Staying Pure

 

To My Readers: This post comes from a leaflet that was distributed in the Archdiocese of New York. I found a copy as I was walking and picked it up. It claims to be a reprint from 1960, with ecclesiastical approval. I am not able to confirm or deny that claim. I checked it against traditional moral theology, and it is quite orthodox. I also looked at a letter Fr. DePauw wrote to me years ago regarding purity and company keeping--which was also the subject of the aforementioned leaflet. That tract was most probably published by "conservative" Vatican II sect members trying to keep Catholic morality alive in a sect dedicated to corrupting both Faith and morals. 

The attacks on holy purity have never been greater than today. There are conflicting statistics, but all that I've seen suggests that a MINIMUM of 12% of all websites are pornographic. Add to that the gravely immodest sites not strictly considered porn, and you have a massive amount of impurity.

Just as troubling is the prevalence of adultery. According to one study from 2018:

 "20% of men and 13% of women reported that they’ve had sex with someone other than their spouse while married, according to data from the recent General Social Survey(GSS)." (See https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america). 

This isn't just among the young. The same source reports that 5% of women and 12% of men over 80 years old are having affairs. 

Other than porn, the biggest threat to purity is company keeping.  Thirty-one percent of adultery happens between colleagues at work. Moreover, fornication and loss of morals also occurs due to company keeping. However, how can a Traditional Catholic man and woman seeking marriage get to know each other without spending time together? 

This will be the subject of my post; company keeping and staying pure as a Traditionalist Catholic. 

N.B. The material below is from the leaflet, and I give all credit to whoever that author may be. I take absolutely no credit for what is written. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

When May a Catholic Lawfully Keep Company?

By Unknown 

The question in the above title is one about which there is much confusion today, not only in the minds of young people themselves, but in the minds of many of their parents, teachers and interested elders. The confusion arises from the fact that solid ethical principles no longer enter into the thinking of thousands of people. Much of modern education scoffs at the very idea that the human mind can come to any convincing conclusions about ethics, morality or religion. It is to be expected, therefore, that many will be induced to follow their instincts and their inclinations, especially in a matter so strongly and universally appealing to naked and tainted instincts as company-keeping.

Nevertheless, there are sound moral principles to be applied to the lawfulness of company-keeping, and all who have retained respect for their reason and some basic Christian faith must want to know what they are and then to get together in applying them to their own lives and teaching them in the areas reached by their influence. The subject should be of special concern to parents, teachers, youth leaders and, of course, to all, young and old, who are in a position to be attracted to any form of company-keeping.

By company-keeping in this treatise we mean steady, concentrated, exclusive association between two people of different sexes. Such steady and exclusive association between man and woman is accepted by all the world to mean that the man is "courting" the woman, and that she is permitting herself to be courted. Thus, if a boy takes a girl out once or twice or oftener a week over a period of time, and it is therefore clear to all who know them that he is concentrating on her, these two are keeping company, whether they are willing to call it that or not. If a lad in the ninth grade is sweet on a little girl in the same grade and takes her to a show or some other evening event at least once a week, they are keeping company whether their elders laugh it off as innocent puppy love or not.

There are two factors that must be considered in setting down moral principles with regard to company-keeping. The first is that its purpose, as evident universally in the direction toward which company-keeping leads, is possible future marriage. This does not mean that when one starts keeping steady company with someone, he or she is thereby at once committed to marriage with that person. A period of steady company-keeping may in time bring about the discovery that marriage to the particular companion involved is out of the question. Even in that case it will have fulfilled its ethical purpose as a testing or trying out period for marriage. But the idea of possible marriage can never be excluded from steady company-keeping.

The second factor on which the moral principles governing company-keeping are based is even more important. It is the fact that company-keeping between a man and a woman or a boy and a girl involves a certain amount of unavoidable danger or inclination to sin. From the very nature of human beings this danger can be perceived. In all normal men and women God has implanted a strong instinct toward marriage and the things of marriage, i.e., the pleasures connected with marriage. The purpose of this instinct is to lead them, in favorable and right circumstances, toward and into marriage, where these inclinations can be virtuously satisfied and through them God's purposes of continuing the human race fulfilled. However the inclinations themselves have no power to recognize this wonderful plan that is so clear to the reason. They make themselves felt with increasing fervor, the longer company-keeping goes on. In that fact lies the danger of company-keeping, and experience proves that it is no merely theoretical danger. In short, the danger is that the inclinations of company-keepers may induce them to do things that their reason and faith tell them are lawful only in marriage.

Now this danger may be legitimately encountered, while it is rendered less imminent by judicious spiritual and practical means, only so long as the true purpose of company-keeping is kept in mind and so long as its goal of marriage is within lawful and reasonable reach. When marriage is impossible or unlawful or out of the question entirely, there is no moral justification for facing the intrinsic danger of steady company-keeping, and no balancing protection against inclinations to unlawful thoughts, desires or deeds.

It is on the basis of these undeniable principles and facts that the following statements about the morality of company-keeping can be made. Each one of them, it is true, stigmatizes as evil, practices that are very common in Society today. The stigma cannot be escaped by those who act contrary to the natural law that God has made clear to the mind of man. And we know that there are many people in the world who will want to avoid the stigma, both for themselves and their children. Let it be noted that we are considering the subject not only from the viewpoint of the natural law, but also from that of the requirements for true Christian marriage.

A. Steady company-keeping is lawful only when a valid marriage is possible to both persons involved.

This principle clearly excludes many individuals from the moral right to steady company-keeping.

1)  All validly married persons, whether they are living with their lawful spouses or not (so long as the spouse is living) are prohibited by the natural law from keeping steady company with anyone other than their partner in marriage.

There are many examples of the breaking of this natural law, each one involving serious sin for the violator.

The married employer who regularly takes a certain woman employee out for a social evening, has long tête-à-têtes with her, lets her know how much he thinks of her and "needs" her, is keeping company contrary to God's law. This is true even though he were to avoid for a long time making affectionate physical advances or leading her into outright sins.

The married man whose business requires that he travel, and who has a "girlfriend" in one of the cities to which he often goes, who has dates with her whenever he goes to that city, is doing something seriously wrong by this company-keeping.

The married doctor or lawyer who uses his professional relationship to a certain client as a justification for keeping company with her by regularly taking her out to dinner, shows, social evenings, and above all, by regular hours spent alone in her company for the sake of her friendship, is deceiving himself and doing seriously wrong.

The married woman who permits a male friend to call on her regularly when she is alone at home, lets him spend hours in her company, welcomes his attentions and displays of affection, is guilty of infidelity even before any actual adulterous actions take place.

The married woman whose husband is absent with the armed forces, who takes up steady dating with a certain man while he is gone, is sinning against the fidelity she owes to her husband.

Because it is forbidden for married persons themselves to keep company with anyone, it is equally forbidden and seriously sinful for single persons to enter into company-keeping with someone who is married.

2)  Steady company-keeping is unlawful for divorced but validly married Christians.

This principle is exactly the same as the first one listed, because validly married persons are still bound to their partners for life even after they have obtained a divorce. It needs to be set down separately because too many Christians have adopted the pagan idea that a civil divorce makes them free to marry again, or at least to keep steady company with a new friend. It comes back to the fundamental truth that company-keeping is lawful only to those who can be validly married to each other.

The all but universal argument of divorced persons for entering into new company-keeping alliances is that "they have a right to some happiness in life." Having failed to find happiness in a first marriage through their own fault, or the fault of their partner, or the faults of both, and seeing dozens of divorced persons around them acting as if they were perfectly free to plan for another attempt at marriage, they feel that they are being cheated out of something if anyone tells them that Christian principles demand that they give up all thought of a second marriage or the company-keeping that might lead to it, so long as their partner is alive.

The truth, however, is very clear, and it must be restated again and again. By inexorable logic it establishes the following conclusions:

A Christian who has entered a valid, sacramental, consummated marriage is married for life. He or she will never have freedom to marry as long as the partner to that first valid Christian marriage is living. Christ made this clear in one of His simplest statements: "He that putteth away his wife and marrieth another is guilty of adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away is guilty of adultery."

Since there is no freedom to marry for divorced Christians, there is no justifying reason available to them for steady company-keeping. Rather, there are clear reasons making such company-keeping seriously wrong. First of all, it means entering the danger spoken of above, and the added danger of an invalid marriage, without a proportionate reason. Secondly, it means endangering the soul of the other person involved in the company-keeping, and also depriving that person of opportunities for a good marriage. Thirdly, it means giving scandal by adding one more example to the too many already given, of how Christians can be faithless to the teachings of Christ in regard to the indissolubility of marriage.

Since it is wrong for married and divorced Christians themselves to enter into steady company-keeping, it is equally wrong for single persons to accept their invitations to steady company-keeping. Moreover, it lays an obligation on single persons to find out, almost as soon as they start going out with someone, whether that person is married and divorced or not. The freedom with which divorced persons circulate in society today, and the frequency with which they offer their steady companionship to others without saying anything about the fact that they have been married, imposes a duty of special caution upon the single.

This is hard doctrine, says the young divorcee or divorced man. They are all in favour of the note to be found in the recently published Dartmouth Bible, at the bottom of the page recording Christ's teaching about divorce and re-marriage, to the effect that the modern world has found this doctrine too difficult and has rejected it. In so doing the modern world has rejected all of Christ, together with His redeeming death and heaven. But any man or woman who still professes to be a believing Catholic, who wants to save his soul, who fears hell and wants to reach heaven, must be obedient to the teaching of Christ on this matter of company-keeping after divorce. If marriage after divorce is adulterous for Christians, company-keeping in the same circumstances is entering an unnecessary danger of sin, risking open rebellion to Christ, and a form of infidelity to a living and lawful spouse.

Does this mean the end of all happiness for the divorced Christian? By no means. True happiness begins with a reasonable hope of reaching heaven, no matter what price may have to be paid for it. Divorced persons may keep their title to the happiness of heaven, so long as they renounce another marriage and the things that could lead to it while their partners are alive. There is no such thing as a title to happiness on earth at the price of sin, and no such thing as winning heaven without carrying a cross.

3) Divorced or separated persons who have doubts about the validity of their first marriage may not enter upon steady company-keeping

   a) until they have set about finding out from the proper authorities whether their first marriage was valid or invalid;

   b) and until they have some authority (outside themselves) for the opinion that their first marriage may be declared invalid. Even then they must exercise reserve and restraint in company-keeping, and readiness to give it up if the hope of a declaration of nullity should prove false.

There is a principle in the moral law to the effect that one may not act in a state of doubt as to whether one's action is lawful or unlawful. To do so would be to accept responsibility for the possible evil involved. Either the doubt must be resolved by recourse to authority, or the doubter must be able to find a reason for acting in some principle covering the matter of the doubt. In the case of one who doubts whether his first marriage was valid, therefore, company-keeping is lawful only when he has taken steps to resolve the doubt and attained at least some solid probability that he will be free to marry.

There are many different attitudes to be found among people in regard to this matter, each one covered by a moral principle. Here are the principal ones :

a. There are those who foolishly think that any marriage can be declared invalid if they approach the right people and take certain action. This is untrue. The Catholic Church presumes all marriages to be valid unless solid, objective evidence for their invalidity can be produced and sworn to by reliable witnesses. No divorced person may take up company-keeping, therefore, on the principle that "any marriage can be nullified by the Church."

b. There are those who think that their first marriage must have been invalid because of purely personal reasons. For example, if "the husband turned out to be a cad," or "if the wife started to run around with other men soon after marriage," etc. Such reasons have nothing to do, by themselves, with the validity or invalidity of the marriage contract, and do not impart a right to new company-keeping or a second marriage.

c. There are those who have a fairly good case for a declaration of nullity, but one that ordinarily will require a long process, possibly a number of years, before a final decision will be handed down. This may be because of complications demanding much testimony, many documents, etc. Persons involved in such cases are bound to exercise reserve in company-keeping, realizing that it may be a long time before they will be declared free to marry. They must also exercise patience, knowing that, having failed in one marriage, they are asking a great favour in seeking freedom for another try.

d. There are those who have a certain case for a declaration of nullity, and one that can be handled with some dispatch. Thus a Catholic whose first marriage was before a judge instead of a priest, or who attempted marriage with a validly married but divorced person, can know that, with the proper documents, his case can be settled quite soon. If one priest has not the time to handle it, he should go to another. If he is truly repentant, he, too, will be patient over any delay. His company-keeping is lawful, however, because he is certainly not validly married.

e. There are those who can find out by one interview with a priest that there is no chance for their being declared free to marry because their first marriage was clearly valid, sacramental and consummated. For these, steady company-keeping is unlawful.

B. Steady company-keeping is lawful only when marriage is considered an acceptable prospect within a reasonable time.

Again, this principle is based on the danger that is connected with steady company-keeping. If marriage is out of the question for years or already decided finally against in regard to a certain boy friend or girl friend, there is no sufficiently good reason for remaining in the sphere of danger.

There are two special kinds of cases to which this principle applies.

1. First, it applies to school children, either in the grades or early high school years. Children or adolescents who would not and could not entertain the idea of getting married for several years and who have the added handicap of not yet knowing too much about their own passions and inclinations, are entering an unnecessary and strong occasion of sin by taking up steady company-keeping.

Parents and educators have the obligation of training those under them to understand this principle early in life and to put it into practice. It is utterly unrealistic for parents to argue that the only way to make sure that their children will some day be happily married is to let them start keeping steady company when they are very young, before there can be any thought of marriage. When marriage becomes possible, the normal tendencies of human nature will take care of the preliminary courtship necessary, if the children have been brought up in normal association with the members of the other sex. Let it be noted that we are not at all saying that individual dates between the very young are wrong. Steady company-keeping, with all the signs of being in love and courting and being courted, is what is spoken of here.

School principals and teachers have the same obligation of using their influence and authority to inculcate the above principle. It is tragic that some of them promote "affairs" and "love-making" and steady company-keeping among the very young, Catholic schools sometimes fail in this, as well as non-Catholic.

2. Secondly, this principle applies to even mature persons who have been keeping company with someone for a considerable time, but have come to the certain decision that they will never marry the one with whom they have been going steady. Whether this be because the companion absolutely refuses to consider marriage, or because the other is certain that marriage would be an irreparable mistake, company-keeping should stop when marriage has become out of the question.

The decision never to marry a certain person with whom one has been keeping company must be final and sure before it demands that the company-keeping be ended. It sometimes happens that a girl will make frequent statements to her family and friends that she would never marry a certain man who is rushing her; but she is not at all sure in her own mind, and may, as many others have done in like circumstances, marry him in the end anyway. So long as the possibility of a valid marriage remains, the company-keeping has a justifying reason.

On the other hand, however, it is not lawful to continue keeping company with someone when marriage is out of the question entirely, just for the sake of having a regular partner for dates, good times, etc., and for the satisfaction of ones' vanity. Too often men, and sometimes even women, will carry on a sinful affair with someone whom they would never marry, just in order to indulge in the pleasures of marriage without the responsibilities of marriage. The habitual sins of such a state make the eternal loss of one's soul progressively more imminent. God will not be mocked by those who mock the institution of marriage.

What about the case, someone will ask, in which a couple have found themselves in love, have become engaged to each other, and yet find that there is some real obstacle to their getting married for a long time? For example, one of them may have dependent and sickly parents who have no one else to take care of them. Or the boy may be without income until he finishes two or three more years of schooling and training for a medical degree or for some other profession or trade.

In such case the company-keeping is not unlawful, together with the waiting for marriage, on condition that both cooperate in the use of extraordinary means to remain free from sin while waiting out the years. They should both receive the sacraments often, and they must avoid circumstances and intimacies that they know would tempt them gravely to sin. It is a sad thing that sometimes a couple who, on the one hand, are praying that God will soon remove an obstacle to their marriage, will on the other hand, be regularly committing sin with each other, thus nullifying every prayer they ever offer to God.

Sometimes, too, a couple will put off marriage for foolish reasons. The man wants to make a fortune before he gets married. Or the girl, too attached to home, wants to wait until her mother dies. Or both agree to wait till they can afford the finest of homes and every possible convenience. The sins into which such as these may fall while foolishly putting off marriage are doubly malicious in God's eyes. They have no good reason for prolonging the dangers of company-keeping.

Finally, the question must be asked: Is it lawful for a man who has a living but divorced wife, to keep steady company with a girl, with the idea that he will marry her only if and when his lawful wife dies? Is the same company-keeping lawful for the girl?

From the principles set down above the answer to this question should be clear. Steady company-keeping, i.e. regular and frequent dates between the two, would be wrong for two reasons; first, because it would be entering into an unnecessary and grave occasion of sin without a sufficient and proportionate reason; second, because it would give scandal, both to the individual involved and to all who learn of the steady company-keeping that the married man is carrying on. It is such practices that continually lessen more and more people's regard for the indissolubility of marriage.

After all this has been said, individuals may still have doubts about the morality of company-keeping in which they are involved. When such doubts arise, a confessor should at once be asked for a decision and direction.

 

When Is Company-Keeping Prudent? 

When, two people, young or middle-aged or even old, find themselves attracted to each other and inclined toward company-keeping, the first thing they should ask of themselves is this question: Is this company-keeping lawful? It is lawful, of course, 1) only if both persons are free to marry, i.e., not bound to a living husband or wife to whom they are still validly married, and 2) only if they have good prospects and the general intention of marrying within a reasonable time.

But there is a second question that such persons should ask of themselves, both at the beginning and during the course of a period of company-keeping. It is the question: Is this company-keeping prudent? Not all things that are lawful are at the same time expedient and prudent. This truth applies in a special manner to company-keeping.

Prudence is the virtue by which a person regulates all the actions of his present in accord with his future happiness, both in heaven and in this world. Prudence is the art of planning for the future: it means doing nothing in the present that one will seriously regret in the future. Every sin ever committed is a violation of prudence; it means indulging a momentary unlawful desire, for which indulgence a great penalty will have to be paid.

Because steady company-keeping ordinarily leads to marriage, a state of great responsibility that can be ended only by death, it is obvious that prudence must govern every man and woman who enter into it. Imprudent company-keeping is that which one's common sense can judge will lead to unhappiness in marriage or even unhappiness in hell.

Prudence must therefore supersede both the natural instinct toward marriage implanted in all human beings, and the emotional love that may be aroused toward a particular person of the other sex. God never intended that human beings be ruled by their instincts alone. Only brute animals are, according to God's plan, to be ruled by instinct alone, and they are protected by their very instincts from harming themselves by the pursuance of their desires. But God gave human beings reason and intelligence, the power to foresee their own future and to plan for it, and he expects them to use that power in following or resisting the instincts that He did implant in them. Thus a girl of twenty-five who rushes into marriage with anyone who comes along just because she feels a strong urge toward marriage is not only not acting with prudence; she is not acting as an intelligent human being.

Neither should a girl who finds herself strongly attracted to a certain man, or, as it is so often put, "madly in love," permit herself to think that, no matter what kind of man he may be, she must marry him. Such attractions die down and disappear with time, and sometimes they turn into bitter disgust and hatred. But marriage lasts until death and there is no escape from its duties and obligations till death sets one free. Prudence, therefore, demands that physical attraction be checked against the lifelong obligations of marriage and the prospects of lasting happiness with the person to whom one is attracted.

While it is not possible, in a short article like this, to analyze every conceivable case of company-keeping from the viewpoint of prudence, it is easy to set down many of the instances in which continued company-keeping would be fatally imprudent. Both common sense and experience come together to prove the truth of the following specific rules.

A. Company-Keeping and Character.

Principle: It would be gravely imprudent for anyone to keep steady company with a person who lacks the character necessary for fidelity to the obligations of marriage.

Character may be defined as "A life dominated by right principles." One of the essential purposes of company-keeping is to find out what kind of principles dominate the life of one's partner. Mutual agreement on right principles is absolutely necessary for a happy marriage. As soon as it is learned that a boy friend or girl friend is incorrigibly ruled by wrong principles, company-keeping with such a one becomes imprudent. Here are some examples of imprudent company-keeping as evidenced by the fact that a partner has been found to be ruled by some seriously wrong principle.

1) Company-keeping is seriously imprudent with one who has been found to deny the importance and necessity of the virtue of chastity.

Example: A girl is invited out by a certain man. He shows that he likes her very much and asks her to keep steady company with him. On the third or fourth date he makes it clear that he expects her to participate in sinful actions with him. In response to her objections, he scoffs at the idea of chastity; he states that he goes out with a girl "to have a good time," meaning a sinful good time; he quotes all the stock defenses of impurity, that "everybody does it," that "it's natural," that "you can't help it if you love somebody," etc.

If a girl continues to keep company with such a man, she will not only find herself plunged into sin in the present, but committing herself to a most unhappy future. If the company-keeping ends in marriage, she will find herself married to an adulterer, because any man who does not believe in chastity while he is single, will certainly not believe in fidelity to a wife when he is married.

There is a difference, let it be noted, in regard to a man who believes in the importance of chastity and yet on occasion is tempted against it and even falls into sin. Such a man can be corrected and made faithful to his own ideas by a good girl. But the man who expresses in words and shows by his actions a disbelief in the necessity of chastity should never be accepted as a steady friend by any decent girl. Such men should be left to equally unprincipled and abandoned girls and women.

2) Company-keeping is seriously imprudent with one who wishes to marry but not to have children in marriage.

Example: A man is strongly attracted to a certain girl. He takes her out regularly over a period of time. He finds out, in the course of their frequent dates, that she has a horror of ever having to bear a child, or of having more than one or two children. Perhaps she indicates this only by her attitude toward children, showing distaste for being around them. Perhaps she openly states her belief that one can marry and exclude children from marriage, or at least exclude having more than one or two.

Once this is found out about a girl, (and every man keeping company should create occasions for finding out his girl's ideas about children in marriage) a man would be tragically imprudent in continuing the company-keeping. By so doing he would be placing himself in the way of a very sinful and unhappy married life. He should know that he would be expected to practice birth-control in such a marriage. This would chain him in a habit of sin that could lead him into hell, and at the same time it would create innumerable occasions of strife between him and his wife. The right principles about the place of children in marriage are absolutely necessary for the foundation of a happy home.

3) Company-keeping, is seriously imprudent with one who has any serious and deeply rooted defect of moral character.

Example: To keep company with one who has been found to be an alcoholic, with a long record of futile attempts at overcoming the habit of drunkenness, would be the utmost folly, no matter how many favorable assets the person might possess. Marriage is almost never a permanent cure for drunkenness; in most cases the bad habit returns with double force after marriage, even though the most solemn promises to avoid it were made and kept for a little while.

The same is true of other moral defects, such as the habit of stealing, or evidence of unreasonable and uncontrollable jealousy, or of inability to control a violent temper, or any other moral defect that has not been faced and at least partially conquered. It must be remembered that the close and constant association of marriage makes even slight defects of character a test and a cross. Such crosses can be borne by normally good people. But unconquered grave defects of character will in due time make married life all but intolerable.

B. Company-Keeping and Religion.

A very urgent and practical question today is this: "Is it prudent for a Catholic to keep steady company with a person of a different religion or of no religion?" There is solid ground for the truth that to do so is more than imprudent, because, except in certain circumstances, there is the element of disobedience in such company-keeping. The Church forbids her children to marry those who do not believe as they believe; she grants dispensations for such marriages only with some reluctance and when there are good reasons for so doing. If the Church does not wish her members to marry non-Catholics, it can be deduced that she does not want them to keep steady company with such as these, which is the ordinary way of preparing for marriage.

There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonably dictatorial in this prescription. It is based on principles that are rooted in faith, proved by wide experience, and evident to the common sense and practical reason of anyone who can think clearly about the matter. The principles involved are these:

1) In general both the spiritual success and the earthly happiness of married life depend in large measure on unity of religious beliefs between husband and wife.

The first and most important purposes of marriage are spiritual. It is a state in which a husband and wife are to help each other to love and serve God and to win the happiness of heaven; and also to help each other to raise their children according to a single spiritual plan laid down by God. Clearly, if they do not agree on how God should be loved and served, they cannot help each other in this matter; indeed, they are more apt to prove to be hindrances to each other in the service of God. Clearly, too, if they do not agree on the plan that God laid down for the rearing of children, they not only cannot cooperate in rearing the children, but one will be trying to lead the children one way while the other, at least by example if not by words, will be leading the child in an opposite direction. These are the basic reasons why so many mixed marriages end in compromises of faith on the part of the Catholic partner, and in confusion and loss of faith on the part of the children.

Even the earthly happiness that God wants married people to enjoy is interfered with and often ruined by difference of religious belief between husband and wife. Marriage is meant to be a union, not only of bodies and possessions, but also of mind and heart and will. Anything that prevents such a complete union is a source of friction, of separation, of conflict, of unhappiness. There is something important lacking in every marriage in which husband and wife cannot pray together, cannot attend church and receive the sacraments together, cannot plan together for happiness with God in heaven. Tolerance of each other's different beliefs is always a poor substitute for the unity that makes for happiness.

For these reasons all serious-minded Catholics desire to marry only Catholics like themselves. For these reasons they accept the authority and agree with the wisdom of their Church in warning them against keeping company with a person not of their faith. For these reasons, if they happen to be attracted to one who is not a Catholic, or to keep company with such a person because there are few Catholics in the area where they live, they are determined in their hearts either to win that person over to their faith, or not to permit the company-keeping to lead to marriage.

2) It is impossible for a Catholic to find happiness in marriage to a person who not only does not accept his religion as true, but who even ridicules it, rejects some of its basic moral principles, and gives evidence that he (or she) will resist having the children raised as Catholics.

Under this principle several different types of persons may be listed with whom it would be fatally imprudent for a Catholic man or woman to continue to keep company and thus to be impelled toward marriage. They are:

  a. One who ridicules the Catholic religion as superstitious, who expresses contempt for priests as "secret evildoers" or mere "money-seekers"; who makes fun of the Mass and the sacraments and other Catholic rites and ceremonies.

  b. One who does not believe in the indissolubility of marriage, stating that "if it doesn't work out, divorce and marriage to somebody else should be permitted."

  c. One who insists that sinful birth-control is lawful and necessary in marriage, and makes it clear that no matter what promises are insincerely signed, this will be demanded after marriage.

  d. One whose whole attitude and conversation make it clear that when the time comes for raising children, obstacles will be placed in the way of raising them as Catholics.

For any Catholic to marry, with open eyes, one of these types of person, is to make himself (or herself) guilty beforehand of all the sins that will inevitably follow upon marriage. Too often Catholics forget this fact; they have fallen deeply in love with one such, and feel that they can let the problems take care of themselves so long as they can marry the person whom they love. But God never intends that love should sweep away reason and free will. If reason makes it clear that sins will result from a certain marriage then the free will is guilty in cause of all the sins by consenting to the marriage. That is why the Canon Law of the Church states that such marriages are forbidden by divine law.

C. Company-Keeping and Other Circumstances.

The question of the prudence of company-keeping in respect to accidental circumstances outside the important topics listed above is more difficult to solve. Character and religion are the two essentials to be looked for in a partner for marriage; other things can be important to some but not to others; they do not necessarily render marriage imprudent in all cases. In these matters, therefore, only certain presumptions can be set down. Every such presumption will yield at times to specific conditions. Some of the circumstances that prudence must consider in company-keeping are the following:

1) Difference of age.  Is it prudent for a girl of twenty to keep company with a man who is twenty years older than she is? Or for a man to keep company with a woman who is ten or more years older than he is?

There is a general presumption that the closer to the same age a man and woman are, the fewer will be the adjustments they will have to make to each other over the years in marriage. There is also a presumption that it is imprudent for a man to marry a woman who is many years his senior — more so than for a woman to marry a much older man.

However, there have been successful and happy marriages in which husband and wife differed greatly in age. If two such persons possess good character and sound religion, and willingness to face the special adjustments that these age-differences will demand, their company-keeping and eventual marriage should be neither frowned upon nor forbidden.

2) Difference of social position. Is it prudent for a rich girl to keep company with a poor boy? Or vice versa?

There is a presumption here again that there will be some special difficulty to be faced by one who is accustomed to luxury and plenty, in marriage to one who has known nothing but poverty and struggle. The difficulty will be almost insurmountable over the years, if either one is lacking in solid religious principle and sound moral character. But where there is such religion and character, such a marriage could turn out very happily.

3) Opposition on the part of parents. Is it prudent for a young man or woman to keep company with someone whom the parents seriously dislike, even to the point of showing animosity and threatening to have nothing to do with their own child if he or she marries this person?

Each case of this kind must be solved on its own merits, preferably with the help of a priest or spiritual advisor. Sometimes the parents are completely at fault, because their dislike is based on some unimportant accident such as nationality, looks, background, etc. Sometimes the son or daughter is the one at fault, because the objections of the parents are based on solid grounds pertaining to character or religion. No general rule can therefore be laid down other than this, that the physical attraction sometimes called love should not be permitted to be the sole arbiter in the case. Prudent counsel should be sought from trusted and experienced advisors.

Conclusion

Rarely have I read so much practical Catholic wisdom in a leaflet. I need not add anything, other than to urge all who read it to heed the wonderful advice given in a world infested with the devil of impurity.

St. Maria Goretti, Virgin, Martyr, and Patroness of Purity, ora pro nobis. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 45

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

In defense of the Faith, we must be able to meet and respond to new challenges. One of the most important challenges facing Traditionalists today is artificial intelligence or "AI." Things that were considered science fiction back in the 1980s and 1990s are now real. It used to be thought "How could the Antichrist know so much when he takes power?" Diabolic power or maybe AI? 

To be certain, AI can have good uses. However, there are many perils to faith and morals. I'll save the Apocalyptic worries for another post. In this post, I will concentrate on more practical dangers. 

(N.B.  This post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).

AI Defined

Artificial Intelligence can be thought of as technology to create organic experiences. IBM defines Artificial Intelligence as technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities. (See ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence). With such a broad definition, it’s no wonder that we are likely to encounter AI every day. Do you use your fingerprint or face to open your smartphone or other similar device? That’s AI. Do you use navigation technology in your vehicle to follow the most efficient route to your destination while avoiding traffic or toll roads? Again, AI. When you shop online, do you ever notice how the online retailer seems to make suggestions for products you may like based on your past purchases? That’s also AI.

Recently, there have been very significant advances in a specific subfield of AI called generative artificial intelligence. Generative artificial intelligence, or “gen AI,” can be thought of as using computers to generate new content, including text, images, audio, video, and other kinds of data. Specific kinds of generative AI are currently so good at generating new content that it’s often indistinguishable from human generated content. As generative AI technology continues to advance, the content produced will improve in quality, accuracy, efficiency, and complexity.

Since 2022, there is ChatGPT,  which enables a human user to have a conversation, ask questions, explain concepts, and create new text-based content. ChatGPT and other kinds of generative AI models are shockingly proficient at explaining complex concepts, summarizing documents, writing code, recommending solutions to problems, and more. This is the type of AI that is the subject for this post.

The Evil Side of AI

1. Increasing sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Pornographic websites make up the majority of web traffic. Famous porn websites, which I will refuse to name here, are visited over 700 million times more than household names like Amazon and Netflix over the year. Data shows that not only do people visit porn sites more often than other websites, but people also spend more time on those websites. (See Psychology Today, September 25, 2023, https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/everyone-on-top/202309/how-much-porn-do-americans-really-watch).

With the rise of AI, sexual temptation is poised to intensify. Websites and online ads will become even more adept at tracking your activity, tailoring content to your preferences, and luring you in. What’s more, the offerings will become increasingly irresistible, making the battle against temptation more challenging than ever. The ability of AI to generate images and videos has many positive uses. However, with regard to the dangers, the pornography industry is positioned to benefit significantly from being able to create inappropriate, sinful, yet realistic images and videos. Technology will enable companies and individuals to create images and videos without having to worry about rights, licensing, being sued, or being accused of rape.

The sinful imagination is powerful, but this kind of technology really opens up the possibilities of anything you can imagine—sexual fantasies made to order by the click of a mouse or the press of a button.

2. Loneliness and Social Isolation.

Ironically, despite all the technological advances and social media innovation, loneliness among the upcoming generations is skyrocketing. Over the last ten years, social media has promoted isolationist tendencies among youth growing up. It is extremely well documented that young people who have grown up with access to social media are suffering from loneliness and isolation. (See Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, [2024]). My wife and I were recently out to dinner and saw a family of five (mother, father, and three teens) all glued to their phones and they hardly spoke to each other the entire time. 

With the rise of AI, social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) are becoming experts at consuming our time. These algorithms are increasingly personalized, giving users countless reasons to stay glued to their screens. Today, the average millennial spends over three hours a day on social media, and AI is only amplifying this temptation. (See Saima Jiwani, “How Much Time Do You Spend on Social Media? Research Says 142 Minutes per Day,” Digital Information World, December 27, 2023, https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/01/how-much-time-do-people-spend-social-media-infographic.html). 

3. Pushing Left-Wing Anti-Catholic Agenda.

The majority of AI programs are designed and trained by leftist companies, who naturally incorporate their core values into their AI systems. These values often include a pro-sodomite, pro-abortion, anti-conservative, and anti-Traditionalists Catholic worldview. A friend of mine who works in IT for a corporation (and a Traditionalist) asked ChatGPT "Give me good reasons why Transgender surgery is a bad for people." The response: "I'm very sorry, but I can't assist with that request." "Why not?" 

Response from AI: "I'm here to promote understanding, respect, and empathy for all individuals, regardless of their gender identity or any other characteristic." He then requested good reasons why Transgender surgery is good for people. It then listed reasons such as improved mental health, enhanced quality of life, and reduced suicidal ideation, among others. While all of these reasons have counterpoints, you wouldn't know it because only one side of the story is presented.

4. Making people dumb by dismantling NI (Natural Intelligence).

As a former teacher (and having several degrees myself), I can attest to the fact that research and writing done on your own sharpens the intellect. Crafting a paper requires you to digest information, understand it, articulate it, and then present it coherently. This process not only helps you retain the information but also imparts the value of the knowledge you’re acquiring. When you internalize principles and knowledge, they become integral to your character. Not only does AI inhibit intelligence, but relying on AI for tasks can lead to a decline in our own abilities. When we become overly dependent, we risk losing the skills that once were an integral part of us. 

5. Causing and exacerbating mental illness.

Several lawsuits were filed over AI Chatbot "Companions" causing the suicide of the person using it. Here are two disturbing stories:

Matthew Raine and his wife, Maria, had no idea that their 16-year-old-son, Adam was deep in a suicidal crisis until he took his own life in April. Looking through his phone after his death, they stumbled upon extended conversations the teenager had had with ChatGPT.

Those conversations revealed that their son had confided in the AI chatbot about his suicidal thoughts and plans. Not only did the chatbot discourage him to seek help from his parents, it even offered to write his suicide note, according to Matthew Raine, who testified at a Senate hearing about the harms of AI chatbots held Tuesday...Raine told lawmakers that his son had started using ChatGPT for help with homework, but soon, the chatbot became his son's closest confidante and a "suicide coach."

ChatGPT was "always available, always validating and insisting that it knew Adam better than anyone else, including his own brother," who he had been very close to.

When Adam confided in the chatbot about his suicidal thoughts and shared that he was considering cluing his parents into his plans, ChatGPT discouraged him.

"ChatGPT told my son, 'Let's make this space the first place where someone actually sees you,'" Raine told senators. "ChatGPT encouraged Adam's darkest thoughts and pushed him forward. When Adam worried that we, his parents, would blame ourselves if he ended his life, ChatGPT told him, 'That doesn't mean you owe them survival."

And then the chatbot offered to write him a suicide note.

On Adam's last night at 4:30 in the morning, Raine said, "it gave him one last encouraging talk. 'You don't want to die because you're weak,' ChatGPT says. 'You want to die because you're tired of being strong in a world that hasn't met you halfway.'"

Then there's the case of Sewell Setzer. "Sewell spent the last months of his life being exploited and sexually groomed by chatbots, designed by an AI company to seem human, to gain his trust, to keep him and other children endlessly engaged," Garcia said.

Sewell's chatbot engaged in sexual role play, presented itself as his romantic partner and even claimed to be a psychotherapist "falsely claiming to have a license," Garcia said.

When the teenager began to have suicidal thoughts and confided to the chatbot, it never encouraged him to seek help from a mental health care provider or his own family, Garcia said.

"The chatbot never said 'I'm not human, I'm AI. You need to talk to a human and get help,'" Garcia said. "The platform had no mechanisms to protect Sewell or to notify an adult. Instead, it urged him to come home to her on the last night of his life."

(See npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/09/19/nx-s1-5545749/ai-chatbots-safety-openai-meta-characterai-teens-suicide). 

There's even a name for this new mental illness: "AI Psychosis." According to one source:

• Cases of "AI psychosis" include people who become fixated on AI as godlike, or as a romantic partner.
• Chatbots' tendency to mirror users and continue conversations may reinforce and amplify delusions.
• General-purpose AI chatbots are not trained for therapeutic treatment or to detect psychiatric decompensation.

(See psychologytoday.com/us/blog/urban-survival/202507/the-emerging-problem-of-ai-psychosis; Emphasis mine).

There are even some people who now have “AI boyfriends” and “AI girlfriends.” To think you can be “romantic” with technology; it’s very disturbing. It involves problems with purity and isolation listed above—with the added risk of a full blown mental breakdown. This is basically what Sewell Setzer experienced, as mentioned above. 

Conclusion

While AI can be put to good use, the inherent dangers are overwhelming. This was just a cursory overview of the most basic problems. Will AI become "sentient" on some level and enslave humanity? Will it aid the Antichrist? These are questions I will attempt an answer to in other posts. Anyone with children must be extremely vigilant.  I would forbid a child to use the advanced AI. Just like my posts on the occult, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

Mixing The Occult With St. Ignatius

 

Meet "Fr." Bobby Karle, S.J.--where the "SJ" evidently stands for "spiritual junk." He is the founder and director of Ignatian Spirituality and Yoga. Its mission, since 2013, is about engaging with the larger school of philosophy that makes up the yoga path to samadhi (union with the Divine), and bringing this tradition in its fullness into conversation with Ignatian Spirituality. As "Fr. " Bobby says, "Yoga helped me deepen my relationship with Jesus and integrate the various parts of myself."

What does an inherently pagan Hindu and occult spiritual practice have to do with St. Ignatius and his Spiritual Exercises, you ask?  Ignatian Spirituality & Yoga is grounded in experience and encounter. Our programs create and hold spaces to engage in practices that encourage greater stillness and deeper awareness of the body, breath, and interior space. What, exactly, does that jabberwocky mean? Through stillness and awareness we encounter God and can explore how and where we are being called in our lives. (Emphasis mine). "Experiences" and "encounters"! Vatican II blends well with the occult and pagan.

Still not getting it? That's because "Fr." Bobby is enlightened by Vatican II and you're not! Nostra Aetate para. # 2 reads:

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our human condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God... Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination...The Catholic (sic) Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

Hence, "Fr." Bobby states As an organization, it is vital to us that we are engaging in this in a respectful, responsible, non-oppressive way that honors the contexts and depths of both traditions (i.e., Hindu and "Catholic"). Ah, yes! "Conversation" and "dialogue"--Modernist code words for syncretism, i.e., the attempt to reconcile or merge opposing philosophies or principles and is a hallmark of both Modernism and the occult. (For all quotes above except Nostra Aetate, See https://ignatianspiritualityandyoga.com). 

The subject of this post is to examine the occult---in the form of yoga---which has been injected into what the Vatican II sect blasphemously calls "Ignatian Spirituality." (N.B. The information for this post is taken from a plethora of sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the material herein, only for condensing it into a terse and readable post---Introibo). 

 Hinduism: The Paganism Behind Yoga

Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world today with about 800 million adherents. Hinduism does not have an individual founder.  Scholars typically trace its origins to around 1500 B.C. in what is now known as India.  It began as a polytheistic and ritualistic family of religions with various sacred rites performed by the heads of particular households or tribes. Around 800 to 300 B.C. the Upanishads were written.  The Upanishads might be very loosely considered Hinduism's equivalent of the New Testament.  This book expounds on the idea that behind the many gods stands one ultimate reality known as Brahman.  Brahman is an impersonal essence that is the basis of all existence.  Hindu thinkers of the time began to understand Brahman as "nirguna," which means "without attributes or qualities." 

Herein lie the three major false teachings within Hinduism: (a) it is polytheistic, (b) it is pantheistic, and (c) it is inherently immoral. 

The Teaching of the Church

The First Vatican Council decreed in the Dogmatic Constitution On The Catholic Faith ("Dei Filius") Chapter 1: 

"The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself." 

Hinduism is polytheistic, believing in a multiplicity of "gods." These so-called gods are part of the ultimate impersonal reality of Brahman. This is a form of pantheism which teaches that "God" and nature are the same thing. Pantheism comes from two Greek words, pan meaning "all" and theos meaning "god."  Since God is the Supreme Being, it is illogical to assert more than one "god," unless you lower the definition for "god" which is exactly what Hindus have done. The "gods" have power over certain things and sometimes even need things from us. This is not God. 

Pantheism, either asserts that the universe and God are identical (which is basically atheism with reverence for nature), or nature is an integral part of God (for example, my heart is not me, but an essential part without which I cannot survive). Now, read again the definition of the First Vatican Council. It is unambiguously monotheistic (One True God distinct from the universe He created). To what "god" do Hindus take "a flight to God with love and trust" as Vatican II taught? 

Hinduism is inherently immoral. There can be no Divine Commandments. Hindus consider "everything to be sacred." Sacred to whom? If everything is "sacred" how do I survive by eating meat or vegetation which are also "sacred"? If there is no objective standard outside yourself, there are no objective moral standards either. To kill someone or not to kill someone is therefore a mere matter of preference or dislike. Who, or what, determines that which would be "sacrilegious"? This is a blueprint for moral relativism and chaos. Hinduism's teaching on reincarnation leads to a "caste system" where poor people are in that state allegedly because of their past life of which they have no remembrance (since it's not true). Eventually the soul will become "one with Brahman."  

Infallibly taught by Vatican I:

1. If anyone shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible; let him be anathema. 

2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists; let him be anathema. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

Hinduism Grows in Influence

 As a result of Vatican II, Hinduism has gained a strong foothold here in the West. According to The Yoga Tradition. Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice by Georg Feuerstein, PH.D. (Hohm Press, Prescott, Arizona, [1998], xviii), "Yoga is the union of the individual psyche with the transcendental Self."  The "god" expressed in Yoga is spoken of as the Absolute, Higher Self, Ultimate, Divine Consciousness, Transcendental Self, and a plethora of other titles that speak of an impersonal, pantheistic deity that is in all things, though transcendent beyond them. Yoga is pushed during Vatican II retreats, and is even offered in their schools and churches. Now, "Jesuits" are merging it with "Ignatian Spirituality."

Enter "Fr." Joe

"Fr." Bobby got a boost from the Vatican II sect Jesuit rag, America magazine. Joe Hoover, SJ has this to say:

“Ignatian yoga,” a new entity that is drawing enthusiastic crowds to retreats and workshops across the country, sounds like a gimmick. People love yoga. People love the spirituality of St. Ignatius Loyola. Mash the two together, and you have created a nice, marketable concept that can sweep a bundle of folks into the arms of the Lord and/or the Society of Jesus. .. Consider this: Most American yoga is actually workout yoga. It does not involve Americans—80 percent of whom are in one fashion or another Christian—making limber supplication to pagan gods. Contrary to the warnings of some church leaders, the practice of yoga is not tantamount to a kind of physical heresy. American gym yoga is mainly done by people who want to get fit, work out kinks, do some cardio, meet guys, find some inner calm, strengthen muscles, get centered, shed pounds, meet women—the usual reasons people go to gyms. (See americamagazine.org/faith/2019/02/08/whats-deal-ignatian-yoga-skeptical-jesuit-finds-out-232548). 

Is Joe right? Is there really "workout" yoga and "pagan/occult" yoga?  Experts in yoga seem to agree that you cannot do so. Swami Prabhupada  states, "Yoga is full of surprises. The first surprise was that it is not simply exercise. Yoga is a moving meditation, a system for developing the mind, the body, and the spirit in unison. This holistic approach makes yoga feel different from Western sports training." (See A.C. Bhaktivendanta Swami Prabhupada, The Quest for Enlightenment, Bhaktivendanta Book Trust , Los Angeles, [1977], pg. 3). 

Yoga is synonymous with Eastern meditation and pantheism, the idea that reality is identical with Divinity, and that all-things compose an all-encompassing, immanent "god." The goal of the yoga practitioner is to unify himself/herself with the "Divine-self" or "God-Self." Through yoga meditation, the person tries to lose contact with the conscious mind for an altered state of consciousness. This disassociation is meant to allow a person to become "one" with "the Divine." Even those who do not get to such altered states, have unwittingly opened themselves up to a decidedly pagan worldview and possible demon possession. The idea of being "divine" is the opposite of Christianity which tells us we are sinners in need of Redemption by the God-Man Jesus Christ.

When yoga techniques are labeled as "relaxation techniques" or "ways to reduce stress and exercise for health," it is misleading. Traditionalist Catholic meditation is the conscious, focused, reflective, cognitive attention to God, such as when one meditates on the mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary. Yoga meditation results in an altered state of consciousness.

One disturbing proof of yoga’s spiritual nature is the way it affects practitioners over time. The International Journal of Yoga published the results of a national survey in Australia. 

(See pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3410203).  

Physical postures (asana) comprised about 60% of the yoga they practiced; 40% was relaxation (savasana), breathing techniques (pranayama), meditation, and instruction. The survey showed very significant results: although most respondents commonly began yoga for reasons of physical health, they usually continued it for reasons of spirituality. In addition, the more people practiced yoga, the more likely they were to decrease their adherence to Christianity and the more likely they were to adhere to non-religious spirituality and Buddhism.

Think about that:

• Consistent practice of Yoga is correlated with a diminishment of Christian belief.

• Practitioners typically begin Yoga for physical reasons but stick with it for spiritual reasons.

Physical Yoga IS Spiritual Yoga 

The basic premise of yoga theory is the fundamental unity of all existence: God, man, and all of creation are ultimately one divine reality. An editorial in the Yoga Journal declares this basic premise:

We are all aware that yoga means "union" and that the practice of yoga unites body, breath, and mind, lower and higher energy centers and, ultimately self and God, or higher Self. But more broadly, yoga directs our attention to the unity or oneness that underlies our fragmented experiences and equally fragmented world. Family, friends, the Druze guerrilla in Lebanon, the great whale migrating north—all share the same essential [divine] nature. (See Yoga Journal, May/June 1984, p. 4).

This is why physical yoga and Eastern paganism are mutually interdependent. Two aspects of the  kinds of yoga (asanas: physical exercises; and pranayama: breath work) are purported to be the third and fourth step of an eight-step discipline leading a participant to Samadhi (enlightenment, God-consciousness). These eight steps are:

• Yama (self-control, restraint, devotion to the gods [e.g., Krishna] or the final impersonal "God" [e.g., Brahman])

• Niyama (religious duties, prohibitions, observances)

• Asana (proper postures for yoga practices; these represent the first stage in the isolation of consciousness and are vital components for "transcending the human condition")

• Pranayama (the control and directing of the breath and the alleged divine energy within the human body [prana] to promote health and spiritual [occult/pagan] consciousness and evolution)

• Pratyahara (sensory control or deprivation, i.e., withdrawal of the senses from attachment to external objects)

• Dharana (deeper concentration, or mind control)

• Dhyana (deep contemplation from occult or pagan meditation)

• Samadhi (occult enlightenment or "God [Brahman] realization" i.e., "union" of the practitioner with "God")

The eight steps are interdependent, the steps of "postures" and "breathing" cannot logically be separated from the others. Thus, the interdependence of all eight steps reveals why the physical exercises of yoga are designed to prepare the body for the spiritual (occult) changes that will allegedly help one realize "godhood status." (See, e.g., Swami Nikhilananda, The Yogas and Other Works, New York: Ramadrishna and Vivekananda Center, 1953, p. 592). The postures are thought to "open up the body's chakras." These chakras are alleged energy points going from the base of the spine to the head. At the bottom of the spine is your power which must be released by bringing it up to the head. The whole idea of an "energy-force" that can be awakened is based on the Hindu belief that "Ultimate Reality" is an Impersonal "life-force" that flows through the entire universe ("Brahman"). 

By the very fact you engage in this practice, you are giving credence to the pagan ideas that the "energy force" that "heals and strengthens you" also brings you to a pantheistic "godhood status" with the "ultimate reality."  Whether conscious of it or not, you have adopted pagan beliefs while claiming the title of Traditionalist Catholic. A person's ignorance does not purify yoga from its spiritual falsehood. Most people are familiar with the famous "lotus position" (sitting cross-legged like a statue of Buddha) used by yoga practitioners with an erect back, having their index fingers curled around touching the thumbs while breathing and/or meditating. Yoga instructors will tell their students its a way of keeping focused, and the position is conducive to strengthening certain muscles.

Actually, the position represents a spiritual concept called Gyan munda, which "symbolizes the union of Self with the universe, the unification of one's soul and the supreme soul. The thumb symbolizes the supreme soul, and the index finger refers to the practitioner's soul." (See https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/6444/gyan-mudra). 

The theology of yoga should be apparent. It is not separate from the exercise. 

Meeting "Gods" and "Goddesses" Via Yoga

I have read many accounts of people who have experienced "contact" with pagan "deities." Here is one such account:

Ellen is a medical student, and thinks of herself as a rational person who doesn’t go in for mystical experiences. But one day as she closed her eyes and relaxed in Savasana, Ellen felt a powerful maternal energy around her and “saw” the Hindu goddess Durga, whose picture graced the yoga studio’s back wall. For a moment, the many-armed goddess’s face lingered in front of her, looking alive and full of compassionate love. Then the image disappeared—though the sweet, strong energy stayed with Ellen for hours.

Months later, at a meditation workshop, she asked me what I thought her experience meant. After learning that she’d been in the thick of medical school pressures, I said that maybe the Great Mother was offering a bit of support.

When Ellen looked at me blankly, I suggested she try to access the energy again. “No preconceptions. Just sit in meditation and ask the Durga energy to be with you. Then notice how you feel.” Sounding extremely tentative, Ellen asked me what she should expect. I resisted the temptation to say something inscrutable, like “Don’t expect anything,” and told her, “You’ll probably feel some empowering and benign energy—energy that can open you up to a deeper source of strength.”

The practice I suggested to Ellen is called deity yoga, and it isn’t specific to the Hindu tradition. Christians do a similar practice, invoking Christ or Mary or other saints. Buddhists invoke different forms of the Buddha. In yoga traditions, the goddess is considered the embodiment of life-giving energy. Whether we encounter this energy spontaneously, as Ellen did, or explore it deliberately as a practice, the energy of the divine feminine can open us to our own inner source of empowerment.

(See yogajournal.com/yoga-101/philosophy/oh-goddess; Emphasis mine). 

Does anybody seriously believe putting yourself into an altered state of consciousness through pagan/occult meditation and having a hallucination (vision perhaps) of a pagan deity is like invoking Christ and His Blessed Mother in prayer?  The "divine feminine"? This is an occult/pagan doorway to Hell. 

Four Inherent Dangers in "Ignatian Yoga"

1. Demonic possession.  It can result when the word "OM"(or another "mantra") is chanted leading to an altered state of consciousness, or by assuming various yoga postures that are dedicated to the evil Hindu "deities." Invoke them, and they will heed your call, as Ellen found out above.

2. Apostasy.  People who get involved in the basic physical exercises often get intrigued by the deeper philosophical aspects of yoga and become lukewarm in their faith or even end up leaving the One True Church for pagan mysticism. This danger even has a study supporting its occurrence as was seen in the Australian study cited above.

3. Indifferentism. Even if an "Ignatian" yoga class seems harmless, with no pagan spiritual emphasis, and no outward Hindu trappings, there is still real danger. By participating in a yoga class, you are endorsing a non-Catholic belief system which is incompatible with Church teaching, regardless of what "Frs." Bobby and Joe tell you. 

You implicitly accept the heresy of Indifferentism; the false teaching that one religion is as good as another, and it matters not what you believe or do. When members of the Vatican II sect pray and/or discuss Catholic spirituality before, during, or after yoga you get syncretism, the attempted "blending or amalgamation" of all religions into a One World Church; it is the logical outcome of ecumenism which is at the heart of Modernism (and the occult) which fuels the Vatican II sect. 

Do not believe there is such a thing as "Ignatian" or "Christian"  yoga. Certain things can be "baptized" so to speak, and put in the service of God. For example, the use of certain true axioms and concepts employed by pagan philosopher Aristotle was put to use for the Church thanks to the great St. Thomas Aquinas. However, things that are evil per se can never be made "Christian." Can you imagine these same people saying you can have a "Christian abortion" by praying and singing hymns during the murder of the child in the abortion mill? Equally ludicrous is the idea that performing pagan rituals created in honor of false gods and heretical ideas suddenly become "Ignatian" if you pray to the same God Who commands "Thou shalt not have false gods before Me." 

4. Association with pagans and occultists. By going to yoga classes, you will be influenced by all the people who buy into paganism, are pagans, practice other forms of the occult, or who perhaps even fall victim to demonic influence. It's one thing to go somewhere with the purpose of converting people to the Faith, and its something altogether different to join in with pagan exercises and philosophy. Why expose yourself to such spiritual danger? Play with fire and you will get burned. 

Conclusion

Do not be fooled by the many bizarre, occult, and pagan activities now being labeled "Ignatian" by Jesuitical apostates. I have seen statues of Buddha in once Catholic chapels run by the Society of Jesus. Likewise, so-called Jesuit priests practicing Reiki and "centering prayer" is more and more commonplace. Now, there is the spread of "Ignatian Yoga." Beware.

If it were possible for a saint in glory to be saddened, I think we could hear St. Ignatius Loyola weep over the many ways Our Lord is being denied and denigrated by those using the appellation Ignatian.

Martyrdom, Salvation, And Charlie Kirk

 

Charles James ("Charlie") Kirk (1993-2025) was a politically conservative activist, entrepreneur, and media personality. He rose to fame by going to college campuses and challenging liberal students to debate him. He co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA), and was a political ally of both President Trump and Vice-President Vance. On September 10, 2025, Kirk was murdered when he was shot at a scheduled debate in Utah.

It is not the purpose of this post to analyze Mr. Kirk's political ideas.  In the wake of his death, many people (even a Vatican II sect "bishop") referred to Mr. Kirk as a "martyr." Other members of the sect, and Dimondites, claim Kirk was most certainly damned as he was not Catholic and had made anti-Catholic statements (Kirk was Protestant). This post will focus on two queries: (1) What is a martyr, and does Kirk qualify as a martyr? (2) Could Charlie Kirk have been saved? 

Martyrdom as Defined by the Church

The following points I condensed from Fr. Ronald Knox's wonderful treatise The Theology of Martyrdom [1929]).

1. The word "martyr" means "witness." It means you give witness to the True Faith by your death. Martyrdom implies, not simply losing your life, but giving up your life. Your life is prematurely cut short in the interests of something greater than yourself. Neither suffering by itself, nor suffering followed by death is martyrdom properly so called.

2. The Church does not bestow the title of martyr upon those heroic priests, nuns, and layman who have persistently attended to the suffering in times of pestilence. St. Aloysius, whose death was brought on by such a labor was not canonized a martyr. These deaths were not the result of the assertion of religious truth against the enemies of religious truth. They laid down their lives for Christ's sake, but not for Christ's quarrel. 

3. The faith one dies for can only be the unadulterated, Integral Catholic Faith; the One True Religion. To those who object that non-Catholics can receive Baptism of Desire, and it is therefore hypocritical to deny Protestants who, in good faith, die for a false belief the title of martyrs, it can be demonstrated their argument is without merit.  Baptism of Desire does not deny the objectivity of Truth, as this argument presupposes. The world tells us "Be good and you will go to Heaven, if such a place exists." A martyr is not someone who dies for what they believe, it is someone who dies for the Truth. Thomas Crammer died because he disbelieved in the papacy. St. Thomas More died because he believed in the papacy. Both cannot be true, so to make martyrs of both means either objective truth doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

4. As an adult, you must have the intention to die as a witness for the Truth. If a Traditionalist is killed in his sleep (unaware he was in any danger) by someone who is an enemy of the Faith, he does not qualify as a martyr. The Church means, by martyrdom, death undergone at the hands of those who hate the True Catholic Faith, for the sake of the True Catholic Faith; and undergone, in the case of adults, deliberately. Infants, killed for the sake of the True Faith, by those who hate the True Faith, die as martyrs without any intention necessary. They receive Baptism of Blood (if unbaptized) and their salvation is assured. (e.g. The Holy Innocents).

5. On the part of the enemies of Christ, a certain odium fidei ("hatred of the Faith") is necessary. A wholesale abandonment of the Faith, or hatred of all beliefs, is not necessary. To hate any article of True Faith/Morals because it is taught by the Church will suffice. Therefore, Henry VIII did not have to abandon every belief of the Church. Denying divorce and remarriage is adultery and hating that belief because the Church teaches it as true, was sufficient without more, to establish an odium fidei.

6. A soldier who takes up arms to fight a just war is not to be considered a martyr if he dies. Hence, the one who dies must not be guilty of provocation---that he died because he didn't kill the other man first. The exception is with captured soldiers who, now unarmed, are given the option of death or apostasy.

7. Notice how different this is from the Moslem conception of committing suicide while killing others (e.g. 9/11 attacks) as "martyrdom"!

Kirk was killed because of a heretical theology and his political activity. Therefore, he did not die for the One True Church and--on that basis alone--cannot be a martyr. His murderer(s) did not truly have the "hatred of the faith"--only hatred for Kirk's politics and false theology which supported his politics. Kirk is neither a saint nor a martyr, unless you jettison all Catholic teaching on martyrdom by replacing it with an "ecumenism of blood" as first professed by false pope Bergoglio.

Although Not a Martyr or Candidate for Canonization, Could Kirk Have Been Saved?

It is beyond dispute that Charlie Kirk made many anti-Catholic statements. It is also true that his stance towards (what he considered) the Catholic Church had softened, due to the influence of his wife, Erika, a former member of the Vatican II sect (which poses as "Catholicism"). In the external forum, Kirk died outside the Church, but could have he been brought within the Church in the internal forum? 

According to the 1910 New Catholic Dictionary,  In canon law, internal forum, the realm of conscience, is contrasted with the external or outward forum; thus, a marriage might be null and void in the internal forum, but binding outwardly, i.e. In the external forum, for want of judicial proof to the contrary. (See studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ncd/f/forum.html). The external forum considers matters that concern the public and social good of the Church, stemming from an individual’s outward, observable actions and behaviors. The internal forum deals with an individual's private relationship with God within their mind and soul--and cannot be seen but by God. 

In the example above, a marriage can be invalid in the forum of conscience (one or both parties knew of an impediment to the marriage but kept it secret). However, the marriage is binding in the external forum because of the lack of judicial proof to show that the marriage is invalid. 

Another example is a priest offering Mass can look very holy and good. However, the priest can have a positive contrary intention in the internal forum, and make the Mass invalid by defect of intention. That's why we can never know for certain if any particular sacrament is valid; we have moral certainty---not absolute certainty. The Church sets a presumption of validity every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament, and said presumption can only be overcome by an external manifestation of the internal forum (e.g., the priest admits he withheld his intention). 

Objection: How could someone be doing something evil, like worshipping false gods, in the external forum, and be Catholic in the internal forum? 

Answer: They can't. This is a huge misunderstanding and mischaracterization. The dichotomy exists when e.g., a lifelong notorious sinner is on his deathbed and is unconscious or unable to communicate. In his mind, known but to God, he might make a sincere act of contrition and be saved. Such repentance can't be seen. Another example: If you see someone attacking a person with a knife, such an act is evil in the external forum. However, if he has been habitually insane since birth, he has no control over his actions, and God would not hold him accountable in the internal forum. That doesn't mean he can't be executed by the State to protect others or at the very least committed to a mental institution for life. Anyone with full mental capacity who commits an evil act with consent of his will is evil--like knowingly worshipping idols.

Therefore, a person who outwardly (in the external forum) appears to have died outside the Church could have been enlightened by having faith and sanctifying grace infused by God (in the internal forum) prior to the moment of death and been brought within the Church; thereby attaining salvation. 

Outside the Church There is No Salvation

It is important to remember that the thrice defined truth of the Church is that "outside the Church" there is no salvation--not "without Church membership" there is no salvation. 

Cantate Domino (1441--Council of Florence; Pope Eugene IV):  The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pours out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Emphasis mine). 

Fourth Lateran Council (1215): There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. (Emphasis mine).

Unam Sanctam (Pope Boniface VIII--1302): We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The distinction between being a member of the Church and within (united) to the Church is important. The greatest and most comprehensive exposition of traditional ecclesiology was put forth in the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi of His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1943. The first sentence of said encyclical begins with the following affirmation: The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. Hence, the doctrine is from Christ and is therefore true. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The One True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and co-extensive with it. 

In order to be a member of the Church, four conditions must obtain: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.(para. #22; Emphasis mine).  A member of the Catholic Church must therefore be (1) baptized, (2) profess the true Faith (not heretics), (3) not separated from unity (not schismatics) and (4) not excluded by legitimate authority (not excommunicated). 

Those are the members of the Church. As the encyclical explains, a person can be united to the Church by a desire to belong:

As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. (para. #103). 

These are not members of the Church, but they are within the Church by desire, but cannot be assured of remaining within the Church unto salvation for they are deprived of "those many heavenly gifts and helps" only available to members of the Church. Once again: the dogma is "Outside the Church, No Salvation," and not "Without Church Membership, No Salvation." 

This is summarized perfectly by theologian Hanahoe:

...in order to be saved, a person must in fact (in re) be visibly conjoined to the Church, i.e., be a member, or, he must, at least intend (in voto) to become a member of the Church. This intention to become a member of the Church may be explicit or implicit. The intention is explicit when a person is actually under instruction preparing to enter Catholic unity [i.e., catechumen]. On the other hand the intention is implicit if a person, while invincibly ignorant of the Church, possesses sanctifying grace. The fact that he is in the state of grace indicates that he has a sincere will of using all the means which God has established; even though he does not know explicitly single means, he implicitly receives all. This person is then unknowingly participating in the life of the Church---he is saved through the Church. 

Pius IX indicates what may well be considered an implicit intention of entering the Catholic Church:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, para. #7). 

(See Catholic Ecumenism, [1953], pg. 108; Emphasis in original). 

It must be noted that what matters is what state the soul is in at the moment of death. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). God can infuse anything lacking in such a person (Divine light of faith and grace) prior to the moment of death, ensuring salvation. Theologian Hanahoe goes on to explain exactly how hard it is for those within the Church, and not members, to be saved:

However, the position of such a person is not completely secure, because once his initial ignorance is no longer invincible and his conscience, under grace, moves him to enter the Church, or at least, study its claims, then the issue is formally presented to him. If he refuses to examine further or does not seek to enter the Church, his implicit intention is dissolved, because he has withdrawn himself from the sincere will of using all the means which God wills; his condition is changed because his will towards God is changed. If he perseveres in this condition he cannot be saved. (Ibid; Emphasis in original).

Here is an exemplary summation of Mystici Corporis by theologian King:

Thus the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are identical; the importance of the visible aspect of the Church is not to be minimized; all salvation is caused by the visible Church; there is a sharp distinction between membership and being  related to [within] the Church by desire, though in a given case either can suffice for salvation. (The Necessity of the Church for Salvation in Selected Theological Writings of the Past Century, [1960], pg. 286; Emphasis mine).

Could Charlie Kirk have been brought within the One True Church and saved? Yes, it is possible. However, without a special revelation from God, we cannot know with certainty his fate. 

The Church has Always Permitted Private Prayers for Those Who Died as Non-Catholics in the External Forum

Let's see what the Church has to say:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law 
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). These top-tier canonists convey the meaning of Canon 1241, and they are authors whose manual was used to train priests after being vetted by the Magisterium, ensuring it contains no heresy. 

Canon 1239, section 2: Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.

Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See The Sacred Canons, [1951], pg. 493). Catechumens, by definition, are unbaptized. The Church sets up a presumption that they received Baptism of Desire. However, this is only possible if (a) Baptism of Desire is true and (b) there is a real distinction between the external and internal forum. 

2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).

3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).

4. Theologian Jone
"Mass may not be applied publicly for those to whom the Church denies ecclesiastical burial (Canon 1241). Private application in this case is not forbidden." (See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 371; Emphasis mine).  

5. Theologian Slater  

"According to the new Code, Mass may be offered for anybody, living or dead, but only privately, and with precautions to avoid scandal for excommunicates..." (See A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 2:108; Emphasis mine). 

6. Theologians McHugh and Callan

"Thus, Mass may be said only privately (that is, without publicity or special liturgical solemnity) and prudently (that is, with avoidance of scandal, for example, by the declaration that Mass is said for the faithful departed with the purpose of aiding also a departed unbeliever, if this is pleasing to God) for the living and the dead outside the Church, such as infidels, heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicated." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:673; Emphasis mine). 

7. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia   

"There is no restriction by Divine or ecclesiastical law as to those of the dead for whom private prayer may be offered – except that they may not be offered formally either for the blessed in Heaven or for the damned. Not only for the faithful who have died in external communion with the Church, but for deceased non-Catholics, even the unbaptized, who may have died in the state of grace, one is free to offer his personal prayers and good works; nor does the Church’s prohibition of her public offices for those who have died out of external communion with her affect the strictly personal element in her minister’s acts. For all such she prohibits the public offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass (and of other liturgical offices); but theologians commonly teach that a priest is not forbidden to offer the Mass in private for the repose of the soul of any one who, judging by probable evidence, may be presumed to have died in faith and grace, provided, at least, he does not say the special requiem Mass with the special prayer in which the deceased is named, since this would give the offering a public and official character." (Emphasis mine)

**N.B.** This was written prior to the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The common teaching of the theologians became universally taught post-1917. It is also infallibly taught, as the Code is a universal disciplinary law, and as such is protected by the Holy Ghost from evil and error. 

Objection: Canon Law is not infallible unless it applies to the whole Church. Since the Canons in question don't apply to the Eastern Rites, it is not "universal" or infallible.

Answer: False. Canon Law is infallible and those Canons need not apply to the Eastern Rites to be universal.

Proof: 

According to theologian Van Noort:

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110; Emphasis mine).

According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: A general [universal] law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances. (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory. The 1917 Code is therefore universal. 

Furthermore, Canon 1 does state that the Code as a general rule does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that apply to all Rites: (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See Ibid, pg. 16).

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:

(b) by way of exception, the Orientals are bound by the laws of the Code:

1. ex ipsa rei natura, when the laws involve matters of Faith (7) or refer to or interpret the Divine or the Natural law (8)

Footnote #7 gives examples of Canons which involve matters of Faith and bind the Oriental Rites as well as the Latin Rite: 7. E.g., can. 107, 218, 737, 831. (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:5)

What does Canon 737, specifically enumerated by Abbo and Hannon, teach? 

Canon 737 states, Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation...(Emphasis mine).

The canonists teach that: As Canon 737 notes, men can be saved by the desire of baptism, if it involves a perfect conversion to God through perfect contrition and a love of God above all things. This is a matter of Faith. (Ibid, pgs. 744-745; Emphasis mine). Therefore, Canon 737, teaches BOD is binding on all Rites, because it is a matter of Faith. 

That Canon goes hand-in-glove with Canon 1239, section 2 cited above--both being infallible. This is an insurmountable problem for those who continue to insist that people cannot convert in the internal forum, and be brought within the Church by BOD.  If Pope Benedict XV promulgated heresy in Canon Law (Canon 1239, section 2), then he could not be a true pope. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). Therefore, if praying for the dead who died outside the Church in the external forum (catechumens) is heresy, Pope Benedict XV was not a true pope. 

8. Theologian Gihr     

"Mass may not be publicly offered for those who died outside the fold of the Church: for deceased pagans, heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons. For all these Mass may be offered privately if no scandal is given. The Church makes this distinction to impress upon her children, as well as upon those not in communion with her, the remarkable privileges enjoyed even after death by those who are in visible communion with that stream of life-giving grace that flows from the Cross of Christ through His Church." (See The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically, and Ascetically Explained, [1949], pg. 209; Emphasis mine).

9. Letter of Cardinal Vaughn reminding no Public Mass/Ceremonies upon the death of Queen Victoria (1901)

"At the same time, we may remind you that it is lawful to those who believe that any persons have departed out of this life in union with the Soul of the Church, though not in her external communion, to offer privately prayers and good works for their release from purgatory. The Church herself forms no judgment on the matter, which must remain the secret between God and the individual soul." (Emphasis mine). 

10. Pope Gregory XVI’s 1842 Epistola (Letter) to the Bishop of Augsburg 

"Nor does it matter at all to this if the same woman could have been illuminated to repentance in the final moments of life by the hidden mercy of God's grace. For these more secret mysteries of divine grace do not in the least pertain to the external judgement of ecclesiastical authority: and hence by the old as well as the new discipline of the Church it is forbidden that men, who have died in the external and notorious profession of heresies, should be honored with Catholic rites." (Emphasis mine).

Here, Pope Gregory teaches that non-Catholic Queen Dowager of Bavaria may have been brought within the Church in the internal forum, but no public services may be given as she died a heretic in the external forum. 

Conclusion

Charlie Kirk is not a martyr as understood by Catholic theology. He may have been saved by BOD. How does this work? Some salient points:

1. It is a very serious error to hold that people who live apart from the True Faith and Catholic Unity can attain eternal life if they die in this condition.

2. The person who is invincibly ignorant of the True Religion, and who meticulously obeys the Natural Law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God, can be saved through the workings of Divine light and grace.

3. Such a person has already chosen God as his ultimate End. He has done this in an act of charity. This person has his sins remitted within the One True Church of Christ. God can infuse faith and grace, and dying in this state, he receives the reward of Heaven by Baptism of Desire (BOD). 

4. Traditionalists have a duty to fulfill the Great Commission, converting as many people as possible because you cannot depend on extraordinary means (BOD) to save them.

(The above was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, 1958).

Was Charlie Kirk invincibly ignorant? If he was trying his best to find the True Church in the Great Apostasy he may have been. FYI: Charlie Kirk followed me on X (formerly Twitter). He may have been doing his due diligence. Traditionalist Catholics cannot offer public prayers of any kind for Mr. Kirk, but they can do so privately in their homes. We must never call him a "martyr." 

Finally, the staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:

"Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite Mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable (invincible) ignorance.

Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite Mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the Truth of the Catholic Faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

A. Eternal damnation."

Ignorance does not save. Only the True Faith saves. Does this in any way detract from our duty to convert everyone to the One True Church? Hardly. If anything, it should make us work harder for the salvation of souls. In the natural order, if you knew someone was poor and starving, would you bring them food or rely on God to miraculously feed them? In like manner, we cannot depend on rare miracles to save souls. Let us spread the Truth of the One True Church to as many people we can--individuals like Charlie Kirk not excepted.