, we
130
will strive to do nothing that might turn the inquirer

away.
This was my attitude leading inquiry meetings at my

parish years ago. I did everything I could to make the
inquirers feel comfortable and relaxed. I gave answers
that would put the inquirer at ease, and worded them in
the least offensive way possible. Never would I consider
doing anything that might embarrass the inquirer or make
him feel uncomfortable.
But what does Jesus say to the inquiring Samaritan

woman? “Go, call your husband, and come here” (John
4:16). At first glance, it appears that Jesus just wants to
include the woman’s whole household in this path to
salvation. However, we find this wasn’t Christ’s purpose
in asking this question. The woman answers, “I have no
husband.” Jesus responds, “You are right in saying, ‘I
have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and he
whom you now have is not your husband; this you said
truly” (John 4:17-18).
Picture this same scenario playing out at the local parish.

A priest throwing a woman’s marriage history in her face
and then noting the irregular status of her current
relationship! It wouldn’t surprise me if a letter was on the
bishop’s desk within a day or two, and the priest dragged
down to the chancery for a sharp rebuke and perhaps
some “re-education.” Yet this is exactly what Jesus does:
he sees the barrier that the Samaritan woman’s immoral
131
BE WATCHFUL
life is to her conversion, and so he confronts it head-on.

She simply couldn’t keep living like she was and become a
disciple of Jesus Christ. Our Lord obviously knew that
such a confrontation could lead her to reject him, but he
cared enough for her soul that he had to challenge – not
accommodate – her sinful lifestyle. He refused to
“accompany” her in her immoral lifestyle, for that would
be accommodating a path that could lead to destruction.
Choose the Path on Which to Accompany
Today the term “accompany” has too often meant

“accommodate.” We need to be clear about what exactly
“accompany” means. It does mean loving sinners and
helping those in need. It doesn’t mean ignoring or enabling
sin, or offering the Sacraments for those not eligible to
receive them.
We must always keep our end-goal in mind: conversion.

When we accompany another, we do so in order to lead
them down a path to communion with Christ. This is the
only path that leads to eternal happiness, and to
accommodate another’s sin only accompanies them on
the path to eternal destruction.

1http://cathstan.org/Content/News/Cardinal-Wuerl/Article/Cardinal-Wuerl-s-letter-
to-priests-on-Amoris-Laetitia-/2/410/7323
132
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Steve Skojec, editor of

OnePeterFive, for generously publishing so many of my
articles.
I would also like to thank my wife Suzan, who patiently

helped edit all the articles in this book, and made them far
more readable than my original drafts. Any lingering
mistakes are mine alone.
133
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Eric Sammons is the author of several books, including

one on the spirituality of St. Josemaría Escrivá. He holds
a degree in Systems Analysis with a concentration in
Economics from Miami University in Ohio, and earned a
Master of Theology degree from Franciscan University. A
former Evangelical, he entered the Catholic Church in
1993 and has worked in the field of evangelization, at
both the parish and diocesan levels, for over two decades.
He is a professional writer and editor.
Eric and his beautiful wife Suzan have seven children.

They currently reside in Ohio and are serious baseball
fans.
Eric’s website “Swimming Upstream” may be found at

www.ericsammons.com.
135

Be Watchful

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Be Watchful

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Be Watchful

Resist the Adversary, Firm in Your Faith

Published by Saragossa Press, Cincinnati, Ohio.

All rights reserved.

Cover Art: “The Calling of Saint Matthew” by Caravaggio.

For all Catholics – clergy, religious, or lay –

Ever since I became Catholic in 1993 I’ve been actively

Sober reflection on the state of the Church should render

However, the numbers speak volumes: the modern

Too often, today’s Catholics mirror the subjects in the

The articles contained in this book comprise my own

attitudes and issues I have seen firsthand that harm the

“All are welcome!”

You can hardly walk into a Catholic parish today without

The welcome wagon movement has as a foundational

Church. It posits two problems with the language of our

1) It’s too hard to understand, and

2) It makes people feel bad.

The understandability issue relates to theological

But is this desire for more understandable and acceptable

First, the desire to make Catholic language

doctrine of the Trinity understandable. She was interested

The irony is that when one works for precision he gets

The Church’s desire for linguistic precision was the

Nor do the Gospels attest that the desire to make

the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been

The second attempt to change the Church’s language is

Leaving aside the fact that every religious denomination

Thomas More were martyred rather than deny the truth

Those who desire to change the language of the Church

Today there are countless souls lost and drowning, and

Conversion, however, includes a confrontation with one’s

to convert from his former life and return home, he will

Many Catholics have witnessed or read about

And, are these attempts to be “relevant” an effective

Only for the Elect

To answer these questions, we need to look back to the

that the unbaptized do not witness the Eucharistic

We can learn two lessons from the early Church practice:

Poor Imitation of the Culture

Also, practically speaking, trying to make the Mass

latest cultural fad in their desire to “reach out” to

Does that mean the Church is doomed to be unattractive

Purpose of the Mass

Traditionally, the ends of the Mass are described as four-

everything a Christian does. So if evangelization is not an

By confusing fruit with purpose, many Catholics

Those who follow baseball know that the past

a situation and come to accurate conclusions.

Legend in Our Own Minds

Nowhere is a preconceived narrative more entrenched

But will an objective look at the numbers show that

A major study1 done by Pew Research in 2009 found that

another study3, only 25% go to Confession at least once a

Putting all these numbers together, we find that less than

Getting back to those who have left the Church, a few

The Emptying of the Pews

Although we may draw many conclusions from this data,

Now before you think “But numbers aren’t everything in

We also have to be careful not to take away from these

How Not to Respond

So how should Catholics respond in the face of these

responses to this crisis have emerged in the past few

Denial: This appears to be the most common response