The most played episodes among Podcast App listeners.

1. 1
   Number 1: Cardinal Sarah and the Crisis in Bioethics

   By Sister Renée Mirkes, OSF Cardinal Robert Sarah's address this summer to the European Parliament identifies a foundational problem in contemporary bioethical discourse: the widening gap between language and reality. Words that once conveyed stable meanings – "healthcare," "rights," "dignity" – are increasingly deployed with ideological elasticity. Sarah warns this linguistic instability constitutes a "crisis of the logos or of reason," a breakdown in the relationship between words and the realities they signify. Language ceases to correspond to reality; reason loses its footing, and moral judgment becomes vulnerable to sentiment, ideology or political coercion. Sarah's thesis rests on three philosophical principles deeply rooted in the Catholic intellectual tradition. First, language must correspond to reality. For Sarah, language is not a neutral tool but an instrument of truth. Words are meant to reveal reality, not obscure it. Once medical discourse employs euphemisms or ambiguous terminology, it becomes difficult to identify the moral nature of medical actions. When terms such as "healthcare," "choice," or "medical aid in dying" conceal the underlying reality of direct killing or murder, the loss of linguistic clarity spawns a loss of moral clarity. Second, reason is the basis of ethical judgment. Sarah's critique presupposes a classical and Christian understanding of reason as the faculty capable of discerning truth. In turn, ethical judgment is directly dependent on reason's ability to apprehend the nature of the human person and the goods proper to human flourishing. Rather than rational inquiry into human goods, many bioethical debates today become mere contests of sentiment or political power. Third, human dignity is objective and intrinsic. Sarah insists human dignity does not depend on "autonomy," utility, or political consensus. It flows from the nature of the human person as an imago Dei, a being created in God's image. The consequences of ignoring these principles are particularly acute in bioethics, where, as Sarah argues, the stakes involve human life, embodiment, and dignity. For this reason, Sarah's lectio evaluates coherently four major bioethical issues: abortion, in vitro fertilization, transgender ideology, and physician-assisted suicide. In each case, he demonstrates how linguistic distortion functions as a precondition for moral confusion and policy error. Referring to abortion as "health," for example, is a linguistic manipulation that conceals the elimination of life. Sarah cites American, European, and international policy documents where "sexual and reproductive health" is routinely used to include abortion. He argues this egregious "reversal of the logos" reframes the deliberate termination of a human life as a form of healthcare, conditions human dignity on maternal choice, and treats the unborn baby as an object whose existence depends on external approval. Sarah insists the linguistic distortion of "health," "choice," and "rights" normalizes abortion by embedding it within the language of medicine and the Constitution. But if abortion is described as "healthcare," the unborn child becomes a pathology, the moral reality of direct killing is obscured, and reason is subordinate to political expediency. Within this conceptual framework, warns Sarah, it becomes difficult – if not impossible – to recognize the gravity of the act of abortion. Sarah also contends that the language of "reproductive rights" justifies in vitro fertilization, embryo cryopreservation, selective reduction, and embryo disposal. While the term "rights" is employed to frame the baby and its laboratory production as entitlements, it clandestinely obscures the moral implications of creating and destroying human beings at their embryonic stage. And when IVF is framed as a "right," the child becomes a product of technique rather than the fruit of a unitive act of marital love. The genesis of a new human being is relocated from...

   September 04, 2026·8min
   Play
2. 2
   Number 2: The Day Before Disaster

   By Michael Pakaluk "We know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good" (Romans 8:28). Disasters must come in this fallen world, and maybe they will come to us. There are relatively few sayings of Jesus which the Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve. But one of these addresses the fact of disasters. About those Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices, or the 18 victims of what we might call "the Tower of Siloam disaster": ". . . think you, that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:4-5) As is his wont, Our Lord here uses visible realities as signs of the invisible. He knows human nature, that disasters invite us to feel, to our shame, that we the living are somehow "better" than those who died. This reaction is telling, because it shows that we inevitably interpret disasters as moral events. No matter what some may say intellectually, we cannot succeed in interpreting them as meaningless chance events. And this propensity is fundamentally correct. Our Lord teaches us its meaning: visible disasters are not meant to winnow out, the way the Last Judgment does. They are mere images of the only true disaster, damnation. And should stimulate us to repent. We soften Leon Bloy's saying, that the only tragedy in human life is not to be a saint, if we neglect to consider that there is only one eternal alternative to sainthood. Many of us alive in the days following the 9/11 attacks watched videos of the planes going into the towers again and again, not yet believing it. We liked to shock ourselves repeatedly, first, by provoking the feeling that "if only" this or that had not happened, we could have avoided it. "If only" the flight school had reported them; "if only" that suspicious airline official in Portland had not let them on). And then, second, with the feeling that "but it really did happen," which is the same as "it really was permitted by God." And this is shocking. But did you and I repent? Was each episode of such self-inflicted shock followed by a commensurate, passionate cry for mercy? Did Catholics adopt new mortifications in atonement? People did return to church, it was noticed, but such good impulses were soon swallowed up by vengeance and warfare. St. Paul speaks to the difference between the "permissive" and the "perfect" will of God. How do we know whether a disaster is the one or the other for us? You might look at the day before disaster. Twenty-five years ago, September 10, 2001, Todd Beamer returned from a five-day trip to Rome with his wife, Lisa, who was pregnant with their third child. He was sent there by Oracle with a group of 500 other employees and guests, as a reward for his excellence in sales. Todd was an Evangelical Christian. When in Rome, did he and his wife go to hear the man widely reputed to be a saint, John Paul II, who gave a General Audience in St. Peter's Square on Psalm 47? Even if not, surely the saint's words spoken then articulated God's meaning for their lives: Until the coming of the Messiah, hope of the nations, the Gentiles did not adore God and did not know who he is. Until the Messiah redeemed them, God did not reign over the nations through their obedience and their worship. Now instead, with his Word and his Spirit, God reigns over them because he saved them from deception and made them his friends. Once they got home, Todd needed to travel to San Francisco to do a favor for a friend by being present at a meeting with Sony. To spend more time at home with his wife and young children before leaving again, however, he decided not to take an evening flight, which was his usual practice, to get there the night before, but to take a morning flight, September 11. Was this choice a fatal mistake? To summarize: He was a believing Christian. He did his work well. He and his wife were generous in welcoming children. He was a good friend to a co...

   September 10, 2026·7min
   Play
3. 3
   Number 3: Medicinal Notes on Inter-Religious Dialogue

   By Francis X. Maier For three of my 27 years on diocesan staff, I had the attached duty of ecumenical and inter-religious affairs. It was great work. We had good relations with local Protestant and Latter-Day Saint communities; cordial discussions with local rabbis; and personal friendships with local Greek Orthodox and American Jewish Committee leaders. With Islam, the story was different. Over the years, we had a total of two contacts: one letter from a local imam insisting that we convert, and one visit from a young, formerly Catholic imam eager to explain how all the good in Christianity was really derived from Islam, the (allegedly) original divine revelation. Alas for him, he picked an unreceptive audience. I mention this for a reason. During those same years, I remember at least one night sitting through a parish presentation on the three "Abrahamic" faiths. In it, the parish DRE repeatedly, with the best of intentions, compared "the Bible" and "the holy Qur'an." I then had the delicate task of explaining that, in Christian belief, the Bible is holy and inspired by God. The Qur'an – whatever its beautiful elements might be – is neither. Christians do not recognize Muhammad as a true prophet. Nor is Islam the product of divine revelation, much less the original one. And the three "Abrahamic" religions – as Rémi Brague, Jacques Ellul, and many others have noted – have far deeper differences than similarities. Simply put, inter-religious dialogue, including with Islam, is an admirable goal. But confused irenicism serves neither the truth nor a healthy mutual understanding. Brague, the distinguished French Catholic philosopher and Arabist, describes the limits of Christian-Muslim dialogue: For Islam, the survival of the Christian religion is an anachronism. Islam presents itself. . .as the true Christianity, given that, according to Islamic thought, Christians have disfigured the authentic Gospel, just as the Jews, for their part, have sold out the authentic Torah. Thus it is out of the question to appeal to common Scripture. This means, from the Muslim point of view, the "Islamo-Christian dialogue" is a dialogue between true Christians (that is, the Muslims themselves) and people who imagine themselves to be true Christians, but are not. This is why dialogue interests Christians more than it does Muslims. In practice, Islamic ignorance of, and chronic disinterest in, the actual content of Christianity can be astonishing. Bernard Lewis, the great Jewish scholar of Muslim civilization, noted that over the centuries and into the modern era, most Muslims have believed that "the Trinity, the worship of which Islam condemns as near-polytheistic blasphemy, [consists] of God, Jesus, and Mary." Most Christians know that they don't know Islam. But the opposite is not true. Most Muslims tend to assume that they already know everything they need to know about Christianity since the Qur'an speaks of Christians. The result is a gulf made unbridgeable by Islam's claim to be the original, and the only pure, divine revelation, superseding all others. None of this need preclude honest attempts at mutual respect and understanding. But it should preclude Christian naïveté. Catholics pray the Nicene Creed at every Sunday Mass. It's the constitutional expression of what we believe. Across 17 centuries, men and women have died defending it. With the exception of the Creed's first line, Islam rejects every key element of the text. Historically, in Muslim-dominated cultures – as Rémi Brague notes, and we too often forget – "Jews and Christians were subjected to various measures explicitly designed to make them understand, by humiliating them, that it would be in their interest to adopt Islam." Similar forms of Muslim behavior continue today. Christians face prejudice, persecution, abductions, and forced conversions in various Muslim states. This week we mark the 25th anniversary of 9/11. Blaming an entire religious community for the actions of...

   September 09, 2026·7min
   Play
4. 4
   Number 4: First, Do No Harm?

   By Amy Fahey A little over a year ago, I took my aged father for a specialist visit. The appointment, which I still recall with painful clarity, put me in mind of the Anglo-Saxon poem known simply as "The Ruin." The manuscript is damaged, so what remains is itself a kind of ruin, a meditation on former splendor contrasted with brokenness and fragmentation. It struck me then, as it does now, as a fitting metaphor for the current state of healthcare in our nation. The receptionist hands me a tablet and stylus and tells me to register my father. There are a series of questions on the screen, all related to his bladder. In addition to recently losing his vision, my father is now hard of hearing, so I begin: "How many times a day do you have to." But I stop myself as I realize how embarrassing, even dehumanizing, this will be in a crowded waiting room. My father waves his hand in the air and says with his characteristic midwestern bluntness, "Just answer down the middle for all of them. They don't read that sh*t anyway." The wife of a couple nearby cups her hand to her mouth in a repressed giggle. Her husband turns to her and says sharply: "Well, he's right." When we make it to the appointment room, the good doctor (I have heard from my father that he is a good man, a Catholic) breezes in with his own hand-held screen, followed by a young woman in a white coat, who presumably is following the doctor on his rounds to learn the art of healing. He begins scrolling rapidly, reviewing my father's records. Meanwhile my father, summoning up all his courage, launches into a well-rehearsed declaration of independence: "I'm not getting any shots today. I don't want any more of that crap put into my body. I've had enough chemicals – they've totally messed up my system." I'm sure the doctor listened attentively. But I'm also sure his mind was working – working fast. It had to: as he told us, my father was one of seventy patients he would see that day. I did rapid calculations. Say the doctor arrived at the clinic at 7:00 am and didn't leave until 6:00 pm, with a break somewhere to eat or to discuss a patient's clinical notes with that young woman, or to voice-to-text those clinical notes or even just to relieve himself. That would mean an average of about eight minutes per patient. My father's weeks of agonizing anticipation, reduced to an eight-minute appointment. Still, my father hands the doctor one of his favorite cigars: a Rocky Patel Decade. The doctor is effusive in his thanks. Decades, he says, are his favorite too. He is golfing later that week and will smoke it then. The good doctor then simply says, "Your numbers have been coming down. We'll give you a break and reevaluate." And that is that. I think it's too generous to say that American healthcare is at a crossroads. It is, like the once-glorious city in Roman Britain contemplated by that anonymous Anglo-Saxon poet a millennium ago, in ruins. Fears that AI might depersonalize healthcare seem to have missed the glaring reality that healthcare has been increasingly depersonalized for years now. When was the last time a doctor spent more time looking at you than at a screen? Who hasn't had the experience of feeling like the doctor is just one Google search ahead of you (or sometimes behind) in diagnosing or determining treatment options? I'm not suggesting there aren't excellent, dedicated, and humane people in the medical profession. There are, and I've been blessed to know some of them. Yet even as studies warn us of the "cognitive overload" of overworked medical personnel, and prognosticators predict the "cognitive debt" AI will usher in, it seems obvious that both overload and debt have already crossed the threshold of our clinics and hospitals. As in education, COVID only exposed and accelerated a problem that was already there. Yet there are signs of hope. For several years, my family and I have belonged to a Christian health share, an alternative to conventional insurance ...

   September 08, 2026·7min
   Play
5. 5
   Number 5: Work, the World, and the Human Person

   By St. Pope John Paul II Through work, man must earn his daily bread and contribute to the continual advance of science and technology and, above all, to elevating unceasingly the cultural and moral level of the society within which he lives in community with those who belong to the same family. And work means any activity by man, whether manual or intellectual, whatever its nature or circumstances; it means any human activity that can and must be recognized as work, in the midst of all the many activities of which man is capable and to which he is predisposed by his very nature, by virtue of humanity itself. Man is made to be in the visible universe an image and likeness of God himself, and he is placed in it in order to subdue the earth. From the beginning therefore he is called to work. Work is one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time by work occupying his existence on earth. Thus work bears a particular mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a community of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics; in a sense it constitutes its very nature. . . . The Church is convinced that work is a fundamental dimension of man's existence on earth. She is confirmed in this conviction by considering the whole heritage of the many sciences devoted to man: anthropology, paleontology, history, sociology, psychology and so on; they all seem to bear witness to this reality in an irrefutable way. But the source of the Church's conviction is above all the revealed word of God, and therefore what is a conviction of the intellect is also a conviction of faith. The reason is that the Church – and it is worthwhile stating it at this point – believes in man: she thinks of man and addresses herself to him not only in the light of historical experience, not only with the aid of the many methods of scientific knowledge, but in the first place in the light of the revealed word of the living God. Relating herself to man, she seeks to express the eternal designs and transcendent destiny which the living God, the Creator and Redeemer, has linked with him. The Church finds in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis the source of her conviction that work is a fundamental dimension of human existence on earth. An analysis of these texts makes us aware that they express – sometimes in an archaic way of manifesting thought – the fundamental truths about man, in the context of the mystery of creation itself. These truths are decisive for man from the very beginning, and at the same time they trace out the main lines of his earthly existence, both in the state of original justice and also after the breaking, caused by sin, of the Creator's original covenant with creation in man. When man, who had been created "in the image of God. . . .male and female," hears the words: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it," even though these words do not refer directly and explicitly to work, beyond any doubt they indirectly indicate it as an activity for man to carry out in the world. Indeed, they show its very deepest essence. Man is the image of God partly through the mandate received from his Creator to subdue, to dominate, the earth. In carrying out this mandate, man, every human being, reflects the very action of the Creator of the universe. Work understood as a "transitive" activity, that is to say an activity beginning in the human subject and directed towards an external object, presupposes a specific dominion by man over "the earth," and in its turn it confirms and develops this dominion. It is clear that the term "the earth" of which the biblical text speaks is to be understood in the first place as that fragment of the visible universe that man inhabits. By extension, however, it can be understood as the whole of the visible worl...

   September 07, 2026·9min
   Play