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. 

Angels And Demons, Fasting And Abstinence

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the angels--both the good and the fallen, and the importance of fasting and abstinence. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

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

Angels and Demons, Fasting and Abstinence

by John Gregory

There was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me (2 Corinthians 12: 7). — The devil cometh, and taketh the word out of their heart, lest believing they should be saved (Luke 8: 12)

 

The entirety of this article is quoted directly from the Catechism of Trent (COT), A Tour of the Summa, By Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, and A Companion of the Summa Volume 3, by Walter Farell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.  The source and page numbers of each source will be provided in their proper place.

 

CREATION OF THE WORLD OF SPIRITS

 

God created out of nothing the spiritual world and Angels innumerable to serve and minister to Him; and these He enriched and adorned with the admirable gifts of His grace and power. 

 

That the devil and the other rebel angels were gifted from the beginning of their creation with grace, clearly follows from these words of the Sacred Scriptures: He (the devil) stood not in the truth. (John 8: 44) On this subject Saint Augustine says: In creating the Angels He endowed them with good will, that is, with pure love that they might adhere to Him, giving them existence and adorning them with grace at one and the same time.  Hence we are to believe that the holy Angels were never without good will, that is, the love of God.

 

As to their knowledge we have this testimony of Holy Scripture: Thou, my Lord, O king, art wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to understand all things upon earth. (2 Kings 14: 20) Finally, the inspired David ascribes power to them, saying that they are mighty in strength, and execute his word; (Psalm 102: 20) and on this account they are often called in Scripture the powers and the armies of the Lord.

 

But although they were all endowed with celestial gifts, very many, having rebelled against God, their Father and Creator, were hurled from those high mansions of bliss, and shut up in the darkest dungeon of earth, there to suffer for eternity the punishment of their pride.  Speaking of them the Prince of the Apostles says: God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment. (2 Peter 2: 4) [COT p. 27 – 28]

 

GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS

 

1. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.

 

2. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.

 

3. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory.  Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.

 

4. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.

 

5. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it.  The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.

 

6. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.

 

7. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.

 

8.  Beatified angels cannot sin.  Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively.  There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.

 

9. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude.  A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.

 

SIN OF THE FALLLE ANGELS

 

1. A rational creature (that is, a creature with intellect and will) can sin.  If it be unable to sin, this is a gift of grace, not a condition of nature.  While angels were yet unbeatified they could sin.  And some of them did.

 

2. The sinning angels (or demons) are guilty of all sins in so far as they lead man to commit every kind of sin.  But in the bad angels themselves there could be no tendency to fleshly sins but only to such sins as can be committed by a purely spiritual being, and these sins are two only: pride and envy.

 

3. Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God.  This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible.  Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater.  On this point man sometimes deceives himself by trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being.  But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion.  The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible.  Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be.  What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God’s help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

 

4. Every nature, that is every essence as operating, tends to some good.  An intellectual nature tends to good in general, good under its common aspects, good as such.  The fallen angels therefore are not naturally evil.

 

5. The devil did not sin in the very instant of his creation.  When a perfect cause makes a nature the first operation of that nature must be in line with the perfection of its cause.  Hence the devil was not created in wickedness.  He, like all the angels, was created in the state of sanctifying grace.

 

6. But the devil, with his companions, sinned immediately after creation.  He rejected the grace in which he was created, and which he was meant to use, as the good angels used it, to merit beatitude.  If, however, the angels were not created in grace (as some hold) but had grace available as soon as they were created, then it may be that some interval occurred between the creation and the sin of Lucifer and his companions.

 

7. Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels.  But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels. 

 

8. The sin of the highest angel was a bad example which attracted the other rebel angels, and, to this extent, was the cause of their sin.

 

9. The faithful angels are a greater multitude than the fallen angels.  For sin is contrary to the natural order.  Now, what is opposed to the natural order occurs less frequently, or in fewer instances, than what accords with the natural order. (A Tour of the Summa, By Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, pages 53 – 55)

 

 

VENERATION AND INVOCATION OF ANGELS AND SAINTS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

 

In explanation of this Commandment it should be accurately taught that the veneration and invocation of holy Angels and of the blessed who now enjoy the glory of heaven, and likewise the honor which the Catholic Church has always paid even to the bodies and ashes of the Saints, are not forbidden by this Commandment.  If a king ordered that no one else should set himself up as king, or accept the honors due to the royal person, who would be so foolish as to infer that the sovereign was unwilling that suitable honor and respect should be paid to his magistrates?  Now although Christians follow the example set by the Saints of the Old Law, and are said to adore the Angels, yet they do not give to Angels that honor which is due to God alone.

 

And if we sometimes read that Angels refused to be worshipped by men, (Apocalypse 19: 10; 22: 9) we are to know that they did so because the worship which they refused to accept was the honor due to God alone.

 

IT IS LAWFUL TO HONOR AND INVOKE THE ANGELS

 

The Holy Spirit who says: Honour and glory to God alone, (1 Timothy 1: 17; Exodus 20: 12; Leviticus 19: 32) commands us also to honor our parents and elders; and the holy men who adored one God only are also said in Scripture to have adored, that is, supplicated and venerated kings. If then kings, by whose agency God governs the world, are so highly honored, (Genesis 23: 7; 2 Kings 24: 20; 1 Paralipomenon 29: 20) shall it be deemed unlawful to honor those angelic spirits whom God has been pleased to constitute His ministers, whose services He makes use of not only in the government of His Church, but also of the universe, by whose aid, although we see them not, we are every day delivered from the greatest dangers of soul and body?  Are they not worthy of far greater honor, since their dignity so far surpasses that of Kings.

 

Add to this their love towards us, which as we easily see from Scripture, (Daniel 10: 13) prompts them to pour out their prayers for those countries over which they are placed, as well as for us whose guardians they are, and whose prayers and tears they present before the throne of God. (Tobit 12: 12; Apocalypse 8: 3) Hence our Lord admonishes us in the Gospel not to offend the little ones, because their angels in heaven always see the face of their Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 10)

 

Their intercession, therefore, we ought to invoke, because they always see the face of God, and are constituted by Him the willing advocates of our salvation.  The Scriptures bear witness to such invocation.  Jacob entreated the Angel with whom he wrestled to bless him; (Genesis 32: 26) nay, he even compelled him, declaring that he would not let him go until he had blessed him.  And not only did he invoke the blessing of the Angel whom he saw, but also of him whom he saw not.  The angel, sad he, who delivers me from all evils, bless these boys. (Genesis 48: 16)

 

IT IS LAWFUL TO HONOR AND INVOKE THE SAINTS

 

From all this we may conclude that to honor the Saints who have slept in the Lord, to invoke them, and to venerate their sacred relics and ashes, far from diminishing, tends considerably to increase the glory of God, in proportion as man’s hope is thus animated and fortified, and he himself encouraged to imitate the Saints.

 

This is a practice which is also supported by the authority of the second Council of Nice, the Councils of Gangra, and of Trent, and by the testimony of the Fathers.  In order, however, that the pastor may be the better prepared to meet the objections of those who deny this doctrine, he should consult particularly Saint Jerome against Vigilantius and Saint Damascene.  To the teaching of these Fathers should be added as a consideration of prime importance that the practice was received from the Apostles, and has always been retained and preserved in the Church of God.

 

But who can desire a stronger or more convincing proof than that which is supplied by the admirable praises given in Scripture to the Saints? For there are not wanting eulogies which God Himself pronounced on some of the Saints.  If, then, Holy Writ celebrates their praises, why should not men show them singular honor? (Ecclesiasticus 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49; Hebrews 11)

 

A stronger claim which the Saints have to be honored and invoked is that they constantly pray for our salvation and obtain for us by their merits and influence many blessings from God.  If there is joy in heaven over the conversion of one sinner, (Luke 15: 7, 10) will not the citizens of heaven assist those who repent?  When they are invoked, will they not obtain for us the pardon of sins, and the grace of God?

 

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED

 

Should it be said, as some say, that the patronage of the Saints is unnecessary, because God hears our prayers without the intervention of a mediator, this impious assertion is easily met by the observation of Saint Augustine: “There are many things which God does not grant without a mediator and intercessor.”  This is confirmed by the will-known examples of Abimelech and the friends of Job who were pardoned only through the prayers of Abraham and of Job. (Genesis 20)

 

Should it be alleged that to recur to the patronage and intercession of the Saints argues want or weakness of faith, what will (the objectors) answer regarding the centurion whose faith was highly eulogized by the Lord God Himself, despite the fact that he had sent to the Redeemer the ancients of the Jews, to intercede for his sick servant. (Matthew 7: 10; Luke 7: 3)

 

True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us. (Hebrews 9: 12; 7: 25) But it by no means follows that it is therefore unlawful to have recourse to the intercession of the Saints.  If, because we have one Mediator Jesus Christ, it were unlawful to ask the intercession of the Saints, the Apostle would never have recommended himself with so much earnestness to the prayers of his brethren on earth. (Romans 15: 30; Hebrews 13: 18) For the prayers of the living would lessen the glory and dignity of Christ’s Mediatorship not less than the intercession of the Saints in heaven.

 

THE HONOR AND INVOCATION OF SAINTS IS APPROVED BY MIRACLES

 

But who would not be convinced of the honor due the Saints and of the help they give us by the worders wrought at their tombs?  Diseased eyes, hands, and other members are restored to health; the dead are raised to life, and demons are expelled from the bodies of men!  These are facts which Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine, most unexceptionable witnesses, declare in their writings, not that they heard, as many did, nor that they read, as did many very reliable men, but that they saw.

 

But why multiply proofs? If the clothes, the handkerchiefs, (Acts 19: 12 and 5: 15) and even the very shadows of the Saints, while yet on earth, banished disease and restored health, who will have the hardihood to deny that God can still work the same wonders by the holy ashes, the bones and other relics of the Saints?  Of this we have a proof in the restoration to life of the dead body which was accidentally let down into the grave of Eliseus, and which, on touching the body (of the Prophet), was instantly restored to life. (4 Kings 13: 21)

 

“Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth: thou shalt not adore them nor serve them” (Exodus 20: 4)

 

Some, supposing these words which come next in order to constitute a distinct precept, reduce the ninth and tenth Commandments to one.  Saint Augustine, on the contrary, considering the last two to be distinct Commandments, makes the words just quoted a part of the first Commandment.  His division is much approved in the Church, and hence we willingly adopt it.  Furthermore, a very good reason for this arrangement at once suggests itself.  It was fitting that to the first Commandment should be added the rewards or punishments entailed by each one of the Commandments.

 

THE ABOVE WORDS DO NOT FORBID ALL IMAGES

 

Let no one think that this Commandment entirely forbids the arts of painting, engraving or sculpture.  The Scriptures inform us that God Himself commanded to be made images of Cherubim (Exodus 25: 18; 3 Kings 6: 23), and also the brazen serpent (Numbers 21: 8, 9).  The interpretation, therefore, at which we must arrive, is that images are prohibited only inasmuch as they are used as deities to receive adoration, and so to injure the true worship of God. [COT p. 369 – 373]

 

The angels have the fortune of not being capable of committing sins of the flesh such as gluttony, but they also have the “misfortune” of not being able to merit through fasting and abstinence though they can sure aid us in our endeavors to do so, especially if we seek their assistance through prayer.

 

FASTING AND ABSTINENCE: THEIR ADVANTAGES

 

In hunger and thirst, in fastings often (2 Corinthians 11: 27)

 

Naturalness

 

From all this it might be erroneously gathered that fasting was the product of Christian asceticism.  Nothing is further from the truth.  The value of fasting as a means of satisfying for sin, controlling and elevating the mind has always been common knowledge among men; so much so that fasting was a common practice even among primitive peoples, so common as to justify Thomas’ statement—long before anthropology elbowed its way into the halls of science—that fasting is a command of the natural law precisely for these three reasons.

 

The natural law did not, of course, tell an Iroquois that he must fast on Friday, nor the African pygmy that he must observe the Ember Days; it said nothing to the Eskimo about Lent.  The actual times for fasting are positive law’s determinations of the indeterminate general precept of natural law.

 

This explains the universal character of the Church’s insistence on fasting.  It does, of course, recognize special impediments, such as exist in children, working men and beggars.  But even here, the dispensation from the fast does not make an excuse from mortification; otherwise it would hardly be a privilege, a favor done for an individual, rather it would be a tragic deprivation.  Saint Basil could not understand why anyone could not fast: the guest list of the rich was incomplete without fasting, it was an old table companion of the poor, to women it was as natural as breathing, to children it was like water to a young plant, while as for the old, why the long years had made it second nature to them.

 

Allotted times

 

With the purposes of fasting well understood, the fast days appointed by the Church take on new beauty.  Surely there is no more fitting time to satisfy for our sins and prepare our minds for the consideration of eternal things than in the days that prepare us for Christ’s death and resurrection; how can we better appreciate the great saints’ entry into heaven, the full meaning of the great feasts, than by preparing our minds to appreciate the splendid goals they hold before our eyes?  But it is not enough to lift ourselves to the plane of the angels now and then; that is where we belong all of our lives.  To bring this truth home, we are made to fast in each of the four seasons of the year and for three days as a symbol of the three months that make up the divisions of the year: we call those days Ember Days.  During those days priests are ordained and all the major orders given; a fitting time in which to prepare ourselves to celebrate the birthdays of these other Christs.

 

Its opposite—gluttony; Its modes

 

The delicate fineness achieved by fasting is quickly perceived by a contrast with the effects of gluttony.  It is much the same contrast as that between the perfectly conditioned dancer and the man who has let himself go to seed.  On one side there are clean, hard muscles, moving rhythmically under perfect control with a grace that is almost fluid, the grace in motion that a woman so often possesses in repose.  On the other side there is the puffy flabbiness, the disintegration, the softness of a man many years older than his age.

 

It is to be understood that gluttony is not merely a matter of pleasure in food nor of quantity; rather it is a desire for food or an enjoyment of it that surpasses the bounds of reason.  If we think of gluttony only in terms of quantity, we might well echo Augustine’s delightfully human confession: “Who is it, Lord, that does not eat a little more than necessary?  Gluttony must be thought of, not in terms of quantity, but in terms of reason.  As a matter of fact, it can be committed—a sin of desire—on a desert island with no food to be had, or at the breakfast table buoyant under the airy weight of two pieces of toast.  It may be accomplished by the man who goes at his food too ardently or by the kitchen nuisance, the nibbler, who simply cannot wait for his food.  The varieties of gluttony are really extraordinary: the gourmand, for instance, who gravely superintends every step of his food’s preparation; the dainty one to whom an undisguised piece of beef would be obscenity; the man who eats by the dollar sign, subsisting on a diet equivalent roughly to caviar and champagne.  The real epicurean (those who seek pleasure as an end in itself, the goal and purpose of life on earth), sinning by a wholesale perversion on the side of quantity, is at present somewhat rare; at least there is little trace in modern records of architects designing a vomitorium as the logical companion of a dining room.

 

Intrinsic gravity

 

In itself, gluttony is usually a venial sin.  It is only when we make food our goal to the extent of turning our backs on God for it that it becomes a mortal sin.  Certainly the man who would deliberately eat himself to death for the pleasure of his food has carried this sin to its extreme.  This inherent lightness of the sin of gluttony may be puzzling by reason of its very close parallelism to contraception.  Both are against nature in exactly the same way: by perversion of a faculty, using for an end that which is meant by nature as a means, deliberately frustrating (in the case of the epicureans) the end to which those means are ordained.  The difference between the two is that gluttony does not impede the primary physical end of nature—the preservation of the species; not does it, usually, seriously impede the secondary physical end of nature, the conservation of the individual's own life.  The sins against nature are not grievous simply because they are against nature; their gravity is in exact proportion to the impediment they place to the attainment of the ends of nature.

 

Its daughters: unseemly joy, scurrility, physical uncleanness, loquaciousness, dullness of mind

 

From this we might conclude that gluttony is a disgusting rather than a serious sin.  It is disgusting; but it is also terribly dangerous.  It is a capital sin and a list of its unlovely daughters explains a great deal of our disgust with it and all of its perils.  Gluttony brings the animal in man so emphatically to the forefront as to give the impression that the mastery of reason had been done away with.  Reason is drugged, heavy-eyed, sluggish, as contrasted with its alert vitality in the mortified man.  With reason asleep or so nearly asleep the rest of man runs wild: there is unseemly and riotous joy in the appetite, a loquaciousness in speech and a scurrility of action—all more or less out of control.  The crowning touch of distastefulness, made proverbial in the spotted vest, is a physical uncleanness that goes unnoticed by the glutton.

 

From the abuse of drink—sobriety: Its nature

 

Overindulgence in food deprives a man of his mastery stealthily, little by little and day by day.  But overindulgence in intoxicating drink has none of this cowardly finesse about it; it hits a man over the head and throws him helpless in a gutter.  It represents a very special threat to reason and so must be mastered by a very special virtue, the virtue of sobriety.  Sobriety and teetotalism (complete abstinence from alcohol) are not synonymous terms; as a matter of fact, sobriety is not interested in total abstinence.  Its interest is in the note of reason, the note of freedom and mastery that must shine forth from a man’s use of intoxicating liquors.

 

Its opposite—drunkenness

 

Saint Thomas thought that this virtue was particularly necessary in youths, in women, in the old and in those who hold positions of honor.  We confirm this contention again and again by our varying attitudes towards drunkards; to us, a drunken high school boy, a drunken mother or a drunken governor are all much more shocking sights than a drunken sailor.  Why did Saint Thomas pick out these particular classes and why are we so instinctively in agreement with him?  Well, obviously, the old and those in authority should be those in who reason is particularly flourishing; in youths and women, sobriety is more necessary because of the added inclination to concupiscence—in youths by reason of their very exuberance, in women (says Saint Thomas) because they are so apt to let their heart rule their head.

 

This does not mean that a husband can get drunk with impunity while his wife commits the same act only under penalty of sin.  Deliberate drunkenness is a mortal sin in anyone.  It involves the deliberate loss of the use of reason for the sheer love of the drink.  That is, drunkenness is a deliberately immoderate use, an unreasonable use, of intoxicating liquor with serious results to the mastery of man.  [A Companion to the Summa Volume 3, by Walter Farell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M. p. 379 - 383]

 

GLUTTONY

 

1. Gluttony is excess in eating and drinking.  It is an immoderate indulgence in the delights of the palate.  Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.

 

2. Gluttony is usually not a serious sin, but it could be such a sin.  It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating and drinking that he is ready to abandon virtue, and God himself, to obtain this pleasure.

 

3. Gluttony is a sin of the flesh, a carnal sin.  Hence, in itself, it is not so great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.

 

4. Gluttony denotes inordinate desire in eating and drinking.  It shows itself in the avidity with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or drinking too much.  Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.

 

5. A capital sin is a source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh which is the most alluring of all pleasures.  Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.

 

6. Gluttony leads to inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind, to injudiciousness of speech, to levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. [A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Paul J. Glenn – p. 277-8]

 

Conclusion

With the intercession of the Angles and Saints we will increase our chance of more consistently denying our natural inclinations in this fallen state, and merit through fasting and abstinence, thus conforming our will to God’s will.