Pints With Aquinas - Matt & Jimmy Talk About Everything! (Jimmy Akin) | Ep. 596

Starting point is 00:00:00 The right window treatments change everything, your sleep, your privacy, the way every room looks and feels. At blinds.com, we've spent 30 years making it surprisingly simple to get exactly what your home needs. We've covered over 25 million windows and have 50,000 five-star reviews to prove we deliver. Whether you DIY it or want a pro to handle everything from measure to install, we have you covered. Real design professionals, free samples, zero pressure. Right now, get up to 45% off with minimum purchase, plus get a free professional measure at blinds.com. Rules and restrictions apply. What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire day?

Starting point is 00:00:35 With pray.com, you can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement, or a fresh start, pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life. Download the pray.com app today. Let's talk about marijuana. If it's illegal, is there some kind of obligation that we as Christians have? Don't rush to conclude that civil law is mistaken just because it's convenient. It's got to be reasonable for the good of the community by the one who has authority over the community.

Starting point is 00:01:18 All of those conditions need to be met for something to be a genuine law. You're not obligated to follow it in that case. and it's not a law, it's tyranny. It was the CIA that gave LSD its push in American culture. Part of a project, MK. Ultra. It involved, among other things, experimentation with mind control. When Israel built a golden calf and they said, this is your God bowed down and worshipping.

Starting point is 00:01:45 Were they worshipping the one true God? Possibly. It sounds like you want to say Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe in the same God, and all worship the same God. How do you make the case for both of those things? SSPX, what happened? The church was trying to reconcile, but the clock has been ticking. These things get complicated quickly, don't they?

Starting point is 00:02:09 I'm so excited to smoke a pipe with you. This is my little pipe bag. I am not a big pipe guy, but increasingly I am because my wife likes the smell of pipes. So sitting around at night with the... the kids reading a book, smoking the pipe in the house, doesn't bother her at all. Uh-huh. Smell of cigar, she finds it.

Starting point is 00:02:37 Yeah. It's tasteful. Well, Cameron and I have not coordinated on this in any way, but I tend to agree with her. Okay. I'm a pipe guy. I'm not a cigar guy. Yeah. Have you ever tried cigars?

Starting point is 00:02:53 I have not. Do you want a pipe cleaner? Never had the interest. Oh, no. I've got what I need. Well, maybe this is a good place. First of all, hello. Howdy. It's just good to be with you. Yeah. What a great job just to get to sit down with people I like and talk to them.

Starting point is 00:03:11 I don't know how this happened. Uh-huh. I think God realized I couldn't have a normal job. He allowed me. Well, there were a bunch of stages. I mean, I knew you just when you were getting started in this area. You were a big help to me. Yeah. In fact, I was thinking the other day, and I had forgotten this. but I think it was you that pointed it out to me.

Starting point is 00:03:32 When I first met you, you were using both Matthew Frad and Matt Frad. And I suggested to you that you pick one because it's going to become your Brandon. And people are going to, if you have one, it's going to be either Matthew or Matt. They're both fine. But if you pick one, then it'll be easy for people to remember and identify. you and refer to you. And so for branding purposes, I suggested that you do that and you did. And do you remember why you said you prefer Matt? Because I do. That I don't remember. You said because of the double dental stop. Oh, okay. That makes sense. I don't know what that

Starting point is 00:04:16 means, but now I do. Matt, Frat. Is that where I? Matt Frat. Yeah. Yeah. So you named me, Jimmy. That's good to be with the man. Well, I think your parents had something to do with it. Yeah. So we should probably explain that. So there are two kinds of sounds in any human language. There are consonants and vowels. A vowel is when you let the air flow through your mouth and you may restrict it and shape the airflow, but you tend not to stop it. When you stop it or nearly kind of stop it, it's a consonant. And you can pinch off the airflow at different points in your mouth. Um, one of those locations is up near your teeth. That's why it's called a dental stop.

Starting point is 00:05:05 And t and d are both are both up by your teeth. So the T sound and the D sound you make with your teeth. And so they're both dental stops. A difference is that you turn on your vocal cords for the D sound, D. And you leave your vocal cords off for the T sound. And so the D sound is voiced. That means you turn on your vocal cords. The T sound is unvoiced, meaning you leave them off.

Starting point is 00:05:37 But Matt, Frad, you've got two syllables. They both end in final dental stops. And so there's a kind of subconscious conceptual assonance. What is assonance mean? Asinance is kind of like a rhyme on. not quite. As, as they put it in, was it educating Rita? Was it that movie?

Starting point is 00:06:03 starred Michael Kane. Asinence is when the rhyme doesn't work. Okay. It's like a rhyme, but not quite. Yeah. So there's some euphony there. It sounds good. I see.

Starting point is 00:06:16 I remember now because my first book was coming out. I thought, well, I should probably sort this out. I was in your office when you named me. Oh. Also, I was talking to Cameron about this the other day. Do you remember you being at my 30th birthday party? Yeah, I do. That was pretty wild.

Starting point is 00:06:32 Yeah. 13 years ago. And you provided all of the superhero shirts. Right, yeah. I have a big collection of superhero t-shirts. And Cameron wanted me to bring them over. And so all the guests could wear superhero t-shirts. I remember she had.

Starting point is 00:06:55 She had flyers out for this, and this was a surprise party, wasn't it? It was. Yeah. And I was genuinely surprised. Because we were keeping it secret from you, and I remember I ran into you at one place just before the party and had to fake an excuse to not give it away. Yeah. And then you seemed to buy it. Because you were in my neighborhood.

Starting point is 00:07:21 Yeah. And I said, oh, what are you doing here? And you're like, oh, I'm just going on a drive. which was great mental reservation. I'm like, all right. But then I had all the t-shirts for everybody. And I remember on the flyers, she advertised it as a superhero party. And then she also had, if you have a pipe, bring it.

Starting point is 00:07:42 Okay. And that was on the flyer too. Yeah. So it was you and Trent Horn who got me into superheroes. Uh-huh. Yeah. So do you tend to be Marvel, D.C. or something else, primarily? Probably D.C.

Starting point is 00:07:55 Yeah, me too. I'm more DC than Marvel. I think if DC only had Superman and Batman, they'd win. And I also love Green Lantern. But I haven't read their comics in a long time. Do you have a favorite Green Lantern? Yes, who's the later good-looking one? I don't know. Hal Jordan.

Starting point is 00:08:13 Okay, he's the... I'm comparing him to the other guy with a bad haircut who was in the recent Superman movie. Okay. Oh, I didn't... Oh, you mean Guy Gardner? Yeah, I didn't see that movie. I didn't like the movie, but I didn't like the movie, I thought Greenland was the best thing in it.

Starting point is 00:08:26 Uh-huh. And he was played by Nathan Philean, who has a history in science fiction. He played Captain Mal on Firefly. I got some friends who are big, they tell me how great Firefly is. Uh-huh. So they're real brown coats. I don't know. Oh, that's the term for Firefly fans.

Starting point is 00:08:49 Oh, okay. Is that a series or a movie? It was a series. it later had a movie. It was not a long series. It was, they only aired a few episodes, but it got a huge following. And they made a movie out of it. And they've made comic books out of it by the same authors. So they're considered canonical. And they have ongoing projects. They recently announced there's going to be something new, Firefly coming out, that, that I guess has some of the people, same. people involved. Nathan Philean was one of them who announced it. And it's an entertaining series. It's basically the Old West in outer space. I remember they being a beautiful woman in a red dress. Oh, yeah. That's it. What does that say about the male brain? Like, that's all I remember this beautiful woman, red dress, maybe spaceships. Yeah. Yeah, she is an interesting character. And in keeping with

Starting point is 00:09:48 the Old West theme, she's sort of the, she's sort of the Miss Kitty. of the series. So years ago, a husband and a wife in Lithuania sent me one of their handmade rosaries, and I was so struck by it, the weight, the quality, the care in every detail. It was seriously the most beautiful rosary I'd ever seen. Now, in collaboration with Theotokos Rosaries, I'm making two of their hand-crafted rosaries available to you over at dailywire.com slash shop. Italian olive wood gold plated brass, micro braid cord built for a lifetime of prayer.

Starting point is 00:10:27 Each one made by hand in Lithuania. These are not just beautiful rosaries. They can be family heirlooms that you would pass down. Use for personal devotion. You could also give them as a wedding gift, ordination gift, confirmation gift, or for graduation. Now the first batch sold out right away. So, pre-order yours now at dailywire.com slash shop before the next batch is. gone. That's dailywire.com slash shop. What are you smoking? This is a blend that a local

Starting point is 00:11:00 tobacconist makes for me. So I live in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and in the nearby town of Silum Springs, there's a tobacconist called Ash and Ember. And they do custom blends. And this is one that they blended for me. When I moved back home from Calais, California, I was commonly smoking a blend called Devil's Holiday and never liked the name. But it has the kind of notes that I like. It has a lot of like Blackberry, cherry, things like that in it. And because the manufacturer in Germany is in a tax dispute with the state of Arkansas where I live. You can't buy it in Arkansas.

Starting point is 00:11:50 So I went to Ash and Ember and I said, could you guys do something like Devil's Holiday, but improve it? And so they did. And they made it, they made the improvements I wanted. They suggested their own innovations. We tried out a bunch of variants on it. And since they were doing it for me, I got to name it. And not being a big fan of the devil, I decided to call it St. Michael's Holiday. Did you bring in the extra?

Starting point is 00:12:16 I did. Could I have some? Yeah. I just just, I'll empty this one and have that. Now, hearing you talk about it, because I actually bought a devil's holiday in Lithuania recently, actually. And it was nice. So this is, here's a sample of it. This is all for you.

Starting point is 00:12:33 Oh, thank you very much. And I put the name, it's Ash and Ember, is the tobacconist. I put their phone number on there. They, after they started making it for me, they released it to their general audience and it's become one of their best selling blends. Can you buy it online? Well, they don't have it online. but you just call the number and order it. Yeah, yeah, sure.

Starting point is 00:12:52 479354-3501. Yeah. They're about to get. Yeah, they'd love that. And they take, because I mention it periodically on like Jimmy Eakin's mysterious world and things. And, you know, and people were right in and say, what blends do you smoke and stuff like that. And I let them know about St. Michael's Holiday, and they actually get orders from all over the country for it. Cherry, orange.

Starting point is 00:13:18 Vanilla? What else? That's beautiful. Well, I guess we need to address this, don't we? Maybe it gets a bit old always addressing this, but we're going to get people who tell us that we're sinning by smoking tobacco. I'm sure you're tired of addressing this. Maybe we don't want to.

Starting point is 00:13:38 I don't address it too often. Most folks aren't that hardcore. Yeah. We have different audiences. But to be fair, I smoke in almost every episode. So you'd think by now they'd give up. So I probably told you this last time. I don't know anyone else like this.

Starting point is 00:13:59 If I have a pipe in my mouth like that, my gag reflex kicks in. And so I usually have the long church wardens. So I can just easily take it in and out of my mouth. But this hangs on my tooth and I can smoke it. But that's the only thing I can. then I won't gag. Isn't that wild? That's interesting.

Starting point is 00:14:22 What is that called? I don't know. I've heard someone refer to it maybe as the bard, because it's like a storyteller type. It's by Peterson for those who are interested, but anyway. Yeah, so. It has the Peterson. That fancy Peterson lip. You don't like it? I'm not a fan of that.

Starting point is 00:14:41 Yeah. So Peterson is famous for having two different types of lips on the end of the state. of the pipe. And one of them is rounder and has a whole kind of in the center of it. It's different than what I have here, which is a standard lip. And I prefer the standards. The Peterson one, sometimes they push my jaws apart and make it uncomfortable for me. But they're different, I guess different people have different mouths. Also, there are different types of smokers. I've sometimes seeing them divided into clinchers and fiddlers. I'm a fiddler.

Starting point is 00:15:24 You're a fiddler, I'm a clincher. Yeah. So a clincher is a person who puts pipe in their mouth and keeps it there unless they need to take it out or something and like to do something. But a fiddler is a person who doesn't keep it in their mouth as much, but fiddles with the pipe more. And so my dad was a fiddler. I'm a clincher, you're a fiddler. It's just a difference in personal style. So that may have something to do with what kind of bit or lip you prefer on the end of the stem.

Starting point is 00:16:05 Because if you're a clincher like me, it's a bigger deal. Is it interfering with my ability to keep the pipe? in my mouth as opposed to someone who's a fiddler who may be taking it in and out and not need to leave it there for a longer period. It may not be as big of a deal with the kind of lip the stem has. The stem for people who may not, who may be wondering, is this part of the pipe here? Yeah. And what I like about this is, like I just said, it hangs on my teeth. So I don't have to clench to keep it in. And that's what I think makes it really enjoyable. But anyway, well, go on. So what do you normally smoke?

Starting point is 00:16:52 I mean, tobacco-wise. Is it Sir Raleigh? Is that what it's called? Sir Walter Raleigh? Yes. I really enjoy that. Interesting. My dad smoked that.

Starting point is 00:17:04 I never, I really happened ever. I saw people in the comments at a particular pipe website saying it's their daily go-to tobacco. And I wanted something kind of in between an English and an aromatic. This is more aromatic, but not over the top. Mm-hmm. I tend to favor aromatic. Me too, yeah. And I got it just burnt really well. It was also very finely cut.

Starting point is 00:17:28 I don't know if that makes much of a difference in the smoke. It tends to maybe burn a little quicker. But yeah, that's what I, that's what I smoke. And then I tend to think like, yeah, cherry blends because my, Cammy likes that. Uh-huh. I was, you've probably heard me say this in my interview with her, but I was sitting out on the back porch and I had lit up a bowl and she was reading not paying attention and she just said what is that smell and I said it's she didn't know she thought it was a candle or incense or something yeah I get a lot

Starting point is 00:18:04 I mean it depends on the type of tobacco you're smoking but pipe tobacco is usually the best smell in of the different forms and I get a lot of compliments and things like that um and it's part of the experience that I appreciate. So that tends to be one of the reasons I gravitate in this direction. Yeah, everyone, it's funny. So I've lost count of how many people say, no, stay, because I'm always loud. Sorry, I'll move. No, stay.

Starting point is 00:18:39 It reminds me of my grandfather. I get that a lot. Uh-huh. Now, you just referred to an interview that you and your wife Cameron had done. And I'd seen that before I came here. And I had, right before we started today, there was a young woman in here who works for the show. And you said, this is Cameron. And I looked at her and said, I forget exactly what I said, but it's like, oh, it's a different one than the one I'm familiar with because I know your wife.

Starting point is 00:19:12 And she said that her boyfriend is named Matt. And I said, well, you've got your path laid out for you. You just need to knock them over and take their places. I also alluded to the possibility of me having Capgras syndrome. Yeah. Say that again. What is it? Capgras.

Starting point is 00:19:31 Capgras. Yeah. Capgras or it's spelled Capgras, but it's a French name. He was the, I guess, psychiatrist who identified it. And you said we should talk about it on the air, which is why I bring it up. So it's a psychological disorder where you believe it's pretty rare, but people with Capgras syndrome believe that the people around them, it's like invasion of the body snatchers. They believe that even though the people around them look the same, they've secretly been replaced by impostors. and so like you could you could you know believe your wife is or your husband or who you know

Starting point is 00:20:17 whoever is in your life your children um it's not really them they look the same but it's not really them and and that means if it's not really them that someone's running a scam on you for some devious sinister purpose and so it's a It's a really interesting psychological condition. And I should do a mysterious world on it. I just haven't gotten around to that one yet. That would be terrifying and so unfortunate. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:20:52 I just read Dostoevsky's book, The Double, his little novella. Uh-huh. And for those at home, he encounters somebody who looks like him, has the same name, and then this imposter weasels his way into his life and leaves him out on the outskirts, kicks him out, as it were. It takes his job.

Starting point is 00:21:09 I have kind of the inverse problem. People see somebody who has a beard and red hair, and they think it looks like me. Really? Even if the person looks nothing like me. In fact, this just came up on a family text thread where a family member sent a picture of someone. They were watching a musical performance, and the guy with the playing the keyboard had red-ish hair and a beard.

Starting point is 00:21:46 And they said, we're watching your double. And they sent it to, like, everyone in the family. And the guy looks nothing like me. And he was bigger. I mean, you can't exactly see it. But, I mean, I weigh like 181 pounds, and I'm six foot tall. So I'm not particularly thin. This guy was, and his beard was like here, and mine is here.

Starting point is 00:22:11 And so I... You'll look the same to you, don't we? Become indignant. And so I just said, too much around the waist, not enough hanging off the chin. And so I made a, you know, semi-humorous remark just to deflect it. And I was talking to my sister lady, and she noticed, my sister, and she noticed that, The same thing. It's like, oh, yeah, that guy who looks totally nothing like you.

Starting point is 00:22:39 But she said she liked the way I deflected it. Oh, good. I'm not just saying this because you're here. This is excellent. Yeah, I really like it. St. Michael's Holiday. Man, they must love you when you go to the all the sales. I'm sure you're bringing them.

Starting point is 00:22:53 Yep. And we're working on some additional blends now. Because I'm sure there's ways to do this where people don't really know what they're doing. Oh, yeah. And they do some very simple. There are blenders who do very, very simple stuff. And that is not what Ash and Ember do. They have the capacity to really do complex blends where they will like take special fluids, you know, liquid flavors and stuff and infuse it into the tobacco and press it.

Starting point is 00:23:31 So, you know, they apply pressure with a press so that it sticks and then they blend in multiple different types and it's super complex. And they really do high quality level blending there. Are you ever worried about that kind of stuff they put in it? Because one of the selling points of a cigar or an English blend is it's just leaf, nothing else. Have you looked into what is in these liquids they put in these aromatics? Dude, I'm smoking. I mean, it's not going to be completely safe. But as long as they're not putting in, you know, arsenic or something like that, it should be okay.

Starting point is 00:24:12 Well, what is your response to those who say this is a travesty? How dare you? What a sin this is to smoke tobacco. Well, if at least one in the comment. If they don't, if that's what they think, you know, well, they're entitled to their opinion. But it is not a, it is not a sin. Because you could, in order for something to be a sin, it has to do damage or dishonor. And the, and if you pursue the damage line of argument, you can say, well, you smoke too much and, you can say, well, you smoke too much.

Starting point is 00:24:55 and you're going to do damage. And okay, well, that's true. But that would show smoking too much is a sin. Not that smoking is a sin. You know, it's like we can drink wine. Too much wine is a sin. But that doesn't mean wine is a sin. Jesus drank wine.

Starting point is 00:25:16 He manufactured alcoholic wine at the wedding of Cana. And we know it was alcoholic wine because the major domo at that event identifies it as the kind of wine that causes people to lose their taste. And grape juice, he says, because he says, you know, normally people bring out the good wine first, and then once people have lost their taste, they bring out the cheap stuff. But you've saved the good stuff until the end. And so he's identified what Jesus made as the good stuff, that causes people to lose their taste.

Starting point is 00:25:56 And grape juice doesn't do that. So it had to be alcoholic wine. And so you can show from scripture alone, if that's your thing, that merely because something done to excess causes harm to the body does not mean that there is no moderate use of something. And pipe smoke in particular, because you don't inhale a pipe, it has a much wider range of moderate use than, say, cigarettes, which you do inhale. So if you're not going to pursue, so the maximum potential is showing that tobacco abuse, not tobacco use, would be sinful.

Starting point is 00:26:42 Then you have to go with a dishonor route. And here people trot out the, oh, your body's a temple of the Holy Spirit, you know, business. And you know what they have in temples? Incense. In fact, in the ancient Israelite temple, they had an altar of incense, where they would burn incense. And incense is something you smell. It is in the air. It gets inhaled in small quantities.

Starting point is 00:27:11 And, okay, well, this is a sensor. It's an incense holder. It's an incense burner. The only difference between it and a standard incense burner or a standard sensor is it's designed so that it can route part of the incense so that it can be tasted in addition to being smelled. But this is fundamentally incense. And if you're going to get high and mighty about, oh, your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, well, sure. And incense gets used in temple. So you can't just use a dishonor argument.

Starting point is 00:27:50 And so there just is not a basis, especially now a lot of our friends here in America, Catholics tend not to have as much of a problem with tobacco or alcohol or things like that. They're recognized cultural practices. I mean, there's a range of opinion. Some people don't approve of them. But Catholics tend not to. The people in this country who tend to have more of a problem tend to either be not. Christians at all who are not applying a Christian moral framework, or they tend to come from the Protestant community. And in the Protestant community, you know, they want to show things

Starting point is 00:28:29 are, you know, moral or not moral based on what Scripture says. Well, Scripture never mentions tobacco. So in order to mount an argument, one way or another, from Scripture, you're going to have to use principles that are contained in scripture, like damage or dishonor. And we've already looked at both of those. And there is not automatic damage being done from, I mean, circumcision does damage in the immediate aftermath of circumcision. So you can't just look at anything and say, oh, it can do damage, therefore it must be wrong. You have to. to apply the principle in a broader context. And as long as you keep the use moderate, then it's not going to be a sin. And there's no fundamental dishonor here. We've already seen that.

Starting point is 00:29:23 So if you're using a scripture alone argument, you're not going to get to, there is no legitimate use of tobacco. You know, it's funny. We pay our phone bill every month without thinking much about it. It's just one of those automatic expenses. But imagine if something so routine could actually have a positive impact. Well, that's exactly what Charity Mobile has been doing for 30 years. There are proudly pro-life wireless company offering nationwide coverage, no contracts, affordable plans starting out of $50 before taxes and fees, and customer service staffed by pro-life Americans.

Starting point is 00:29:57 And here's the part I love. Every month, they donate a percentage of what you pay to the pro-life or pro-family charity that you choose. Not someday, every single month. Over 30 years, that's added up to millions of dollars supporting organizations. that defend life and strengthen families. If your phone bill is already unavoidable, why not let it accomplish something worthwhile?

Starting point is 00:30:19 Visit charitymobile.com slash Matt Fred and use promo code Matt Frad to receive a free phone with every new line, free activation and free shipping. That's charitymobile.com slash Matt Frad. We've probably heard that God is our refuge, that we should turn to Jesus for refuge, but we need to hear that again because the advice is actually extremely necessary.

Starting point is 00:30:43 We keep going to other things to find safety and peace and calm, but it doesn't work. We need to detach from these things that are causing us anxiety and stress and attach to the vine. Detachment means loosening your grip on the things you can't control and placing them into God's hands because your family matters, your work matters, your commitments matter. but they were never meant to carry the full weight of your heart. So if you've been wanting to build a more consistent prayer life to, as I say, attach yourself to the vine, which is Christ, visit hallo.com slash Matt Frad and you will get three months for free.

Starting point is 00:31:27 Check them out right now. Hello.com slash Matt Frad and as I say, you'll get three months for free. A lot of the feeling in this area is really being. and driven by a moral panic in our culture that started in the 1970s. It's not actually driven by data or by, I'm speaking of scientific data, because pipe smoking is just not harmful the way cigarette smoking is. And it's not say there's no dangers, but it is just not on the same level as cigarette smoking. And it's not being driven by biblical data. A lot of it's really being driven by a moral cultural panic. And those things happen in cultures from time to time.

Starting point is 00:32:18 People get, you know, excited about something and they get panicked about it. And eventually, usually the panic fades. But would you say, though, that there are some drugs that produce such immediate damage that you can't have them morally in moderation? Well, I'm open to the proposition. I understand that's a different argument to whether something should be illegal. Right. I'm open to the proposition. I don't tend to use such drugs, so I don't have the experience I'd need to pass a judgment.

Starting point is 00:32:57 But, I mean, the drugs that I can think of, like, let's say, you know, morphine. Okay, well, it's a controlled substance legally. and I would, the government is not always right in how it classifies things, but I tend to defer because they've at least had experts look at it. And so I would tend to say, yeah, well, okay, morphine is dangerous enough that the government has felt there should be some restrictions on its use, but that doesn't mean it's never used. I mean, people do use morphine for pain control, you know, like people who have chronic pain or they've just had a surgery or they're in the process of dying and they need pain relief for palliative care.

Starting point is 00:33:45 So now if you want to say there's something that just should never under any circumstances be used, well, I'm open, but name it. You know. What would it be? Well, what about if someone listens to this and they say, okay, I'm just not allowed to abuse a drug. But it sounds like Jimmy's saying, I could use meth, say. recreationally. What would you say to that? Well, I would be suspicious of that claim because of a lot of the harms that I see meth leading to. People get into destructive patterns of behavior, at least if, you know, they can easily get habituated to math. But I'm not an expert on

Starting point is 00:34:33 mess, so I don't know, are there any circumstances where it might be, say, prescribed by a doctor for some function? Sorry, with morphine, it sounded like you're giving an example where there was a good reason to use it, namely medically. Yeah. But what if somebody said, well, I like to use morphine recreationally, I got a stock of it somehow, and I just use it occasionally for no other reason except I want to feel good? Well, I would say that I applied the same principle that St. Thomas Aquinas does.

Starting point is 00:35:06 Now, he applied this in the context of alcohol, but the same principle applies to any substance that has psychogenic effects, that has an effect on your consciousness. He differentiated between what he referred to as perfect drunkenness and imperfect drunkenness. imperfect drunkenness is when you have a buzz basically it's you have some effect from it that is psychogenic but it does not cause you to lose your moral faculty so you're still in charge and thus you would not do something immoral um i see it beyond you know what you would normally do on the other hand if you consume so much alcohol that you lose your moral judgment, then Aquinas would say you are perfectly drunk. And if, and perfect drunkenness from a Catholic viewpoint would be mortal sin, mortally sinful without a compensating reason. Like I'm, they're about to take off my leg in a

Starting point is 00:36:13 surgery and I, the alcohol is the only yeah. Well, someone spikes your drink. Or someone spikes my drink or whatever. Um, but to voluntarily become perfectly drunk so that you lose your moral faculties, you are putting yourself in the proximate occasion of mortal sin. And to do that voluntarily with no compensating reason is itself mortally sinful. It's like if I'm, if I put myself voluntarily with no compensating reason in the, in proximity of adultery, well, you shouldn't be putting yourself in that situation. So that would itself be mortally sinful. So, forgive me interrupting you. Yeah. Isn't it also because the individual loses his faculty of reason and makes himself like a beast, or is that not his argument?

Starting point is 00:37:00 Well, I'd have to go back and check to see exactly what aspects of it, Aquinas brings out. The fundamental distinction that he draws, though, is between perfect intoxication and imperfect intoxication. And so if you want to say, I microdose morphine just to relax and combat my anxiety, well, if you're genuinely using it at a low enough level, then that you're only imperfectly intoxicated and it's performing a valuable therapeutic benefit for you, well, then I'm not going to have a problem with it from a moral perspective. Now, that's different than a legal perspective. And would the law let you do it? But from a moral perspective, I'm not seeing a moral harm here if you're keeping it within

Starting point is 00:37:51 the bounds that do not deprive you of your moral faculties and you're doing something fundamentally reasonable. You know, it would be in the same category as, you know, drinking wine or something like that. the mere fact that are that the substance falls in a different category legally does not change the moral analysis. And so that and people can be, you know, confused about that because they often tend to defer. And even I have a tendency to defer to legal categories. but if you press me as you are on this and really pose the question, you know, the same underlying moral principles apply.

Starting point is 00:38:44 Now, you'll notice in answer and I put in a bunch of ifs there, I'm not a morphine user, so I don't know, but it could be that morphine or some other substance is so, powerful when a human takes it that it's practically impossible to use it in a moderate way. But if someone's using it moderately, then the same moral principles are going to apply, regardless of what legal principles have been applied to it. Let's talk about marijuana. Okay.

Starting point is 00:39:24 I don't know when it was illegal. I guess 10 years ago it was definitely illegal in the States, was it? Something like that. We could go back further. I'd just say, well, prior to the 1930s, it was legal in the United States.

Starting point is 00:39:35 I'd love to talk about that. But I suppose my particular question is, if something is illegal like that. So if you and I, 30 years ago were hanging out and it was illegal, let's say, because I presume the same principle holds if you're using it in such that it doesn't rob you

Starting point is 00:39:50 of your moral faculties, you don't think it's immoral? Well, in principle, no, it, now, in and of it,

Starting point is 00:39:59 it would not be immoral unless it's leading you to do something immoral. My specific question, though, is if it's illegal, is there some kind of obligation that we as a Christians have? Yeah, that's where I was about to go. There is a prima facie. That means on the face of things. There is a prima facie obligation we have to respect civil law. Now, that is not because, forgive me, but I tend to think in jargon,

Starting point is 00:40:37 and then I have to think, how do I translate this for a broader audience? So I was about to use the word indefeasable. It does not mean that just because there's a legal obligation does not mean that it's undefeatable, which is what indefeasible means. You know, like in the book of Acts, when the Sanhedron tells Peter and John don't preach in this name anymore in the name of Jesus anymore. And they say, hey, we got to obey God rather than men. So just because the civil authority, the Sanhedron in this case, gave you an order, doesn't mean you got to follow it. Now, you should, all things being equal, follow the orders of the civil government.

Starting point is 00:41:21 But they can be defeated. Sometimes they're unreasonable. The classic definition of a law, and this is, for example, now I should mention I'm not a Thomist, but St. Thomas Aquinas is a very, St. Thomas Aquinas is a very important figure in the history of Christian theology, and he defined a bunch of concepts that are relevant. One of them is law. A law, meaning the kind that you need to follow, is an ordinance of reason. so it's got to be reasonable, that is promulgated to a community for the good of the community by the one who has authority over the community. And so all of those conditions need to be met for something to be a genuine law.

Starting point is 00:42:12 And so if the government thinks it's doing something for the good of the community, but it's actually not for the good of the community, then Aquinas would say it's actually not a law. And so you're not obligated to follow it in that case. And it's not a law. It's tyranny. And so I'm not advocating that people rush to apply that to their favorite narcotic and say this is tyranny. That can be a self-serving conclusion that is not grounded. by evidence. I'm just saying that if you want to do a moral analysis, you have to look beyond just what does the civil law say at the underlying principles. And in some cases, the civil law is going to be supported by underlying principles. In some cases, it's not going to be supported by

Starting point is 00:43:11 underlying principles. And in some cases, it's going to be ambiguous. Maybe it's partially supported by the underlying principles, maybe it's just not clear one way or another, do the underlying principles support it? But in all applications of judgments in this area, I would say you want to be cautious. You know, don't rush to conclude that civil law is mistaken just because it's convenient. Partly, that's for conscience reasons, and because we know we can individually be very self-serving, and partly that's for prudential reasons, because if you conclude, oh, I don't have to obey this law about methamphetamines, well, you may end up going to jail. And that's not a typically practical thing to living a successful, flourishing life that serves Christ.

Starting point is 00:44:15 So I would say that you want to be careful both for reasons of conscience and for reasons of prudence, but just looking at what the civil law says is not the end of the conversation. Can you give us an example either now or in U.S. history of a tyrannical law? that in theory someone could have disobeyed, maybe in regard to alcohol or some of the drug? Tyrannical law. Well, sure. I mean, the whole, it's pretty well conceded by most folks anyway that prohibition was, you know, was a ginormous mistake. So in the 19th century and into the early 20th century, you had the so-called temperance movement, which opposed all use of alcohol.

Starting point is 00:45:05 And the temperance movement got big enough that eventually they passed a constitutional amendment that allowed Congress to ban alcohol under normal circumstances. There were still exceptions like, I mean, you could make ethanol, for example, so people could use it as a cleaner. and they would then poison it so that you couldn't drink it. The state would poison it. That's what's called denatured alcohol. How many people died because of that? A lot. And I actually did a two-part, and people should check this out if they're interested

Starting point is 00:45:48 because it's an amazing story. But I did a two-part, Jimmy Aiken's Mysterious World on this. Part one is about Iron Mike Malloy, and part two is about the murder trust. Now, this was in the early 1930s, so alcohol was illegal at the time. And basically, to tie up the previous point, the prohibition of alcohol was a tyrannical overreach by the government that caused huge problems on a bunch of different fronts. among them it gave us organized crime.

Starting point is 00:46:29 That's how the mob really took root in America. It was because people wanted their alcohol. And so the mob moved in and said, hey, let's get these people their alcohol. We've got a potential market here. And so organized crime in America was a gift of prohibition. Wow. But in this particular story, so you've got these guys. They're at a tiny little dive in New York.

Starting point is 00:47:01 It was a speakeasy. And it was not one of the high class speakies. It was like this is a room in a part of a building that nobody uses. And some guys serve drinks here. It's really low level. And the guys running the bar are not really. rich by any stretch of the imagination. They are barely squeaking by. But they have a regular customer who's an Irishman named Mike Malloy. And he was prodigious in his ability to put away alcohol.

Starting point is 00:47:44 And he got the name Iron Mike Malloy because of how much he could put away. He also was not rich. So he'd show up and basically beg for drinks. And so they would, you know, sometimes they'd extend him credit and he'd get drunk and stuff like that. And one day they realize, you know, Mike would be worth more dead than alive. We could like take out an insurance policy on Mike. And he's drinking himself into a stupor all the time anyway. So what you say, we take out an insurance policy. And he's drinking himself into a stupor all the time anyway. So what you say, we take out an insurance policy on him and, and then we start switching his methanol with ethanol. I'm sorry, I got that backwards. Let's switch his ethanol with methanol.

Starting point is 00:48:40 Now, ethanol and methanol are two different kinds of alcohol molecules. One of them can be digested by humans. one of them can't. The way to remember it is ethanol is edible. Methanol is murder. So Iron Mike comes in every night to get drunk and they're feeding him ethanol when they have it. But they've noticed even when we feed him ethanol, even when we feed him methanol, he doesn't really care. And this was something that a lot of speakeasies, the lower class ones, would do at the time. Because the government knew that people who couldn't get ethanol would use methanol, even though it's like used to like as an industrial solvent and cleaner. And they would use it when they didn't have the good stuff, when they didn't have ethanol.

Starting point is 00:49:45 and it can have horrible effects on your body. Ultimately, it is poisonous if you drink enough of it. It can cause blindness. It can cause fatalities. It can cause all kinds of stuff. But the government decided, well, let's poison it even more. So that, you know, let's just poison any alcohol that is not supposed to be used for drinking purposes. And if they die, well, it's their own fault.

Starting point is 00:50:13 And it was pointed out to the government, you are killing your own. citizens, but they did it anyway. And so in the Iron Mike Malloy's story, his buddies at the bar, they convince him to let us buy you an insurance policy. And he's thinking, oh, these are my great friends. They give me drinks every night. And, you know, and so he lets him take out the insurance policy. And then they try to kill him. Like nine different ways. And he just keeps surviving. They try to get him drunk enough that his blood alcohol level will go high enough that he'll die. It doesn't work. They try methanol. It doesn't work. They try feeding him a sandwich with rotten sardines and thumb tacks in it. It doesn't work. He must have been really drunk.

Starting point is 00:51:07 He was. They try leaving him outside in the middle of a snowstorm. It doesn't work. They try. try running him over with a car, it doesn't work. And the murder trust, the guy's trying to keep trying, they just keep trying one thing after another. None of them work. They finally decide, let's take a hose and tie it to a gas fixture in a hotel and the other end to his face. That finally works. But you can imagine the guys who had to do, all of these different attempts to kill one guy, they're not the sharpest knives in the drawer. And in part two, after I tell you how they finally did in Iron Mike Malloy, we talk about the story of the murder trust and what happened to them afterwards. And to put it simply, they did not

Starting point is 00:52:03 get away with it. All of their spectacular bad decisions had spectacular bad payoffs later. And they continued to make bad decisions that were their ultimate undoing. Wow. I'm thinking he's like the American Rasputin. Yeah, he is like that. I mean, they tried multiple different ways and they just, one plan after another did not work. Why hasn't there been a movie made about I and Mike Malloy? I don't know, but it's a great story and it easily could become a movie.

Starting point is 00:52:40 This is really helpful, I think, because a lot of people, you know, want to be faithful and they worry, am I drinking too much alcohol? When do I know I've drunk too much? Because people clearly drink alcohol for the effects. Otherwise, why bother? Why bother? Yeah. It's like, you know, like if you had a choice, let's say to the average person who likes a drink from time to time, well, I've got this whiskey. It's very good whiskey. I also have this other whiskey, zero percent, but somehow we've made it identical. People go, well, no, I want the alcohol because I want the effect. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:53:14 And so I think people worry, and I think rightly, right, to a degree, when have I crossed the line? Mm-hmm. And so can I ask you, I know you've answered it with removing your moral culpability or moral faculty. Mm-hmm. But I wonder if you can be a little bit more specific. And do you think that applies to marijuana as well? Because, and I'll just add this. I've heard people say you can't have marijuana and not get high.

Starting point is 00:53:40 Well, that's clearly not. That's clearly false. And even more so today where, and I'm not advocating this, but the way they regulate it through different drinks and gummies, they've very specific on how much THC you can take and things like that. So I guess I have two questions. One is if somebody were to say, I take marijuana by which they might mean a gummy or a drink from time to time or I drink alcohol. is that okay in theory? Obviously, you would say yes about the alcohol. And when do I know that I've crossed the line?

Starting point is 00:54:17 Because I don't want to get anywhere near that line that is mortal sin. So. Well, okay, so I guess I'd have a few things to say here. The first one is people when they're in the moment are not good judges of have they crossed the line. They, so if you are currently under the influence and the question even arises, have I crossed the line, you probably are, if you have not crossed it, it is time to stop now. You may have already crossed it and not realized it. Also, it's an intrinsically difficult area to analyze because. Because even though Aquinas has correctly here has two clear categories, perfect and imperfect drunkenness, there's, they're like colors on the spectrum.

Starting point is 00:55:19 There's a difference between yellow and red. But then there's this fuzzy orange category in the middle. And the truth is between perfect and imperfect drunkenness, you don't just take one extra alcohol molecule and bang, you've lost your faculties. there's a gradient of how much of your faculties have you lost. So it's an intrinsically difficult thing to analyze, especially if you're under the influence. So one way to approach the question would be experiment in a safe way that even Aquinas would say, you know, when you're just learning how much you can personally handle because it varies from person to person. he would say, well, you can exceed the limit like your first time, so you learn where the limit is. Aquinas says this.

Starting point is 00:56:15 Yeah. But after you know where the line is, you avoid it. And you need to do it in a safe way to begin with. Like if your temptation is adultery, don't start getting drunk around the person you're tempted to commit adultery with. So he's not advocating literally putting yourself in the proximate occasion of mortal sin. But he acknowledges that there can be a need to experiment to find out where limits are. And this makes sense if you're a 21-year-old and you've never had alcohol before. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:56:49 You'd like to have alcohol. Yeah. It seems reasonable to say, well, just go easy. Yeah. But you don't yet know if two beers are going to make you drunk or. I can tell you if I was a 21-year-old. I mean, the Jimmy Aiken way to do it would be start with half a drink and then titrate up in half drink units until you find out where the effects are and then titrate up or down over the course of multiple sessions. So I tend to be very mathematically precise.

Starting point is 00:57:21 Not everybody goes that way. But that's how I would do it if I was just learning it. I'd start with minimum of effectual dose, increase it, slide. over different sessions until I find where the impacts are. But so you asked in general about other substances. And I would say the same thing applies. Let me know if I didn't clarify one of the principles you were asking about. But I think the same thing applies.

Starting point is 00:57:55 Now, because of the moral and legal climate in the United States in the last few decades, people have, and they've had this since at least the late 1960s, this fundamental category distinction of narcotics versus other psychoactive substances. And anything that goes into the narcotic category for many people is just taboo. It's just, oh, there are never any uses for that. It can never be used. It's fundamentally evil. And there may be some practical utility to that attitude, but it's not going to be accurate. I mean, these are all just chemical substances. Some of them have an impact on human cognition.

Starting point is 00:58:48 And, you know, no substances are intrinsically evil. The question, I mean, the element arsenic is not intrinsically evil. It's part of God's creation. Stars make arsenic in, you know, stellar nucleosynthesis. It's part of God's design for arsenic to exist. Using arsenic to kill another human being who is innocent, that's evil. But arsenic is not itself evil. And the same thing, THC or Ethanon, all. They're not evil either. They're part of God's creation. He designed plants that make them. And, um, and so they are, we shouldn't feel viscerally like, oh, this is just taboo. It can never be good under any circumstances. We should ask questions and say, well, okay, it has certain effects that are known. are there circumstances where it could play a useful role that would not be counterbalanced by its negative effects? Yes or no? The answer might be yes, might be no.

Starting point is 01:00:04 But we shouldn't have just a rigid wall of taboo. You can never, under any circumstances, even consider the moral dimensions of this. And frankly, a lot of that feeling has changed over time. I mean, like I mentioned in the early 20th century, I mean, LSD, was legal in the 1960s. In fact, it's interesting, but you know who popularized LSD in American culture? Paul Mali, I don't know.

Starting point is 01:00:33 The CIA. It was the CIA that gave LSD its push in American culture. It was part of a project they had going at the time. It was operating under the name MK. Ultra. It was a, it involved among other things experimentation with mind control. And it was a product of MK. Ultra that led to the popularization of LSD in American culture. It was them. I mean, they bought the initial loads, which were tiny by other drug standards, because of how potent LSD is.

Starting point is 01:01:12 But they bought it from the company in Europe that made it and brought it over here and started using it in their programs on American. citizens without their informed consent. How did they do that? Oh, they'd spike it. They'd spike your drink. They'd, they had a bunch of different ways they'd apply it. M.K. Ultra was a very big program. And in 1973, when it looked like the cat was going to get out of the bag on it, the then-CIA

Starting point is 01:01:41 director, Richard Helms, ordered the destruction of all of the MK Ultra records. It was headed by a gentleman named Sidney Gottlie. and he had retired by that point. But Helms ordered the destruction of all the MK. Ultra records, except they forgot some. There were some Bill and records that were not stored with the main MK Ultra records. And so we ended up finding about how the program was structured financially.

Starting point is 01:02:12 And there were hearings on this that were done in the late 1970s. But I was mentioning marijuana. Like I mentioned, it was legal in the early 20th century. Now, it was not viewed as a high class thing. You know, American culture has had, unfortunately, like a lot of cultures, problems with racism. And so in, say, the 1930s, marijuana was legal, but it was like, oh, that's that lower class thing that Mexicans do. It wasn't part of mainstream white culture at that point. But it then came to be, in the 1960s, along with a lot of other drugs, including things like LSD, which the CIA gave us.

Starting point is 01:03:02 Because LSD didn't even exist. I mean, it's based on a fungus that grows on a certain type of grain in Europe, this ergut stuff. And then they modified it and to give us L. but it's same basic function. And it was so potent that you only needed a very, very, very small dose to get someone wasted. And the European manufacturer didn't have much of a use for it. The U.S. intelligence community was concerned that the Russians were and the Chinese and the Chinese were making great strides in mind control.

Starting point is 01:03:50 And they were afraid that the Russians were buying up all the LSD. And so they like went to the European manufacturer and said, could we arrange a deal to get like, how much would it cost to buy your entire supply of LSD so that the Russians don't get it? Well, they weren't selling it to the Russians anyway. So they were happy to sell it to the Americans. and and that's how LSD became a thing. It was in multiple sub-projects of MK. Ultra that, and nothing I'm saying here,

Starting point is 01:04:26 people may say, oh, this conspiracy theory. No, no, no, no, no, this is all documented. This is, this is in the records. This is in congressional testimony. This is all over the place. Nothing I'm saying here is speculative. I'm very firm. grounded here, I can document everything I say about this. It was the CIA. One of Christianity's

Starting point is 01:04:48 most radical ideas is also one of its simplest. Every human being has dignity because they're made in the image and likeness of God. Not because they're strong, not even because they're wanted or successful, but simply because they are a human being. If we really believe that, then it has to shape the way we respond to the most vulnerable among us. It can't remain an abstract theological truth. it has to become something we live out through acts of generosity, compassion and sacrificial love. That truth extends to the child hidden in the womb every bit as much as it does to you or me. That's why I'm honored to partner with pre-born. They meet mothers with compassion, provide free ultrasounds, offer practical help and give families the support they need to choose life.

Starting point is 01:05:30 They don't just advocate for life. They walk alongside mothers with tangible care when they need it most. This isn't about winning arguments. It's about loving people well. If you'd like to be part of that work, please visit preborn.com slash mat. That's preborn.com slash mat or dial pound 250 and say baby. Every gift helps protect a life created in the image of God. Many people have asked me in the past, how do I overcome free of pornography?

Starting point is 01:05:57 Which is a great question, but we have to not think of freedom from sin as a sort of finish line. It's more of a daily choice. We have to daily say yes to the kind of man that we want. to be and no to the kind of man that we don't want to be. Lasting transformation, as much as it would be great, doesn't happen overnight. It's something we have to choose again and again and again. It's about choosing prayer, choosing honesty, choosing to answer the phone, choosing to reach out instead of isolating.

Starting point is 01:06:31 Relay, and I'm really pumped to promote this, please check it out. It's very important. It exists to help men make those daily choices alongside other men who are pursuing. the same freedom. I really appreciate that it's built on hope, okay, not condemnation. Freedom is possible, but it starts with the hardest thing a man can do, namely asking for help. That's what Relay is for, real lasting freedom from porn, not shame. Visit joinrelay.com slash pints and use code pints for seven days free. And you say it was for the purposes of mind control. Yep. So what are they doing?

Starting point is 01:07:07 Are they having people they wish to interrogate in general? this or how was... Well, that's part of what they were hoping to do. They were trying a bunch of things. They were trying, as part of MK Alter, they were trying to use LSD. They were trying to use other drugs, like there were some Mexican mushrooms and stuff they were trying to use. They would try to, you know, people have been using alcohol.

Starting point is 01:07:29 You know, let's get this guy drunk. Or let's use sodium pentothal. I see. Or something like that. Or let's use hypnosis. Or let's use electrosho. or let's do all or let's use sex, you know, they would try in all kinds of things. The interrogation was one of the goals.

Starting point is 01:07:51 They wanted to be able to make someone tell them what they wanted to know. What they found was a lot of the things that start people's mouths also let a bunch of babble come out. It's not necessarily true. And they also wanted to. find ways to delete memories. So they, like if you had, if they, you know, let's say tortured you into revealing whatever they wanted to know, they could then make you forget that you had done that. So that when you go back home, you don't remember that you told the CIA what they wanted to know. You think you're a loyal Russian or whatever. Were they successful?

Starting point is 01:08:33 Well, this is an area of debate. They also wanted to induce certain new behaviors. So they could, for example, program you to assassinate someone and then forget you had done it after the assassination so that you wouldn't want to assassinate this person, but you were programmed to and then you would and then you'd forget it afterwards so you weren't a security risk. So these were the different goals that they were pursuing. The question is how far did they get towards these goals? They said, and they said this in congressional testimony in the late 1970s, but they said, well, we tried all these things that didn't work. None of them worked. Okay, that's their story. Maybe that's true.

Starting point is 01:09:25 Maybe they also did make progress and didn't want to tell anybody they made progress. So that's an area of debate. But like you asked about how would they do this? So one of the things that you find about mad scientists, like if you read in the comic books, you know, let's say Re Richards, you know, founder of the Fantastic Four, he builds a rocket ship. This is the Fantastic Four's origin. You know, he builds a rocket ship in the original 1963 version of the Fantastic Four, Reed is like, we've got to be. beat the commies into space. I mean, it's a Cold War thing. And it's like Sue Storm is like, yeah, we've got to beat the commies into space. So they fly this experimental rocket ship up that

Starting point is 01:10:12 Reed is invented. They all get irradiated. They come back down. They have powers. They become the fantastic four. Okay, fine. Notice, the mad scientist rocket builder is experimenting on himself and his family. Well, that's what mad scientists do. They tend to experiment on themselves. Like, Like the guy who figured out that ulcers are caused by the H. Pylori bacterium, how he did it, because back in the 60s, I remember watching, you know, TV shows where they would talk about, you know, sitcoms and stuff. They'd talk about ulcers. And it was like, oh, it's because of stress. And you need to drink buttermilk and things like that. And it's all the stress he's under that have caused this character to get an ulcer. And that was the common view of what causes ulcers. But by the 1980s, there was this one scientist. He later won the Nobel Prize, if I recall correctly. He thought, no, it's not stress. It causes ulcers.

Starting point is 01:11:12 It's usually a bacterium. And so the way he proved it was he drank H. pylori to give himself an ulcer. And then he got one. And then a few days later, he took the antibiotics to kill the bacterium. And today, antibiotic treatment is used to treat ulcers. That's why so few people have ulcers today compared to back in history because now we know what causes most of them. But mad scientists frequently experiment on themselves first. And so the CIA started doing that.

Starting point is 01:11:47 In 1953, as I recall, there was a meeting. that they had at a lodge. This was kind of like a planning retreat, you know, like high mucky mucks in some company get together and plan stuff. Well, the CIA was doing that too. And so they had this party at their retreat and they had this drink called Quantro,

Starting point is 01:12:15 which is kind of an orange liqueur. And they dose everybody's Quintro with LSD so they could watch the effects. And so they're dosing themselves. And there was one gentleman at that event, who was named Frank Olson. And he was a doctor who was working for the CIA. And he had been part, now it wasn't always called M.K. Ultra.

Starting point is 01:12:42 It had previously been called Project Artichoke, and before that, it was Bluebird. And it had been started in the wake of World War II over in Europe. I mean, the CIA was doing it, but it was over in Europe, because over in Europe, you have all these expendable. the ex-Nazis and stuff and ex-Russians and people who, if they vanish, they just got lost in the war and no one really knows what happened to them. So they were doing human experimentation in, you know, like West Germany and places like that. And because they were working with expendables, they killed a bunch of people. And this was a problem for Frank Olson. and I have a mysterious world on him too.

Starting point is 01:13:32 But it was a problem for Frank Olson, and he was getting ready to go to the press and reveal what the CIA was doing with this human experimentation that was leading to fatalities. And it was believed that his being dosed with LSD in his quantro was one of the things that may have led him, to have this crisis of conscience to where he was going to go to the press. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

Starting point is 01:14:04 There are even claims from some that he actually is one of the few people who was immune to LSD, that you could give him LSD and he wouldn't trip at all. But he was having a crisis of conscience. And the CIA took him to New York to talk to this psychiatrist that, you know, they had in their hip pocket. He worked for the agency to try to talk Frank off the ledge so he wouldn't go to the press. And they didn't talk him off the ledge. Instead, they threw him off the ledge.

Starting point is 01:14:41 They had him up on like the 13th floor of a hotel in New York. And in the middle of the night, he goes out the window. And there is substantial. Now, they claimed he jumped that this was a suicide. There is substantial evidence it was not a suicide, that he was. he was killed. But this is an example of how they used, because they just dosed everybody at this event with no informed consent. Well, they didn't just do it to them.

Starting point is 01:15:09 They did it to other people, too. One of the locations where they were doing this, and this is, I'm going to use the CIA name for this sub-operation, or at least what it was called. it is it has a bit of an ick factor to it um it was called operation midnight climax what they did was they set up a CIA run bordello and they uh they had uh two-way mirrors in the rooms and so they would bring in the Johns, who were also pre-selected because they were looking for the kind of people who might have secrets, but they would bring in the Johns, and then the employees would make drinks for them and stuff like that, and they're dosing the drinks with LSD to see what effect is it going to have. And then it's like, can we get the Bordello employees to get the secrets out of the Johns who come in?

Starting point is 01:16:25 and they've got CIA agents behind the two-way mirrors watching all this. They're even using pipe cleaners to make models of the positions that the people assume in these sessions. And so that was Operation Midnight Climax. There were many other cases. They would use LSD and other experimental techniques on prisoners and on mental health. patients and on hippies who would come into free health care clinics in San Francisco and things like that. And that's how LSD got a vector out into the broader American community. That's wild. I know, isn't it? Well, I got a quick question back to alcohol and THC.

Starting point is 01:17:18 Yeah. Someone might say, well, I see that you're saying that there's a state in which we're fine, then it kind of bleeds over in a way that's not exactly clear. Yeah, it gets progressively less fine. Okay. And then there you get to a point where it's clearly not fine. So if it's clearly not fine at some point and you're in serious spiritual danger at that point, wouldn't the prudent thing be to avoid alcohol and THC or whatever altogether? Wouldn't, why would you even put yourself in a situation? Let me ask you about a parallel substance, okay?

Starting point is 01:17:55 this substance is called hydroxylic acid. Now, if you take hydroxylic acid in small quantities, it will not harm you. But if you take hydroxylic acid in larger quantities, it will harm you. It can cause gagging. It can cause choking. Those are just some of the physical effects. It also will, it can cause your blood pressure to spike. You could have stroke or aneurysm.

Starting point is 01:18:31 It can overload your kidneys. You can die from taking in too much hydroxylic acid. And so it really can disort. You can lead to muzzly thinking. You take it in the right quantities. It's really bad stuff. I've got a feeling I know. Is this a code word for,

Starting point is 01:18:54 water. Yeah. Hydrocylic acid is one of the chemical names of water. So yeah, you can, you can produce horrendous effects. Water toxicity is a real condition. You may have heard about that, I believe it was San Francisco, that radio contest that was done on this. A Wii, W-I-I-I, the video game. Yeah. And it was called win a hold-your-wee for. for a wee or something like that. And this, and so they had this water drinking contest to see who could drink the most water and not go to the bathroom. And whoever could do that would win. And there was this young mother and she was one of the contestants and she was competing to win a we for her children.

Starting point is 01:19:46 And they had a nurse call in on the air and say, do not do this contest. water toxicity is real. You can kill people if they are just drinking water without limit and trying to just cram as much in. They can overload their kidneys and die. And the on-air radio talent laughed at the nurse and kept on with the contest. And this poor mother, who was just trying to win a video game for her children,

Starting point is 01:20:16 died. Okay, so you could then, this argument is structurally the same. If water consumption can lead to all of this in excess, shouldn't we just avoid water altogether? Okay. Well, we can't because we're mostly water. Right. Ugly bag of mostly water. But you're far more likely to commit serious sin through alcohol than water, and you also don't need alcohol to live unless you're an alcoholic.

Starting point is 01:20:44 So why not just avoid alcohol altogether and assume you'll never go to this ridiculous extreme with water? You, but if you can just assume that you'll never go to this ridiculous extreme with water, you can make the same assumption for alcohol and say, yeah, I'm going to stay in the moderate beneficial level of alcohol. No, you don't have to because unlike hydroxylic acid, you don't need, you know, a certain amount of ethanol to survive. There are some benefits to it, but you don't need it to survive in the same way. So if you as a personal choice want to say, yeah, I just don't want to mess with it. And so I never drink. I mean, personally, I don't drink. But, I mean, I have in the past, but I don't drink these days.

Starting point is 01:21:34 And so, you know, if you don't want to do it, well, then don't. But I will point out morally that there is no obligation to make that decision. just because something can be abused doesn't mean that it's automatically a mandated position morally to avoid any use of it. If that worked, then the same argument would apply to water, except it obviously can't. And that tells us the argument itself is flawed. So just because you could do something to excess and have horrendous problems doesn't mean you can't do. it in moderation. And of course you could use the biblical argument that Christ would have been doing something immoral by manufacturing wine. Yeah, that probably won't you know. Fascinating stuff.

Starting point is 01:22:28 Have you looked into the history of tobacco? I understand it came from South America or No, no. Well, the Americas, yeah. There are two different, um, uh, cultivars of it that were used by Native Americans. Yeah. My understanding is they would inhale it through a, you know, device called a tobacco. Is that right? Tobacco, something like that. I understand that's... I would have to look that up. I know there are multiple methods through which tobacco has been consumed. The pipe is sort of the historic majority one. Right. But there are others. I'd have to look up the etymology to see if that's where it came, if that's where that term came from. The question I'm interested in is how did the kind of anti-smoking movement get off the ground if you've looked into that?

Starting point is 01:23:22 Because typically, I wouldn't think you have these mass movements based on just charity towards people. It's usually because there's money behind it. And maybe that's a good thing. So, for example, hopefully we're getting to the point where there's going to be a lot of money in suing pornography websites for not restricting their filth. And I guess at that point, we might see this big anti-pornography movement as people are able to make bank because of how this thing, this evil product, has ruined people's lives. That's interesting. I don't follow the pornography issues, so I haven't heard about that. But that would be cool.

Starting point is 01:24:07 I'll tell you where there's going to be an issue like that that's already begun is with gender affirmation. surgery because this got pushed on all these kids and a lot of them are detransitioning now, and they were permanently harmed by medical professionals who should have had their best interests at heart and said, you're too young to make this decision, and they are going to get sued into the ground at this point. So we can expect that to happen. So that might be an example. You know, 20 years from now, we may hear of this movement that seem to come out of nowhere.

Starting point is 01:24:52 And again, it's, I mean, yes, there are people on the ground level who are trying to push this because they care. But I think the incentive is usually the money. Or do I have too negative a view of humans? Well, I mean, money certainly, if there's a way to make bank on doing something good, well, that'll help. Yeah. But I hope they will be. There are other, if there's not a way to make money on something, it may or may not happen. I'm not sure you may need to refresh my memory on what you were proposing.

Starting point is 01:25:28 I guess I'm talking about this anti-tobacco movement that I grew up and it was like, oh, only bad people smoke. And like, how did I get that idea? Well, because there was this big anti-smoking campaign. And I'm just wondering, and I'm not asking, maybe you haven't looked into it, but I'm just interested into how that took off. And I would think it had to do with, because people were making bank off demonizing tobacco. That's my guess. Well, they certainly did to an extent. But there was also, I mean, the tobacco industry was also making bank.

Starting point is 01:26:05 So I don't know that I would attribute it to that single fact. factor. Anti-tobacco has had waves in history. So what you find now originally in North America, which is where the tobacco plant is native to, you had some recreational tobacco use, but it's primarily used for ritual purposes. Like, you know, the famous example that many people have heard of is like smoking a piece pipe when you have a conference between two different groups and they're either making or reinforcing peace between them and they'd pass around a pipe and so forth. There's also, and so tobacco was used ceremonially. Like I did a two-part, a mysterious world about Nicholas Black Elk, who was a Lakota medicine man. And he's up for canonization in the Catholic Church now. He is a servant of God.

Starting point is 01:27:17 And he integrated his native culture with his Christian faith. And he had visions of Jesus who commissioned him to preach the gospel to his people. and so he did. And he became a catechist, which was a very big deal in the time. It was a bigger deal for them than it is today. But he became a catechist, and he also incorporated, you know, like with the early church fathers. They didn't just condemn a practice just because it didn't originate in Christianity. They would use what could be used from surrounding non-Christian culture as ways of promoting the gospel.

Starting point is 01:28:14 So Nicholas Black Elk would continue the ceremonial use of the pipe. And you have, like in the two-part look at Nicholas Black Elk that I did on a mysterious world, I have, you know, audio clips of people talking about, yeah, he would pray with his rosary and he'd pray with his pipe. So originally, a lot of pipe smoking was ceremonial in nature. There was also, you know, recreational use. Then in the, after the discovery of the new world from a European perspective in 1492, the sailors would bring tobacco back. In fact, they were give, because it was a valuable substance, you know, various Native Americans like give it to explorers like Columbus as a gift. And then they'd take it back to Europe.

Starting point is 01:29:16 And initially it would be sailors who were pipe smokers and so forth. And then the custom hopped to the European aristocracy. And it, pipe smoking was the dominant form, but there was also use of snuff. where they you know people would grind it up and you inhale a little pinch of it um and and then from the aristocracy it spread and from sailors coming in in the lower class it spread cross-culturally and that happened in the 1500s but anytime you got a new thing not everybody's happy about it i mean anytime a new type of music comes out not everybody likes it and so when smoking started happening well not everybody liked it.

Starting point is 01:30:03 And so you started getting active anti-tobacco opposition in the wake of that first wave, such that in the early 1600s, for example, King James I first, he really didn't like tobacco. And he published basically a rant about it called... a counterblast to tobacco. And so, and this is actually a pretty famous document in history, a counterblast to tobacco, where he just rants against it. How long is it? Oh, I have to check. I haven't done it.

Starting point is 01:30:48 I haven't looked up the word count. But, and he says it's bad for this reason. It's bad for that reason. It's bad for this other reason. And, and various monarchs tried to ban tobacco. use and it all failed. There's there's like one famous, I'd have to look it up to get the details, but like there's one famous event where it was banned in this local area and all these guys showed up basically for a smoke in. They all showed up with their pipes. The local governor has

Starting point is 01:31:24 announced this is all banned and they just all show up and start smoking. And it's like, okay, this isn't going to work. So what happened invariably in these different areas was the ruling authorities that had tried to ban it settled for taxing it. And so in the 1600s, you had that as an anti-tobacco wave. But these things came and went by the, it's fascinating to me because I study music.

Starting point is 01:31:55 People may know I call dances like square, dance, round dance, contra dance, English country dance, you know, all these different types of dance. So I'm a dance, not only a dancer, but a dance instructor. And some of these forms of dance like English country, they begin, we don't know how far they go back, but they began to be documented in the 1600s. And so I'm used to working with dances and songs that are from the 1600s. And I've studied, you know, music down through to today. So I have a knowledge of, like, for example, 19th century American music. And you get references to tobacco and things like that is a totally normal social thing. There's a particular song called The Rose of Alabama.

Starting point is 01:32:52 And it is, it's a typical kind of, I would say it's a love song, but it's not like a modern love song. Modern love songs tend to be, oh, they're romantic and they're slow and they, I just want to spend all night with you. And, okay, that's a modern love song. Historically, love songs are, I'm going to tell you about my gal and here's why she's awesome. Okay, so Rose of Alabama is like that. And the refrain in Rose of Alabama goes, Oh, Brown Rosie, the Rose of Alabama, my sweet tobacco posy is my Rose of Alabama. And so you have here in a, listen to how great my girl is song, you have her being compared to a flower on a tobacco plant.

Starting point is 01:33:50 And that just shows you how normal this all was in 19th century America. Yeah. So anti-tabacco stuff is come and gone with different times. Yeah. Awesome. Coffee is rarely just about coffee, is it? It's the excuse to linger after Holy Mass, the conversation that turns into two hours, the first cup before opening your Bible, the friend who says you want to grab a coffee.

Starting point is 01:34:16 In fact, I think the question, would you like me to put a pot of coffee on, might be one of the most beautiful sentences anyone can offer. I want to tell you about seven weeks coffee because my wife and I genuinely love the coffee. But what really sets them apart is that they're using an everyday product to support an extraordinary mission. They actually donate 10% of every sale to pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations, helping provide real care for mothers and babies. Even their name reminds us of what's at stake. At seven weeks, a baby is about the size of a coffee bean, and that's also when the heartbeat is clearly detectable. Now, the coffee itself, I'm proud to say, happy to say, is exceptional.

Starting point is 01:34:54 It's organically farmed, shade grown, mold-free, pesticide-free, low acid. Go to 7weekscoffee.com slash pints. Subscribe to save 15% forever. Receive a free gift and use code pints for an additional 10% off your first order. That's 25% off plus the free gift. So every business or apostolate start small. nobody's launching a warehouse, a staff of 50 and perfect systems right out of the gate. It's easy to think that successful businesses start that way, fully formed, but they didn't.

Starting point is 01:35:28 They started with somebody saying, let's give this a shot. That's true for business, and honestly, it was true for Pints with Aquinas, too. Over the years, we've added a storefront where listeners can find my books and handmade rosaries and other things. Sometimes we've got pints even, and it's great knowing that tech. technology behind it simply works. People can find what they're looking for. Checkout is easy, and I don't have to spend my time troubleshooting e-commerce instead of making content. That's why I love Shopify. They handle the infrastructure so you can focus on building what only you can build. With Shopify, nothing stands between your idea and a real business. So go make it one. Start your free

Starting point is 01:36:07 trial at Shopify.com slash pints. Go to Shopify.com slash pints. That's Shopify.com slash pints and start your free trial. We're going to take a hard left turn here. Okay. What's going on with? So we're going to the sinister side then. Well, no, we're going to move on. Because that's what left is.

Starting point is 01:36:24 Oh, is it? Yeah, well, that's where the term sinister comes from. It's from the Latin for like left-handed. Okay. Left-handed means, how do you say it in Latin? Oh, I, yeah. Sinister comes from left-hand. It comes from, it's a cognate of it.

Starting point is 01:36:41 I'd have to look up the original Latin form. We're going to take it. I don't tend to use left-handed a lot in Latin. Okay. SSPX. Oh, yeah, sure. What happened? And then I don't know if you've been following the confusion that people seem to think that there still remains after Pope Leo's official declaration as well as that.

Starting point is 01:37:02 We had to put that on for legal reasons. Oh, I see. Yeah. We have to cover. How interesting. I didn't know that. I reached down in my bag to get another can of soda. and it's been modified.

Starting point is 01:37:13 And my minions have modified it. They haven't injected anything, I don't think. So what other modifications have been made without me knowing? Yeah. There's no LSD being pumped into the studio, I don't think. Yeah, so could you tell us about this? Yeah. Without rehashing the entire history, unless you want to do it very briefly.

Starting point is 01:37:33 Yeah, well, so I'll rehash as much as you like. But just for further reference, I wrote an article. that's at Catholic.com about it. And I also have an episode of the Jimmy Aiken podcast coming out on it. It's already out by the time this all air. Oh, good. And by the way, if people want to check out any of my podcasts, they're in all the standard podcast directories,

Starting point is 01:37:59 but people can also go to my YouTube page, which is YouTube.com slash Jimmy Aiken. Yeah. And all you've got to do to get there is spell my name correctly. And we'll also collaborate with you if it's okay on this post. So our videos will show up on both pages, so people can easily click to find your stuff. Yeah, that'd be great.

Starting point is 01:38:16 But anyway, people can consult those for more information. So basically, the Society for St. Pius X, did a repeat of what it did back in 1988. Now, for people who may not be familiar, the Society of St. Pius the 10th was founded by a French archbishop named Marcel Lefevre. And he began the organization. in like 1970 or so. And he got in trouble by the mid-1970s because he started ordaining priests without permission. You can't just ordain somebody else's subject as a priest.

Starting point is 01:38:57 And he was doing that. By somebody else's subject. You mean? Like a member, like, let's say you're a member of the diocese of X. You're going to be ordained. you need to be, your bishop needs to be consulted, you know. And in any event, Marcel Lefevre was doing unauthorized ordinations, and he got suspended, ah, divinous, which meant, among other things, he wasn't allowed to celebrate the sacraments. But he did anyway, and he kept ordained and priests

Starting point is 01:39:34 without authorization. And then, and he was also very critical of, you know, certain things, not everything, but certain things the Second Vatican Council said. And I don't have a problem with that in principle. The Second Vatican Council didn't teach anything new that was infallible. So everything knew that the Second Vatican Council said was part of the church's non-infallible Magisterium, and there can be reasons to disagree with non-infallible statements. That's been recognized all the way down through history. It's not going to be much of the time because the Holy Spirit guides the church, and thus, you know, the church tends not to make a lot of mistakes, but in there can be things in its non-infallible teaching where the church has never said,

Starting point is 01:40:26 this is infallible. This is non-infallible, so it can, you know, know, need rephrasing. And so I don't have a problem with that. Lefevre also was a big fan of the traditional Latin liturgy. And I don't have a problem with that. I want everyone who would prefer the traditional Latin liturgy to have access to it. I'm a friend of tradition. But Lefevre, by 1988, he was getting on in years. And he wanted to... provide for the future of his organization after he passed on. And so because, you know, under ordinary circumstances, certainly, you need a bishop in order to ordain priests. And so he had been doing the ordinations for the priestly members of the society of St. Pius the 10th. And now he was getting up in years.

Starting point is 01:41:32 He wasn't always going to be around. So who's going to be ordaining them after he dies? Well, he's been doing all these ordinations illicitly, meaning not in conformity with the law. So let's suppose you're another bishop. You're not part of the society for St. Pius the 10th. And there's this organization that, critical of Vatican 2 and critical of the current liturgy and has been ordaining priests without authorization, would you like to come over and do ordinations to the priesthood for us? Probably not. So, even though religious orders normally don't have a bishop as their head, Lefevre wanted to arrange that. So somebody in the organization could keep doing the keep doing priestly ordinations to keep the SSPX going.

Starting point is 01:42:27 And from his perspective, that makes a lot of sense. So he, as part of all this, is in dialogue with the then congregation for the doctrine of the faith in Rome, which was headed by Joseph Ratzinger at the time. And he arranges, he negotiates a deal with Ratzinger, where he will, affirm the authority of the Pope, who at the time was John Paul II, and he will affirm the continuity of Vatican II with pre-Vatican II Magisterium, and he will be, the Vatican agreed, to regularize the society, and to appoint a bishop from within the society in like a month or so. You know, they needed time to review the candidates and so forth, but we'll give you your own bishop.

Starting point is 01:43:26 And he can ordain SSBX bishops in the future. So they signed all this on like May 5th, 1998. Lefevre signed this. He agreed. 1988. He signed this. He agreed to it. May 6 within 24 hours, he backs out.

Starting point is 01:43:44 And announces, I'm not going to wait for the Vatican to approve a bishop. Even though he had signed this document. Even though he'd agreed to all, he'd signed the document. He said, I'm not going to wait for the Vatican to approve a bishop. I'm going to ordain one myself without approval. And I'm not going to do one. I'm going to do four. And like the society would need four bishops, really?

Starting point is 01:44:13 Just to ordain future priests to keep going. It needs four bishops for that. And so that's what he did. And they warned him, they gave him a canonical warning, you know, not to do this. And he did it anyway. And then within two days, John Paul II issued a Moturoprio, which is a kind of document that the Pope issues that frequently contains legal rulings. And in this, he ruled that Lefevre and the bishops he ordained. were excommunicated. Part of the reason for that is there is a canon in the Code of Canon law.

Starting point is 01:44:55 The number has changed since 1988, but there's a canon that says anyone who ordains a bishop without a papal mandate and the person he ordains is a bishop, they're both excommunicated. So, well, Lefevre had clearly done that, you know, and thus they were excommunicated. John Paul II then also said they were, and he didn't say it quite this way, he didn't say they were excommunicated on this ground. That was left implicit. But he also said they had committed a schismatic act and are therefore in a state of schism. Now, what schism is, that's also defined in the Code of Canon law. And schism is defined as the two things, either of two things. The first is, refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff, or this is the other thing schism is,

Starting point is 01:45:53 refusal of communion with those who are in communion with the Roman pontiff. So I could, if I wanted to be a schismatic, and by the way, kids, don't try this at home. But if I wanted to be a schismatic, I could say, oh, Pope Leo, I refuse submission to him. I'm not going to listen to anything he says. Okay, that would make me a schismatic. Or I could say, Matt Frad is a terrible person, and I don't want to have anything to do with Matt Frad, so I am not in communion with Matt Frad. Well, you're in communion with Pope Leo. So if I'm rejecting communion with Pope Leo, I'm rejecting communion with Pope Leo, and that, again, would make me a schismatic. So those are the two things that can constitute schism, the way the church uses the term. Okay. Well, John Paul II said that Lefevre and the other bishops, and there's a lot of confusion about this point. So I want this to be clear. It's not just that they ordained a bishop without a mandate. If they had merely done that, they wouldn't be in schism. Okay. They would be excommunicated, but they wouldn't be in schism. What tipped it over into schism was they did it in defiance of papal orders. And this is something that's made clear by John Paul II.

Starting point is 01:47:27 They defied the Pope. And he makes it clear, the language he uses, this defiance of the Pope in a grave matter that has to do with the sacramental hierarchical organization of the church by which apostolic succession is perpetuated. He says, if you disobey the Pope in something that fundamental, not just ordaining a bishop without authorization, but defying the Pope when he tells you not to, that is in practice a refusal of submission to the Roman pontiff, and that's schism. So in addition to being excommunicated because of the act of ordination, John Paul II also ruled that they were also excommunicated because they were in a state of schism.

Starting point is 01:48:22 Now, of course, they said, oh, no, we're not in a state of schism. We only did what we had to because of necessity. It's like when you're driving to the hospital and your wife is pregnant, you can break the speed limit. And the church is in such a sorry state that we had to ordain not the one bishop you need, but four bishops to provide for the future of our society. That was somehow necessary. So that was all necessary. And we're not schismatic.

Starting point is 01:48:57 We profess our allegiance to the Pope. We just defied him in practice. So there was a debate between the SSPX and various authors who took it side versus various authors who took the other side. And eventually there was dialogue, you know, it's like, hey, guys, can we, you know, the Vatican reached out and the society reached out. It's like, maybe we can get the band back together on this one. You know, you guys say you love the Pope and you pray for the pope and that's great. And that thing that happened in 1988, that was a long time ago. So what practical steps could we take to mend things?

Starting point is 01:49:42 And during the pontificate of Benedict the 16th, we saw substantial progress. One of the things that Benedict did, because he had a real heart for inter-Christian unity, was he liberalized the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass, which I thought was great. Then a couple years later, he lifts the excommunications. on the SSPX bishops. Now, Lefevre had gone on to his reward by this point, but he lifted it on the bishops because they're saying, hey, we want to be in union with you. We submit to you, all that stuff. It's like, okay, well, whatever happened in 88, you're saying the right stuff now. So we'll lift the excommunications. They've served whatever

Starting point is 01:50:36 purpose they served. And so we can move forward. You guys are not excommunicated anymore. And that also meant they're not in schism anymore. Yeah, interesting. Because one of the things about schism is it triggers excommunication automatically. It's what's known as a latehs sentientia excommunication. That just means it happens automatically. If you commit a schismatic act, automatically you're excommunicated. Your bishop doesn't have to do anything.

Starting point is 01:51:07 You just did it to yourself. So if they were still in schism, then the moment the Pope lifted the excommunications, the fact they were still in schism would re-trigger them. And so the fact that the Pope regarded them as not under excommunication anymore meant they're not in schism anymore either. So they were, though, still operating in this irregular way. They're celebrating all these masses and they don't have the right permission. forum. Other people did. Other people used the same 1962 missile that the, like the priestly fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King. They had permission to use the 1962 missile, same mass, same celebration of mass. They just had permission. The SSBX didn't.

Starting point is 01:51:57 I have a quick question. If they weren't in schism, why is it that Pope Francis gave them the faculty to hear confession? Wouldn't that presume that they didn't have that faculty, Priya? I was about to get to that. So in Benedict's reign, in addition to liberalizing the Latin Mass and lifting the excommunications, he also had a substantial dialogue engaged in to try to get all the pieces in place to regularize the society so that it would now be fully in compliance with the law. The primary proposal was to make it what's known as a personal prelature, which is a kind of organization that reports directly to the Pope. The famous example of this is Opus Day. So the idea was, we're going to make the SSPX a new Opus Day. And unfortunately, these talks didn't end up working.

Starting point is 01:52:58 And part of them were behind the scenes, so we don't know the full details there, but they didn't end up working. But then in Pope Francis's reign, he continues to show goodwill towards the society. Now, there are two sacraments that a parish priest commonly does that he needs special jurisdiction for. One of them is confession. The other is matrimony. Now, in terms of confession, they don't want just any priest,

Starting point is 01:53:36 just because he's a priest here in confession. Okay. Because they come in different levels of quality. You know, there are guys who get ordained and they got ordained in a crazy time right after the Second Vatican Council in the 1970s. They may not be the best confessors. One of the things they're really concerned about

Starting point is 01:54:00 is no breaking of the seal ever. Okay, so if a priest is not clear on that point, you don't want him hearing confessions. Also, priests, even though they're not required to, and even though they do so more that, in my experience, more than they ought to, they're going to give people advice, you know, and you don't want just any Joe Blow given advice about sensitive spiritual matters. You want someone who has a, it's like you don't go to anyone as a counselor. Or, you know, psychologically or a doctor. You want someone who is trained and has good judgment in this. So as a backstop, what canon law says is if a priest is going to hear confession, he needs to have jurisdiction provided by his bishop, basically. And there are some exceptions, like if he's traveling or stuff like that.

Starting point is 01:55:01 But basically, he needs a mandate. He needs jurisdiction to hear confessions. Otherwise, it's not only Elizabeth. Invalid. It will not take its effect. You're not going to be forgiven if he doesn't have the jurisdiction he needs. The other is matrimony because the church has an interesting history when it comes to matrimony. Now, originally, matrimony was not something people did in church.

Starting point is 01:55:30 It was something that was known in the community. It's like, oh, yeah, Bob just got married to Betty. But there didn't have to be any special ceremony for that. You didn't have to go to church and do it. You didn't have to do it in front of a priest. It just, it's an agreement. And it needs to be publicly known. It's publicly recognized agreement.

Starting point is 01:55:55 But it's fundamentally an agreement between the two parties. Yeah, I take you. to be my spouse, I take you to be my spouse. So you've made an agreement to be spouses with each other. And in a Christian context, it also is a sacrament because it's too baptized people making that agreement. Okay, so you don't technically need a representative of the church there. It can be done without one in principle. But then the church got into this kind of situation. I don't know if you've ever seen the Steve Martin movie, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. Okay, it's this movie it was made, I guess, in the 80s. It's a black and white movie. It stars Steve Martin and a few other people,

Starting point is 01:56:41 but it's mostly made up of clips from 1930s and 40s film noir movies. So like Steve Martin's partner is Humphrey Bogart. Oh, okay. And, and so it's, This black and white film with all these clips of old movies spliced in into this comedy detective plot with Steve Martin as the detective Rigby Reardon. And like typical in a film noir, the detective gets the girl. So there's a particular moment late in the film where Steve Martin is in a hotel room. He's making out with his love interest in the movie. And we hear his voice in voiceover telling us what he's going to. to do. And he's talking about how he's kissing her with every lip on his face. And my plan was to

Starting point is 01:57:34 maneuver her over to the bed, marry her, and then start the whoopee machine. Okay. Now, the thing is, you used to could do that. You used to could be making out with a girl, maneuver her over to the bed, marry her, and start the whoopee machine. These were called private marriages. And they were done for centuries in Christian history. People did not have to go to a priest or a minister to get married. It was just a private thing that people did. And as you would expect, the next morning, after the passion has worn off, some disagreements resulted about, oh, I think that was just a joke, that marriage we did last night in private that there are no witnesses for. And this caused huge problems. And so eventually the Catholic Church said, okay, you know, even though this is popular,

Starting point is 01:58:48 possible in principle. It's not a matter of divine law that we get involved. There are enough problems here. We're putting our foot down and we're buttoning in. So from now on, you have to exchange matrimonial consent in front of a minister of the church with witnesses. So there isn't going to be any of this. Oh, we didn't do that. We didn't get married. I'm not obligated to support her. I'm not obligated to be his wife. You know, we, he, they're, they're, lie in. I would never make a commitment like that. Or we were just joking. We didn't think it was a real marriage. Okay, now we're going to have records. And so in order to perform marriages, the church needs to know that you are the appropriately appointed person, which is usually,

Starting point is 01:59:42 I mean, the default is it's your pastor. Not any priest from your church. Your pastor. Your pastor. And if you want another priest to marry you or a deacon or whoever, you need to get the permission of your pastor. Okay, well, these SSPX dudes, they're operating. They're not even in churches. They're in chapels. And so technically they're not anybody's pastor. And so they don't carry the faculties to be the church's witnesses at marriages. I see.

Starting point is 02:00:15 So what Pope Francis does for the year of mercy, because he wants to make the point that God is merciful to everybody and extends his mercy wide. He gives, for the year of mercy, the SSPX priests, the faculty to hear confessions. So now their confessions will be valid for this year. But as I anticipated, he extended it. He made it indefinite and said, okay, just keep going. They still have faculties. He then also gave him the faculties to serve as church witnesses at marriages.

Starting point is 02:00:51 So now the marriages that happened in SSPX chapels could be valid too. And so these are acts of goodwill. He's doing this. Although I wonder how insulted the priests were to hear that essentially you didn't have valid sacraments before. Oh, they had known that before, but it's not like that was a surprise. They just didn't agree with it. They just didn't agree with it. But so he's made these, he's made these generous, you know, concessions to them.

Starting point is 02:01:20 And so both under Benedict and under Francis, the church was trying to reconcile, but the clock has been ticking. And so originally there were four SSPX bishops. One of them died. another a British one he turned out to be a crazy Holocaust denier and got expelled from the fraternity so that left two of the original four bishops and they weren't as old as Lefevre got he was like 83 in 1988 something like that but but they were like 67 and 68 years old. So, I mean, in modern terms, they could live another decade or two decades or

Starting point is 02:02:17 three decades. But they decided, well, we're long in the tooth enough now that we need to provide for the future of the SSPX. And unfortunately, what they didn't do was go to the Vatican and propose the initial Lefevreist plan. Hey, could you appoint a bishop? All you need is one. Could you appoint, I mean, you usually have co-consecretors for priests, but what you really need is one. Can you appoint a bishop from within our ranks who can cede the ongoing ordination of priests in the future? Now, that's still not normal for a religious order, but they could have proposed that. And apparently, they didn't, at least if they did it, didn't become public. Instead, they just announced, we're going to do four new bishops without a person.

Starting point is 02:03:09 PAPal mandate, which would incorrects communication. And they were told not to, again, including by Pope Leo, like a few days before they did it. So again, they did it in defiance, not just without permission, but against orders. They did these four new ordinations. And so the next day, the now de Castro for the doctrine of the faith issued a ruling in which they said, okay, they've again committed a schismatic act, and so they're excommunicated for that reason. Also, the bishop, the principal co, the principal celebrant of the Episcopal ordination and the guys who were ordained as bishops, they're also excommunicated for violating that canon. And since this is now again a schismatic organization, the priests and deacons, of the organization, they've formally joined this schism. So they're all excommunicated too,

Starting point is 02:04:15 because they're schismatic. And if lay people formally adhere to the schism, and we can talk about what formal adherence is if you want, but if they formally adhere to it, then they're going to be excommunicated. If they don't formally adhere, they're not excommunicated. But also, yeah, those marriages and confessions, those faculties that, Pope Francis gave them, they're toast now. So if you go get married by an SSPX priest, you're going to be living in sin. And if you go to him for confession, and it's not emergency circumstances where any priest, like you're dying, and then any priest can hear your confession, well, okay, you're not going to be forgiven. So they basically, set us back 40 years. And I think this is a tragedy. I mean, I want to see reconciliation with society. Like I said, I'm a friend of tradition. I want to see everybody who wants the Latin Mass to have it. I want to see, you know, the SSPX and others be able to have respectful dialogues about

Starting point is 02:05:29 issues they may have with the Second Vatican Council or other non-infallible magisteria. I don't have a problem in principle here, but I feel it's just a tragedy that they selfishly decided to pursue the path that had been engaged in in 1988 unnecessarily, because you don't need four bishops to consecrate a bunch of priests, to keep your order going. There's no way you can justify that as a necessity. So not today when we have global travel. You can have one bishop and either he can travel around and ordain your priests, or you have him sit still in Switzerland and have the priests come to him to get ordained. In a day of global travel, this happens all the time. It is not necessary for you to have four against a papal order not to do that. So I just view it as a

Starting point is 02:06:34 huge tragedy. And I urge people to pray for both the SSPX and for the folks at the Vatican, that somehow God will, it's going to take a while, but that somehow God will bring about a reconciliation out of all this eventually. How many, I think there was, I've heard different numbers upwards of 800,000 members of the SSPX worldwide. That's a little high. Their estimates are that that they have about 600,000 who regularly attend their masses. So how are Catholics to view them now? Well, they're schismatics. I mean, the bishops and priests and deacons are schismatics.

Starting point is 02:07:20 Yeah, formally adhere to. Yeah. So we don't have an exact ruling on what constitutes formal adherence. Now, I try to be very precise about canon law and what's been ruling. and what hadn't. And we don't have a formal ruling on this. What the DDF did was it appealed to a document that had been released by what used to be known as the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. And it's their job to issue authentic interpretations, meaning authoritative interpretations of church law. So like the law says this and the pontifical

Starting point is 02:08:03 commission will look at it and say, okay, here's what that means in practice. Now, a query had been put to the counsel for legislative tax after 1988. And they ended up right back and said, this is kind of like in courts where they say, we don't have to address this question because this litigant doesn't have jurisdiction, you know, so they won't rule directly on the merits of the case. Well, the Pontifical Commission or counsel did something like. like that. They said, we don't really have to settle this case because, but here's what we'd say if we did. And so they gave us their opinion about what constitutes formal adherence. And they said it has two elements, an internal element and an external element. The internal

Starting point is 02:08:52 element is you, in your heart, adhere to the Lefebvrest schism in a way that you like prioritize them, over the Pope and the regular church. So like if you're saying to yourself, oh, yeah, the SSPX, they're the good guys, they're the ones who are really the church with the Pope is like, they've gone astray. Is it a lot of that? Yeah. Well, okay, that's the first element. That's the internal element of formal adherence. But in order for it to become formal adherence, it has to have the second element to.

Starting point is 02:09:33 which is the external element. And this element is one where you take that internal disposition of the SSPX or the good guys, they're the true Catholics, not the bad old church that's post-Vatican 2 and all that stuff. You have to externalize that somehow. And here the Pontifical Council didn't give an exhaustive list of heroly. the ways that would have to manifest. Instead, they gave an example. And they said that externalization of the interior disposition would happen, for instance, if you attend SSPX functions exclusively over those of the Catholic Church. So like, if you think the SSPX are the good guys and the Vatican is bad and all that stuff.

Starting point is 02:10:35 Okay, that's the internal one. That's the internal disposition. But if you then externalize that disposition by always going to an SSPX chapel and never go into a regular Catholic church, that would meet the external criterion and you would have formally adhered to the SSPX, since in your heart you have adhered and externally in your body, you've adhered because that's all that you're ever going to. You're never going to a regular Catholic church. And so anyone who meets those two criteria would, in the opinion of the, now it's the dextery for legislative texts, or in the opinion of the decastry for

Starting point is 02:11:21 the doctrine of the faith, would also be a schismatic and thus under the penalty of excommunication. So theoretically, if there is a podcaster who believes that this declaration by the Holy Father is illegitimate, that the SSPX are not in schism, and talks about it publicly and says as much, that's, and then suppose he's on holiday somewhere and he goes to an FSSP parish. Are you saying that's not formal adherence? Because he sometimes goes to a Catholic church? Well, the, so you'll notice now, and this is a matter of opinion, because like I said, we don't have a legal ruling here, but the Pontifical Council told us their opinion. So this is what they would have done if they had been asked to rule. So we're already at one removed, but you'll also notice, I said they didn't give a list of here are all the things that could manifest. the internal criterion externally. They gave an example of one that would do it, but they didn't say there aren't others.

Starting point is 02:12:35 So even if someone, yeah, okay, so I always go to the SSPX because they're the good guys and they're not the battle post-Vatican 2 Vatican. So I go to the SSPX and I adhere to the SSPX with my heart. But if I'm traveling and there's not an SSPX Chapel, I'll make an exception and go to Institute of Christ the King. But I'm going to get on my podcast and totally talk down the regular church all the time. Well, that might be another way of externally manifesting the internal adherence. So even if they don't result in being schismatics,

Starting point is 02:13:18 because they'll occasionally make exceptions for authorized Latin masses, there could be other ways of externally manifesting the internal disposition by like totally talking down the Vatican over the SSPX on your podcast. That could be another mode of external manifestation of internal adherence to the schism. So to the SSPX members who are watching this. By the way, who are we talking about? Because I don't know. What do you mean?

Starting point is 02:13:49 Oh, you just came up with this. Let's suppose you were a podcast or you did all this. A while ago, I spoke ill of somebody on a podcast and I regretted it and went to confession for it. It seemed unnecessary. Okay. So generally speaking, I try not to talk people out. So we'll just say theoretical for now. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:14:09 Well, it's not going to change the principles I'd articulate anyway. Whoever you may be or may not be thinking of, if they're doing that, I would say they are in danger of committing a schismatic act. I can't say they are because I'm not a judge of this situation. I have not been appointed a canonical judge of this situation. And, you know, I don't. And the rulings that we have are not actually rulings, their opinion statements. But I can say, based on my knowledge of the opinions of the relevant Vatican de Castories, whoever it fits this fact pattern.

Starting point is 02:14:53 And to be fair, multiple people do. Yeah. It's not just one or two. Yeah. Okay, but to the member, to the person watching this, I'm not saying the podcaster, but people who are watching this, no doubt. And they go to an SSPX chapel and they just think, you're a heretic, Jimmy Aiken, like you're the worst, you're the problem with the church.

Starting point is 02:15:09 And I know that might sound hyperbole or unnecessarily aggressive, but you've read comment sections. Oh, yeah, no, I was just going to say, I mean, people are jerks in Comboxes all the time. Mm-hmm. What is your advice? If they were, let's say there's someone who's on the fence. They're like, gee, I love the SSPX and the traditional liturgy. I know so many good-hearted people who go to these chapels. But at the same time, if I've committed what I believe to be mortal sin, I don't want to risk my salvation by going to an end.

Starting point is 02:15:37 So they're on the fence. What would your advice to that individual watching be? Yeah. Well, I'd say, let me add one more piece because it could be relevant to that person. Now, prior to the current situation, there had been a recognition on the part of, I mean, there's always been a recognition that SSPX liturgies are valid, that they're not illicit, they're not in compliance with the requirements of the law, but they are valid. And so, and they're using, now the way that, the way that canon law is phrased, you can satisfy your Sunday obligation by going to a mass celebrated in any Catholic right. Okay, that's interesting. Now, so you don't have to go to, let's say you're a Latin Catholic.

Starting point is 02:16:42 You don't got to go to a Latin right mass. You could go to a Chaldean mass or a Maronite mass or a, you know, Ukrainian liturgy. Ukrainian. It's any of them. Okay. Within the Latin right, you could go to any mass that's been approved within the Latin right. You could go to an Ambrosian right mass or a Dominican right mass or an Anglican use liturgy. Well, okay, the 1962 missile is approved for use in the Catholic Church.

Starting point is 02:17:18 You know, that's what the priestly fraternity of St. Peter is using. It's what Institute of Christ's King is using. And it's what the SSPX is using. So you could fulfill your Sunday requirement by going to a SSPX Mass. And there were various statements from... Today you're saying you could do that. You still could, yes. You could fulfill your Sunday obligation. But prior to the current situation, you had positive comments, encouraging comments coming out of folks at the Vatican about exercising this possibility. In fact, I'd forget who it was that said this, but there was one statement that came out of, it may have been the Pontifical Council for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. years ago. I'd have to look it up. But it was like even, oh, yeah, make a little donation to

Starting point is 02:18:14 support their efforts. You know, and so there were positive, encouraging statements that didn't in any way say, you shouldn't be doing this. Okay, that's changed. Now, because they're back in a state of schism, the de Castro for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued an exhortation not to go to their masses. They're not saying it won't fulfill your Sunday obligation, but they have judged that it is not advisable to go. So now there's an official exhortation, do not go to these people's masses.

Starting point is 02:19:03 And there are various reasons for that. One, you're exposing yourself to a dangerous source of information if you do, and two, you're undercutting the message, you guys are in schism, you need to repent. You know, if you just went to them as if everything was normal and their schismatic act didn't change anything, then you're normalizing schismatic behavior and making it less likely that they will take it seriously enough. So, as a result, we have this exhortation not to go. And so I would say, under ordinary circumstances, I'd heed that exhortation.

Starting point is 02:19:40 I would say, I'm not going to go anymore. I would say, I understand and appreciate the positive elements that one sees in the SSPX, because there are positive elements. Like I said, I'm a friend of tradition. I would love to see the situation repaired. And I myself feel the tragedy, not as sharply as if I was a regular attender of the SSPX, but I feel the tragedy of this situation. I think it's terrible. It's like, guys, why didn't you just try to negotiate the first deal that Lefevre negotiated back in 1988,

Starting point is 02:20:23 where the Vatican would have appointed a bishop out of your ranks that would provide for your order? and there would be no new schism. You'd still have the faculties to do marriages and hear confessions, and you'd be better able to care for the spiritual good of the people who you interact with. So I would say I understand the tragedy and I feel the tragedy, not as sharply as I would in other circumstances, but I feel it. And so my advice would be pray, both for the SSPX and for the Vatican, that they will somehow find a way to achieve a reconciliation. It's not going to be immediate, but pray that will eventually have a reconciliation.

Starting point is 02:21:14 And in the meantime, you know, obviously it can vary from one circumstance to another, but do what you need to do to remain in communion in terms of. as well as externally with the actual successor of St. Peter, who is Pope Leo. Let me ask a broad question to tease out some of this nuance. So the SSPX are in Sism. The Russian Orthodox Church is in Sism. Are you then saying that just as I can fulfill my Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel today, I could fulfill my Sunday obligation at a Russian Orthodox liturgy? And if not, what's the difference in the schisms?

Starting point is 02:21:54 Well, I'd have to, there is a difference, but I'd have to first do some check-in on the Russian Orthodox liturgy, because what canon law says is that it can, Sunday obligation can be, or Holy Day obligation, can be fulfilled by assisting at the sacred liturgy in any Catholic right. and the question is going to be, is this a Catholic right? Now, unfortunately, that phrase can be taken different ways. Like, for example, does a Catholic right have to be current? Because there used to be, in England, what was known as the serum right, which was a subset of the Latin right. But nobody uses the serum right anymore. It's obsolete. So if a priest picked up a serum missile and said mass out of it, it definitely wouldn't be

Starting point is 02:22:58 licit or lawful for him to do that because the serum missile is not currently approved. So would it satisfy Sunday obligation? This used to be an approved Catholic right, but it's not approved for use now. That's one question. Well, okay, what's the relationship? and this is where I just don't know because I'm not an expert in this. What's the relationship between a Russian Orthodox liturgy and Catholic liturgy? There may well be a Catholic liturgy in Eastern Catholicism that is identical with a Russian Orthodox liturgy.

Starting point is 02:23:41 Or maybe not. Maybe it's not identical. Maybe it's just similar. And it's also being celebrated by fundamentally non-Catholic priest. So you've got several questions there about is the mass being celebrated in a Catholic right? Yeah, fundamentally not fundamentally Catholic priests. Is that what you said? Yeah, if he's a Russian Orthodox priest. Would the SSPX also fit into that category? They're Catholic.

Starting point is 02:24:08 They're maybe schismatic, but they're still baptized, received into the Catholic Church. So all of these are issues that could be debated. What I'm saying is there's not a clear answer here. There is, though, a difference in the type of schism that has been committed. In the case of the SSPX, it is fresh and raw. It happened earlier this month at the time we're recording this. So the people who are in the leadership positions are the actual schismatics. They are personally culpable for what they did.

Starting point is 02:24:56 In the case of the Russian Orthodox, that schism is old. It was not committed by the people who are currently Russian Orthodox hierarchs. They didn't split off from the Catholic Church. This is not something they did. It's something they grew up in. And that changes the moral character of it. This is why, like, after the Second Vatican Council, a question got posed to what was then known as the Concilium.

Starting point is 02:25:35 But it was a question got posed to Rome, basically. about do Protestants who are becoming Catholic still need to have a formal renunciation of heresy given that they didn't ever commit a heresy that they were formally responsible for. They were just, they grew up a Lutheran or something. Now they want to become a Catholic, but they never abandoned Catholicism to become a Lutheran.

Starting point is 02:26:08 They just were, raised Lutheran. And so do they need to formally renounce a heresy or do they just need to affirm the Catholic faith? And the Concilium said, no, they haven't, we can't presume that they have themselves committed heresy, which requires contumacy or ill will. Because they were just raised this way. So it's not the same

Starting point is 02:26:38 as if they had been Catholic and then left the church of their own volition. So they don't need to renounce these things as heretical. They just need to affirm the truth in the Catholic faith. So I might be misreading you, but it sounds, it could sound to somebody listening that it would be therefore less bad to try to fulfill your Sunday obligation at a Russian Orthodox Church. is that schism is so old and these individuals aren't in the same places. Well, there is a, there is an aspect to it that would be less bad because the situation is not as raw. On the other hand, I don't know that it would fulfill it at all since the priest isn't

Starting point is 02:27:24 and presumably has never been a Catholic priest. And I don't know if the base text he's using is approved for use in the Catholic Church either. Yep. These things get complicated quickly, didn't they? They do. And part of my regret is so many folks on so many sides of these issues do not try to be precise. They argue from their gut instead of, it's like in the movie A Man for All Seasons, you know, where Thomas Aquinas. Thomas, no, Aquinas, Thomas Moore has just been told that King Henry the 8th has imposed this oath that everybody's going to have to take.

Starting point is 02:28:11 And those who are around Moore are like, oh, this is just, you could never take that oath. And they're thinking with their gut because it is a bad oath from a gut perspective. But Thomas Moore's first question is, what are the words? Because I may be able to take it. depends on what it says. And so he's thinking with precision. He's not just arguing from the gut. And I try to follow St. Thomas Moore in that respect. I try to always be very precise and very accurate. If people play back the video, they'll notice the number of times I've said I'd have to look that up. That's my put in a footnote to say, here's what my memory is, but don't take it as gospel, because I'd have to,

Starting point is 02:29:01 because I'd have to go look it up. But I believe very strongly in precision and accurate representation rather than just, I'm mad, so here's what I think. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for being like that. So it sounds like you're saying that theoretically an individual, you're not saying they should, but theoretically an individual could fulfill the Sunday obligation by going to an SSPX chapel.

Starting point is 02:29:31 But they should not, if they understand what Pope Leo has declared, present themselves for confession to an SSPX priest because that would be invalid. Yeah. Well, with that, let's, I need a break. Okay. We'll take a bit of a break and come back. Sounds good. All right. We've taken a break.

Starting point is 02:29:54 It's good to be back. I've got my coffee. Do you drink coffee? Mm-mm. Never. Mm-mm. Does it just have a bad effect on you or you don't like the taste? I don't like the taste.

Starting point is 02:30:04 part of it is because of when I grew up. Basically, and I think I may have told you this before, but a lot of people don't know it, so I'll repeat it. There's a whole generation of people who tend not to be coffee drinkers, and it's because of when they grew up. They all tend to be contemporaries of mine. because in the classically

Starting point is 02:30:34 coffee was brewed from a particular cultivar I mean the coffee you drink here in America was brewed from a particular cultivar known as arabica what is that word you're using arabica what is that is a type of coffee or it's a type of coffee it's a

Starting point is 02:30:52 cultivar a cultivar is a type of a plant and is cultivated. So people were cultivating these arabica beans, and they're making coffee out of them commercially in this country, and people liked them. And so that's what a lot of American coffee was, was it was Arabica bean coffee.

Starting point is 02:31:14 But Arabica beans started getting expensive. And so the major coffee manufacturers, and we're talking, you know, like supermarket coffee. You know, they didn't have a lot of, you know, fancy coffee houses. I mean, there were some, but, you know, most people bought coffee at the supermarket. And so like Maxwell House and all those different brands, started thinking, is there a way we can make coffee cheaper? And they looked around and they found there's this other kind of bean, another cultivar of coffee, known as Robusto. and robusto is cheaper than arabica.

Starting point is 02:31:58 And so what they did was they would mix a small quantity of robusto beans into the arabica beans that they use for their coffee. And only a little bit, and that way they thought maybe the customers won't notice that the robustos don't taste as good as the arabica. So it's because it's just a little change. and indeed they were right. The customers didn't notice. They got used to the new taste. They didn't notice it was different. And so they thought, what worked once might work again.

Starting point is 02:32:37 And so what if we increase the amount of robustos a little bit more? Will they notice now? And they didn't. And they got used to the new taste. And so my parents and grandparents got used to drinking this other blend of American coffee that they got used to slowly with more and more robusto in it. But then my generation came along, and we don't typically have coffee given to our kids

Starting point is 02:33:16 very young because they're hyper enough as it is being kids. they don't need caffeine on, you know, in coffee levels on top of it. So when my generation gets old enough to start drinking coffee, we try it, and it's this robust-o-ized version, and it's like, wow, this is terrible. Why would anyone ever drink this? Interesting. And so that generation was kind of lost to coffee drinking.

Starting point is 02:33:48 What then happened was in the, I don't know, late 80s, but by the 90s, you had this connoisseur coffee stuff. And it's like, let's bring back the high quality, expensive stuff. And it got popular again. And so they've solved the fundamental problem, which was they were using an inferior blend of beans when my generation came of coffee, drink, and age. but there are a lot of people who were basically like me never got the taste for coffee because when we were of the age to start acquiring the habit, it was terrible. I have a similar analogy in Australia if you go to McDonald's.

Starting point is 02:34:37 It's quite good. The quality is quite good. Significantly better to what they have here in the States. So when I started eating McDonald's hamburgers and chicken burgers, I didn't mind them at all. They'll even have like Bree cheese and apple. Came over here. I couldn't possibly eat it.

Starting point is 02:34:57 The quality is so low. But I can't imagine when McDonald's started it was like that. They must have gradually lowered the cost of the ingredients and diminished the quality. It could well be. Personally, I never eat at McDonald's anyway. When you said this was like the devil's holiday, but better, I was a bit skeptical. But this is actually significantly better. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:35:19 It really is. It's got like an orange. Yeah. Does it? Yeah. It's got a whole bunch of different things in it. The process, so Joe is the name of the guy who owns the shop. He's the one who blends it.

Starting point is 02:35:29 And he is a remarkable tobacco blender. Like I mentioned, he's got a really sophisticated process instead of tools he uses. Do you remember on those old TV shows? Like, we'll go get a pen. And we're going to give out the number. You couldn't just go. You couldn't click back. Yeah, you know, the back arrow and go back.

Starting point is 02:35:50 So I presume that's what people are doing right now. By the way, I've got a question for you. Yeah. So I have now, at home, I have, you know, and people will see this if they watch my videos. I have my pipe stands in my office and so forth. And I don't even have, you can't even see them all. I've got a pretty extensive pipe collection. But for when I travel, I have these little pouches.

Starting point is 02:36:17 and I can put two pipes in each one. Yep. But you have a kind of role that I've seen before I've seen many men have them. I don't have one like that. But I was wondering how many pipes can you fit in that? Because what I don't like about these is they're small enough. I can only fit two pipes in one. And the nice thing about that, of course, is that it's so compact.

Starting point is 02:36:42 So this I got off Etsy, if people are interested. Look at this thing. It's pretty intense. Has my name up the top there. But you can fit three pipes, but then it also has space for your pipe cleaners and a lighter and two pockets for your pipe tobacco. But check this out. This is an ashtray. And you just sort of clip it together like that.

Starting point is 02:37:05 And, I mean, it's a bit much, isn't it? No, that's cool. It is pretty cool. I'm not going to lie. Yeah. So as I say, you almost got a sitter there. Yeah, almost, yeah. Oh, but people...

Starting point is 02:37:18 And look, no, no, look. We have one. There's a sitter. Check this up. Well, that's a stand. Is it? What's a sitter? So a sitter is a pipe that has, is built to sit.

Starting point is 02:37:27 Ah, yes. So, like, if, if this pipe had a flat bottom, I could just sit it on the table and it would sit there. Whereas this is quote of wood. That's almost a sitter. That's pretty great. Because if you look at the bottom of that, it's flat-ish, but it's also got a curve. It won't quite sit by itself unless you put it. it in the stand.

Starting point is 02:37:48 Yeah. So that's that. It's fun. Mm-hmm. So I wanted to ask you about your new book. Will it be out by the time this is? Oh, it's already out. Yeah.

Starting point is 02:37:59 Okay. In addition, in addition, there's a Kindle version of it. And it's also available, I think, for other platforms besides just Kindle. But if you're into electronic books, it'll be that. And also, there's an audio version that's going to be coming out that I'm recording. but I'm not exactly sure when that's coming out. Well, I love your writing style because you're one of the most brilliant people that I know. And I think one of the reasons you can see that that's the case is you're able to take really complex ideas and break it down so that I can understand it.

Starting point is 02:38:33 And I presume if I read it to my kids, they'd be like, this is great. Thank you for talking to me on my level. So that's a real gift you have. Thank you. It's something I've cultivated. And there's actually a story behind that. Um, because, you know, every field has its own jargon. Mm-hmm.

Starting point is 02:38:53 And there's a reason for that, which is that, um, that jargon speeds things up. You know, if your, if your doctor, let's say, is talking to another doctor about a condition you've got and they can just name this label for your condition that specifies a whole bunch of different symptoms and, and, and what it responds. to and what it doesn't respond to. If they can just say one term, you know, my patient has this, then it speeds up the communication and it's very precise. And so in every field, the experts in the field have a jargon or argot, it's sometimes called, that you used to speed up communication between them. But, and you can imagine if they didn't use that jargon, It's like, well, my patient has this symptom and this symptom and this symptom. I've tried this and this and they didn't work, but I'm not going to try this.

Starting point is 02:39:54 You know, it would just dramatically slow down communication if they didn't have this jargon. But, and so there's a reason that fields have jargon. And when someone uses jargon, it makes them sound like they're an expert. And so there's a temptation to use jargon to make, for reputational purposes, to make yourself sound like you're an expert. And so when I was in college, you know, my academic training is in analytic philosophy. And who, boy, do we have jargon in analytic philosophy?

Starting point is 02:40:35 You know, not just things that persevere, but I can talk about perseverance and all kinds of funny, you know, terms. And I had a girlfriend. And I was at the time, she was not a philosopher, but I would use a lot of jargon around her because I was trying to impress her, you know, as you do when you're a young man. And so I would use all this jargon around her trying to impress her and make her think, you know, okay, Jimmy is smart. And she drew a different lesson. she asked me in sincerity once. I know where this is going.

Starting point is 02:41:21 Yeah. Do you think I'm stupid? Right. And that was not what I was trying to communicate. I was trying to show her something about me that I could be proud of and that would be a good quality. I was not trying to run her down. Yeah. And I was mortified when she said that to me.

Starting point is 02:41:43 and I immediately assured her that was not my intent. And I immediately changed my approach, not just with her, but with everybody. So, yeah, if I'm talking to philosophers or biblical scholars or canon lawyers or some area where I have expertise, yeah, I'll use jargon with them. but when I'm talking for a broad, to speed up communication, but when I'm talking to a broad audience, I want to be as understandable as possible. And so I've trained myself to think, and this is something a lot of people don't do. You know, they've trained themselves to be an expert in something, and what they tend not to do is train themselves in, how do I say this to a normal person without all the jargon?

Starting point is 02:42:40 And I've made a study of that. And I'll catch myself like earlier in our discussion. You know, I caught myself when I was about to use one particular word that was a higher register word. And then I realized, okay, here's how I can say it without that. And I constantly, it's like Mr. Data having, you know, all these subroutines operating all at once. Well, some of my background subroutines are how can I say this in a normal. way. And so, and I've seen apologists who have tried to impress me by using jargon. And what they don't realize is that's not what's going to impress me. What's going to impress me is not,

Starting point is 02:43:28 can you use jargon to formulate this argument for God's existence? What's going to impress me is can you formulate the arguments, the argument for God's existence without the jargon? Yeah. Because that's what's going to reach people. And so I've made a study of it. And so it's gratifying to me. It's like, okay, sounds like I'm having some success in what I'm trying to do. So I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Yeah. Indeed you are. Tell us, tell those watching about your new book and why they might pick it up. Okay. So the book is called Evidence for Christ. And this is, it's basically, an apology, which means a defense of the idea that Jesus is the Christ. That's the fundamental thesis of the book. Jesus is the Christ.

Starting point is 02:44:23 This is an area that is often neglected in apologetics. Apologetics is the study of how to defend a position. So I'm a Christian apologist, meaning I defend the Christian faith. and I'm also a Catholic apologist, which means I defend the Catholic understanding of the Christian faith. This book, though, is of general interest to Christians. This is not a specifically Catholic apologetics book. This is a Christian apologetics book because the idea that Jesus is the Christ is common to all Christians. And so that's what I'm defending here. So it doesn't matter which flavor Christian you are. This is a team Christian book.

Starting point is 02:45:05 So what I do in it, because people know the claim that Jesus is the Christ, in fact, that's even why he's called Jesus Christ. You know, it's not like his last name is Christ. It's a title. And a lot of people don't have a clear understanding of what it means. So what I do in the book is I start by let's talk about what Christ is, you know, what the concept. is. People will know it frequently. They'll know it means anointed one. Well, okay, good, but what is that? You know, what does it mean to be anointed? I mean,

Starting point is 02:45:48 people have an idea. It has something to do with oil, but we don't have anointing in our culture. So they don't have a native understanding of it. And if you think about it, it's kind of strange. I mean, the oil that they used as base, was typically olive oil.

Starting point is 02:46:08 Well, you've probably got a bottle of olive oil in your kitchen. I know I do. I've not once been tempted to pour it on my head for fun. Yeah, that's what I was going to mention is very few of the listeners have ever been tempted to, whoa, let's go to the kitchen, screw off the cap and dump it all over ourselves. You know, we just don't do that. It would make a big mess. So why would they do that in the ancient world?

Starting point is 02:46:35 and it was actually part of their personal care, or as they would have said in the 19th century, their toilet, which didn't mean bathroom, which is itself a euphemism. Toilet originally just meant personal care. And so they would do it as part of their personal care. One of the reasons was, and the term goes even broader than that in Hebrew, but one of the reasons they would do it is because, because they didn't have regular bathing and air conditioning. Now, they would, in Jewish culture, wash themselves a little bit more than typical pagans, but usually they would just wash their hands.

Starting point is 02:47:20 And they would only take a ritual bath, maybe every week, maybe every month. And this is in an area with no air conditioning and no underarm deodorant and nothing like that. So people got a little bit ripe. And one of the things they did was they used, they didn't have distilled down essences of cologne, like the way we do or, you know, perfume. So what they did was they infused oil with special fragrances. And you could use the oil, and it was pleasant, it was smooth.

Starting point is 02:47:59 It was, you know, they didn't have chapstick either. So it was soothing to the skin and it smelled good. And so that's why they would anoint themselves. And they'd offer anointing to their gifts and stuff. But they also would make special anointing oil. In fact, the Jerusalem sanctuary, originally the Tabernacle, the Israelite Sanctuary, originally the Tabernacle later the Temple, had a patent on one. here's how you make the sacred olive oil for anointing in Jewish rituals.

Starting point is 02:48:37 And the formula is right there in the Bible. It tells you this is what you get. This is what you need to make it. And I tell you in the book. And if you want to make it, you can because this law is not binding on us as Christians. But if you were an ancient Israelite, you were not allowed to make this. It was only for use of the temple. and they would use it to anoint all the different vessels that they used at the temple,

Starting point is 02:49:04 and they would also use it to anoint the priests to consecrate them to God's service. And so the idea of anointing a person became a common cultural practice, not just as part of your personal care, but to consecrate someone to be a servant of God. So they didn't just do it for priests. They would also do it for prophets. And they would do it for kings. This is how a king came into office. I mean, today we have inaugurations where they take an oath.

Starting point is 02:49:40 You know, they raise their hand, and they put their other hand on the Bible, and then they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Okay, that's an American thing. The way they did it in the ancient world was a prophet comes up to you and pours oil on you and says, you are anointed the king of Israel or Judah, depending on which nation it was. Because originally, you have the 12 tribes in one nation called Israel. But then after the time of Solomon, the northern 10 tribes secede. And yes, in the Middle East, the north seceded from the south. Politics have always been turned around there. But that left the southern kingdom of Judah and the northern. and Kingdom of Israel. And actually, both of their kings were regarded as servants of God. God continued to send prophets to both kingdoms. In fact, they were starting to go to war over. Judah was going to attack the north for seceding, and God, through a prophet, said, no, this is of me. And I'm letting them do this. And as long as they do the following things, I will bless them just like

Starting point is 02:50:52 I'm blessing you. So the northern kings were also appointed by God, and they were also anointed. So you could have multiple anointed people. Although you got multiple priests, right? You could have multiple prophets at once. You could even have more than one king at once. And they're all anointed ones. They are all messiahs.

Starting point is 02:51:19 So you've got a lot of messiahs in ancient Israel. In fact, you didn't even have to be an Israelite to be one. Because in the book of Isaiah, it says, God declares that the Persian king, so he's not even an Israelite. He's Persian. Cyrus the Great is his anointed. He's also one of God's anointed. And what he's anointed to do, because remember, anointing in this context, consecrates you to do something for God, like be a priest or be a prophet or be a king. what Cyrus the Great has been anointed to do is let the Jews go back to their land and build their temple. He's the dude who ends the Babylonian exile. And he's seen by Isaiah as an instrument of God. So he's an anointed person too, even though he's not a Jew or an Israelite. And so you had lots of messiahs in the ancient world. And this term is you.

Starting point is 02:52:21 in Hebrew. You know, it's Messiah. And so like when David is talking about, I'm not going to kill King Saul, because he's the Lord's anointed. That's what it will say in a typical English translation. What he says in Hebrew is, I'm not going to kill Saul because he's the Lord's Messiah, or he's the Lord's Messiah. We just don't translate it that way because we tend to want to use, as Christians, we tend to want to use the term only for Jesus. But that's not the way it's used in Scripture. So I have a section of the book where I talk about all this, and then I talk about how the concept of the Messiah arose. And it's kind of factored in with what's called the Babylonian exile in Scripture.

Starting point is 02:53:09 God promised blessings to Israel and also the Southern Kingdom of Judah, as long as they did certain things, you know, like Ixnay on the idol worship A. And when they broke those laws, he said, okay, you're going into exile now. And so the Northern Kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians, leading them into exile, and that gave rise to the so-called Ten Lost Tribes. And then a few centuries later, the Southern Kingdom of Judah, they get conquered by the Babylonians. they get taken away into exile, leading to what's called the Babylonian exile. And all of a sudden, Israel isn't a kingdom anymore. It's been conquered.

Starting point is 02:53:55 So it's not a kingdom. It ain't got a king. And that's a bit of a head scratcher because previously, God had promised King David, you're always going to have a man on the throne. He made a covenant with David, where he said, you're always going to have a man. man on the throne. So now that the Babylonian exile has happened and we ain't got a king, what's up with that prophecy? And there were three possible solutions that you could explore. One of them is, well, maybe the prophecy had just run its course. I mean, God, I mean, yeah,

Starting point is 02:54:38 he said forever, but prophets use hyperbole. You know, And so maybe he just meant a really long time. And okay, it's 500 years later. Maybe that was the really long time. And so maybe the prophecy is just past its expiration date. Okay, that's one possibility. Another possibility is, well, maybe it's been nullified. You know, it's like all those promises that God promised he was going to bless the kingdom as long as we didn't do certain things.

Starting point is 02:55:13 and, well, we did them, and so he canceled the blessings. Well, there is a pair, there are passages, there's one in particular, where God says about the Davidic monarchs, if they are careful to obey my ordinances, my laws, if they are careful to obey my laws, they will always have descendants on the throne. But notice, that's got an if on the front of it. Well, they committed the same idolatry as the rest of the Israelites. They were leading it. And so if the regular people got their blessings canceled and got taken into exile because of all this idolatry nonsense,

Starting point is 02:55:58 maybe the kings forfeited their promise of future descendants on the throne the same way. So that's a second interpretation. The third is maybe this is just an interruption. Maybe this promise is still good, and maybe it was temporarily forfeited by the kings and their sins, but maybe we'll get a king in the future. And there had even been a precedent for this. There was a moment in the kingdom of Judah where even though God had said David will always have a man on the throne, where there wasn't a man on the throne, where there was instead a woman on the throne,

Starting point is 02:56:40 who had married into the royal family, her name was Athaliah. And so if you want to envision her, imagine the wicked witch of the West, only without all the green face paint. She is one wicked queen. Her son, the king, dies. And rather than let one of his sons secede him as the new king, she decides, let's kill them all. And she wipes out the entire royal family. Everybody dies.

Starting point is 02:57:23 Her own grandsons die, lest one of them become king. Because now it's her time to rule the nation of Judah. So she executes her own grandchildren lest they become king. What she doesn't know is one of the nurses of a little one-year-old child named Joash saw the slaughter coming. And before little one-year-old baby Joash could be killed, the nurse took him in his. hit him. And they kept him in the temple for six years. So the priests knew about Joash, but the Queen Athaliah, she didn't know. And then at the end of the sixth year, so Joe Ash is seven years old now, and that's old enough he could at least be appointed king, even though he's going to have,

Starting point is 02:58:30 you know, a regent who's really running the country for him, they announce, Joash is king now, and they do this publicly, so everybody knows Athaliah is being overthrown, and she's running around yelling, treason, treason, treason, well, they had enough of Athelia. So they didn't care that this was treason. And she ends up dying. And baby Joash, who's now little boy, Joash, he becomes the new king, with, of course, a regent helping him run the country. So you look at that six-year period when Athelaya was on the throne, well, David did not have have a man on the throne.

Starting point is 02:59:08 Right. There was an interruption in the line of Davidic monarchs, but it was just an interruption, and God later restored it. So, okay, we're in the Babylonian exile now, and that's 70 years long. Well, maybe after the Babylonian exile, God will send a new descendant of David to be our king. Well, kind of, maybe. at least there were prophecies pointing in that direction. Now, there are prophecies mentioned.

Starting point is 02:59:43 There are some messianic prophecies in the first five books of the Bible, like Genesis and numbers and things like that. The problem is they are not clear messianic prophecies in the literal sense of the text. You can't just read this and say, oh, this is clearly talking about the Messiah and everyone would agree with you. there are clear messianic prophecies in the prophets like Isaiah. In fact, before the Babylonian exile, Isaiah was prophecy. And one day there's going to be this great king of the line of David. He's going to be awesome. He's going to reign in a time of peace. There's going to be reconciliation with the

Starting point is 03:00:23 Gentiles who are now our enemies. But that's not going to be what this guy's reign is like. He's going to be better. And so, being a king, well, he's going to be anointed. But he's going to be better than all the other anointed ones. So he's not just a Messiah. He's the Messiah. And so this idea of a future Davidic monarch as one of the messias that God would send grew. But there were also other ideas about the Messiah. And I talk about them in the book. And what, like, some people thought there, in addition to a future king, who's going to be a descendant of David, there will also be a future priest because they were anointed too. And also some people thought there's going to be a Messiah that's from heaven, that's not a normal human.

Starting point is 03:01:26 There's a Messiah who's been hidden in heaven since creation with God, and he's going to show up one day. So there were all these multiple different ideas about the Messiah in the Jewish community, and they're supported by different texts. Some of those texts are in the Old Testament. Some of them are outside of the Old Testament. What I do in the book is I go through the different texts, and I show you the different ideas about the Jewish Messiah that were common at the time and where they're rooted in the texts. And I classify the texts differently.

Starting point is 03:02:00 I don't know if you've read other books like this one, but one of the things that I've found with basically every other book that I've seen, certainly the ones on the popular level, they just lump all messianic prophecy in together. And they'll say, oh, yeah, here's this prophecy from Genesis 3, and it's really about Jesus. And he fulfilled that, even though you read the text and it never even mentioned. a king, much less a descendant of David. This is not obviously on the surface about the Messiah. Now, you can say, oh, yeah, there is a messianic prophecy here, but it's in what theologians refer to as the spiritual sense of the text, not the literal sense. On the other hand, you read Isaiah 11, and it's, yeah, here's this king. He's in the future. He's from David. He's the boss. He's ideal. And that's a clear, like right there on the face of the text, messian.

Starting point is 03:02:56 prophecy. So you have these different levels. So if you've got the clear ones, the spiritual but not literal ones, ones that are kind of unclear in the middle, ones that are Jewish ideas, but not in scriptural texts. And so you've got these different categories. And what I do that I've never seen any other book, certainly no popular level book do, is I put them in the categories for you. And I say, here are the class one, messianic prophecies. These are the undisputable ones that are right there on the face of the text. Here are the class two, where it's a little more debatable. Here are the class threes, where it's in the spiritual sense of the text, but you wouldn't get it

Starting point is 03:03:41 just by reading the literal sense. And here are the class four, which are ideas about the Messiah from outside the Old Testament. And I show you which of these Jesus fulfilled and how. So what I'm trying to do is a more sophisticated argument for how Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy than just, here's all these claims and Jesus did them all. You know, I'm trying to be careful about what different people will recognize. So not everybody is going to recognize every single thing he fulfilled is being a clear fulfillment. So I'm trying to show what he fulfilled in a way. that is responsive to the individual person that you're working with.

Starting point is 03:04:27 So, like, they may say, okay, well, I'm a Jew, so I accept these Class 1 messianic prophecies, where it's right there on the face of the text, but I don't accept these things from outside the Old Testament. So you can partition those. Other people might be interested in a wider range of them. So that's one of the things I'm trying to do with the book. I then, after setting the stage by talking about the concept of a Messiah and how the concept evolved in Jewish circles, I then talk about what we know about Jesus from history. And here I take on Jesus mythicism, the idea, and this is a fringe view. Serious scholars do not entertain this for good reason, and I show you the reasons.

Starting point is 03:05:20 But, you know, the idea that, oh, Jesus is just a mythological figure like Horus or Odin or something like that. And I talk about six different ways Jesus could be related to history. And I talk about the evidence that we have that points to the New Testament being a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus. And then from talking about how we can trust the New Testament as a reliable historical source, I then move on to how did Jesus fulfill messianic prophecy? Well, one of the things he did was he fulfilled messian. He fulfilled prophecies about miracles because some of the ideas that that Jewish individuals had in this period was that the Messiah was going to be a wonder worker. And what texts are you basing this off of?

Starting point is 03:06:18 Extra Biblical texts? This one is, I mean, there is a text in Isaiah that is related to this theme. But in particular, there's a document. It's actually, it was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It doesn't mean it was written by their community because the Dead Sea Scrolls are a library. Well, you go to Jimmy Aiken's library. Jimmy Aiken didn't write all the books in the library. He doesn't even agree with all the books in his library.

Starting point is 03:06:47 And the same thing is true with the Dead Sea Scrolls. So we know there was this document. And I encountered it first some years ago. I mean, I'd seen references to it before, but it hadn't struck me the way it did. I went to an exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And they had these little paddles you'd stick up to your ear and you'd type in a number for the exhibit and then the paddle would read you the, you. the description of what it is you're looking at. So I'm looking at this one exhibit. I type in the number and it has this list of the dead are going to rise, the blind are going to see, the, you know,

Starting point is 03:07:32 lame are going to walk, and all these things are going to happen. The Messiah is going to do them all. And this is exactly what Jesus says in the Gospels. when John the Baptist sends the question, you know, are you the one we should be looking for? Is it someone else? And Jesus says, go back and tell John what you see. The blind are seeing, the lame are walking, the deaf are hearing. You know, this is all the same exact list of things. Whoa.

Starting point is 03:08:03 And it turns out this document that the Dead Sea Scrolls had is referred to now. It's called the Messianic Apocalypse because it's an apocalypse, meaning it's telling us about the future. and what the Messiah is going to do, hence messianic apocalypse. And it's also the basis for what Jesus' response to John the Baptist is, at least the tradition that's reflected in the messianic apocalypse is also reflected in the tradition of what Jesus's reply was. So we had the idea that the Messiah was going to be a wonder worker, and we have lots of reports of Jesus being a wonder worker.

Starting point is 03:08:45 Even skeptical scholars don't deny that, yeah, he went around and, you know, healed people and drove demons out of people. Now, being skeptics, they might say, well, these were psychosomatic healings. You know, they were psychological. Someone told a great healer just healed you, so, of course, you feel better. It's the placebo effect. Or, you know, a great exorcist just came and exercised you. So, you know, it's, again, it's the placebo effect. You shrugged off the symptoms you were manifesting of demonic possession, you know, and so forth.

Starting point is 03:09:21 So skeptics don't think they were real miracles. Yep. But they acknowledge, yeah, he was a wonder worker. He had this reputation for going around and doing these things. Well, the trouble is we can't directly settle those miracles because, unfortunately, my TARDIS is in the shop. So I can't just take you back to first and first. Palestine, and we can't witness Jesus doing these miracles and exorcisms and healings with our own eyes. We can't take, I mean, I am a paranormal investigator. I actually teach parapsychology.

Starting point is 03:09:58 And so I'm used to doing investigations of, you know, here's a, here's an unusual or paranormal event, something beyond the normal. How do you investigate, see, is it genuinely paranormal? or I know what the alternatives are and how we work through them. And if we could just get my TARDIS out of the shop and go back to first century Israel, I would know exactly how to investigate Jesus' miracles. We'd document them. We'd get cameras. We'd get testimony.

Starting point is 03:10:27 We'd use, you know, censored devices to measure things. It would be great. But unfortunately, we can't do that right now. So is there a way we can't. solve this impasse of did Jesus really perform the miracles that the Messiah was expected to do? Well, there's one miracle that's different. It's the resurrection because even though we can't go back and observe the resurrection, we do have very good evidence that it really did happen because what you do in a paranormal investigation,

Starting point is 03:11:11 you have a paranormal. Paranormal just means outside the normal. So, well, people don't normally resurrect, so a resurrection is outside. It's paranormal experience. So you have this paranormal experience that's been reported. And what you do when you do a paranormal investigation is you make a list of everything that could explain the experience report. And you start because normal experiences are more common than paranormal experiences. You start with the normal ones. So, okay, we have these early Christian claims, you know, about Jesus being resurrected and also ascended. But we have these early Christian claims. We can document the early Christians were claiming these things. What could explain them? And you make a list. And in the book,

Starting point is 03:11:58 I do this. Like maybe they went to the wrong tomb. And so the tomb was empty and they thought Jesus had been raised. Or maybe it was empty. They were. It was empty. They went to the right tomb, but the reason it was empty is Jesus just passed out on the cross. I mean, getting crucified is no fun. It encourages a lot of, you know, shock and trauma and blood loss. Maybe he swooned on the cross and then revived in the tomb and got out. Or maybe it wasn't Jesus at all. Maybe it was his twin, you know. And so they saw one person being crucified, but they saw another person walking around afterwards, and they thought he'd been resurrected. And so you can make a list of all these normal explanations for the resurrection reports, and you can work through them one at a time,

Starting point is 03:12:53 and they all fail. And you can show why they all fail. Like wrong tomb, just take the three I mentioned. Okay, so suppose they went to the wrong tomb. Now, that's very improbable to start with, because all four Gospels agree that the tomb was owned by a man named Joseph Verimithaea, who was a famous man. He was a member of the Jewish council, and he was a Christian. So a member, a famous member of their own movement, it was his tomb. And they'd seen where Jesus was buried. But even if they somehow went to the wrong tomb, it's Joseph's tomb.

Starting point is 03:13:34 Isn't he going to know when everyone's running around saying, hey, Jesus has been resurrected? It's like, really? I'm going to go look in my own tomb and see for myself. I want to see this empty tomb. Oh, here's this body and it's Jesus is, and it's right where we buried him. I better let my brother Christians know about this. And it wouldn't just be Joseph of Arimathea who would go to the tomb. It would be the Jewish authorities who were interested in suppressing Christianity. They would have like, hey, guys, the tomb brought bodies right here.

Starting point is 03:14:08 You know, so you can show, among other reasons, why the tomb will not explain, the empty tomb idea, will not explain all of the facts that or claims that the Christian resurrection reports make. So we need another explanation. So how about swoon theory? Well, one of the things that I've pointed out that has been strangely neglected. by other apologists is the early Christians didn't just claim that they, that Jesus had been resurrected and they saw him afterwards. They also claimed they saw him ascend into heaven. And this is important because it was why you couldn't just go to Jerusalem now and meet Jesus. I mean, if you're an early Christian, who wouldn't want to do that? So they, oh, okay, he ascended into

Starting point is 03:15:00 heaven and he's in heaven right now and he's going to come back one day and, okay, fine. That's the part of the early Christian story. Well, let's suppose Jesus swooned. So he got whipped, he got crucified, he has nails driven through him, he's got shock and trauma galore. I mean, he could open a shock and trauma emporium at this point. But even if he recovered from the shock and trauma in the tomb, he probably couldn't fly afterwards. So he couldn't ascend into heaven in front to the disciples. So that's not going to explain the claims either. How about twin? Well, if you're from the planet Krypton and you have an identical twin and among humans, the odds of having an identical twin are only one in 3,000, so it's very unlikely. And it's also remarkable when it

Starting point is 03:15:53 happens. People remark on it. So they would have known. I mean, let's suppose Jimmy Aiken had a twin and you knew it. Well, Jimmy Aiken, you then see him get crucified and he dies. And the next day, you see someone who looks just like him. What are you going to think? Jimmy Aiken has risen from the dead or, oh, hi, twin. Yeah, yeah. You know, so they wouldn't have been convinced. But even if they had somehow forgotten about Jesus's twin and misidentified the twin as him, the tomb ain't empty. so why doesn't Joseph or the Jewish authorities produce the body

Starting point is 03:16:38 and unless you're from Krypton and under a yellow sun your twin probably cannot fly and also have wounds in his hands and I'll have wounds and all that so there are multiple problems I've only given you a little taste of them here but the fundamental principle

Starting point is 03:16:54 is you make a list of all the natural alternatives and you work your way through them and if all of the normal alternatives fail, that leaves you with a paranormal alternative, like he really did rise from the dead. And so I show why all of the normal explanations for the resurrection reports fail, and thus why we actually have really good evidence that Jesus did rise from the dead. Now, the standard principle I use is if someone can do something, I can't, they are quite. qualified to tell me about how they did it. I mean, they may or may not be right, but they're the

Starting point is 03:17:35 qualified people of, I don't know. Um, like if someone can do a magic trick that I don't know how to do, well, they're the one who's qualified to tell me how they did it. I mean, I could speculate, but they're the one who's qualified to tell me. If a doctor can cure a disease that I don't know how to cure, the doctor is the one who's qualified to tell me how did they cure this disease. If someone can go hunting and capture a particular animal, and it's beyond my capabilities to capture that kind of animal, well, they're the one who's qualified to tell me how did you do it. Okay, I do not know how to come back from the dead. So if someone comes back from the dead, he's the one who's qualified to tell me how he did it. and if he says, I'm God's Messiah and he raised me by his divine power,

Starting point is 03:18:30 okay, that should be my default understanding unless I have some reason to contradict that, just like if a doctor tells me, here's how I cured the disease, or a magician says, here's how I did the trick, or a hunter says, here's how I caught the animal, my starting assumption should be what they tell me unless I get evidence that overcomes that. So my starting assumption with Jesus, since I can show he rose from the dead, should be, okay, he's the Messiah. He rose by God's power until such time as I might get evidence that would overcome that. I don't have evidence that overcomes that. So I'm comfortable saying he really

Starting point is 03:19:13 is the Messiah and he really rose from the dead by God's power. And that's what I talk about in my book. I start with what is a Messiah, what were the prophecies and understandings of the Messiah, what do we know about Jesus from history, and then what can we show about this particular miracle, the resurrection, and the implications that has for where we started, he really is the Messiah. Excellent. I'm sure different Jewish people even today have different ideas about what would fulfill the Messiah, but leaving. Actually, some of them are, this is not a lot. everybody, but some of it were really close. Like there was an Orthodox rabbi in the 20th century. He's passed on now. His name was Pinkus Lepid. And he believed in the resurrection of Jesus. He looked

Starting point is 03:20:02 at the evidence and said, yeah, the evidence is he rose from the dead. And he was willing to say Jesus is the Messiah for the Gentiles. And it's an open question whether he's the Messiah for the Jews also. So he was not a messianic Jew. There are Messianic Jews, including rabbis who say, yeah, I'm a rabbi and I'm a Jew, and I believe Jesus is the Messiah. Pinkus Lepid wasn't there, but he was almost there. He was opened, I mean, he's as far as saying, yep, he's the Messiah for you Gentiles. He might, we'll have to wait till the second coming to find out, he said. He might be the Messiah for us Jews too. Right. I've even

Starting point is 03:20:43 I've encountered Jews like Ben Shapiro who says, okay, even if you could prove he rose from the dead, it wouldn't convince me he's the Messiah. Here's what I want you to do. Yeah. And it's an unfair question because you don't know this person's background beliefs and knowledge. But could you just sum up maybe a three to five minute argument? What might you say to a Jew? You're on the train. You've got three minutes.

Starting point is 03:21:04 How would you make the case for why they should accept Christ as the Messiah? Yeah. Well, okay, I would say that there are, so there's two aspects to this question, as is common when you're dealing with interacting viewpoints. One aspect is what arguments for this position that Jesus is the Christ are there and what arguments are there against the idea that Jesus is the Christ? and that's something I always try to be conscious of. I never want to look at just one side. Like whenever I'm using AI to help with research, I always tell the AI argue for and against this position because I want to see the arguments on both sides.

Starting point is 03:21:54 Now, if I'm, so if I'm talking to a Jewish person, I would, first of all, want to do research. I mean, if I'm talking to Pinkas Lepid. Sure, that's very different. I'm not going to interact the same way as I'm going to interact with Tobias Singer, who is a... Well, let's pretend it's Tobias Singer. Okay. How might you give a...

Starting point is 03:22:15 Even though he will reject it, presumably. Yeah. What would your brief argument for Christ being... Well, so it's going to have two parts. The first part, now, I would do research to whom am I talking to? Because I need to understand their view. It's no, one of the mistakes a lot of apologists make is... is thinking, oh, I know what every Lutheran is going to say.

Starting point is 03:22:38 Yeah. And so I'm just going to spout off and hammer right in without asking this person, what do they think? I fully appreciate your nuanced approach. But in my thought experiment, you're not allowed to have any background knowledge and you just have to guess. Go. Well, one of the things, if I'm forced to go with background knowledge, one of the things I'm going to assume is like someone like Tovaya Singer is going to say Jesus didn't fulfill. all the Messianic prophecies. And that's going to be part of his case against Jesus being the Messiah. So I'm going to want to talk about that to deal with those arguments. And I would say a couple of things in general regarding those arguments.

Starting point is 03:23:20 First one is if you say Jesus didn't fulfill all of the Jewish prophecies, then you're asking for the impossible because there are, were so many different understandings of the Messiah in Second Temple Judaism and subsequently that no one person could fulfill them all. And so...

Starting point is 03:23:48 Why not? Why couldn't they fulfill them all? Are they contradictory claims? Yes, because they're contradictory claims. And some of them are highly specific. But what Jesus did do was fulfill a lot of the claims for a lot

Starting point is 03:24:04 of the different conceptions of the Messiah. Also, I mean, just because someone is a Jew and they understand the Messiah a certain way, who says that that's a correct understanding? You know, it's like we don't honor that with any other group, just because someone's a Christian and they propose an idea, that doesn't mean they're right about it. So you have to look a little more carefully. And Jesus does end up fulfilling in the Christian view.

Starting point is 03:24:34 a lot of the ideas that were proposed for different Jewish messias, like he is a son of David. And he's also the priest of the new covenant. So remember there was also an idea there could be a priestly Messiah? Well, the book of Hebrews argues that's Jesus. And remember there was the Messiah hidden in heaven with God from creation? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God, so Jesus is fulfilling multiple messianic expectations of different types of messias that different groups of Jews believed in.

Starting point is 03:25:14 Now, did he bring peace to all the nations all at once? No, he didn't. One of the ideas that was commonly associated with the Messiah was he's going to be this macho, kickbut military leader who's going to kick out the Romans and restore it. Israel to be in a political kingdom and he's going to conquer all of our enemies and humiliate them and stuff like that. Okay, that's the one kind of Messiah Jesus was determined not to be. Remember, he says, you know, my kingdom is not of this world.

Starting point is 03:25:54 If it was, I would have my disciples fight for me, but that's not what I'm into. He wasn't here to be that kind of Messiah, at least not on his first visit. Did he bring about any kind of peace, though? Yeah, despite a history of anti-Semitism breaking out in different places, he did bring about a new kind of spiritual peace between Jews and Gentiles where at least the good-willed ones can recognize we're both on team God. You know, we are both worshippers of God. And that leads to, there are other points I could make, like at the second coming, Jesus will institute a political shift in things.

Starting point is 03:26:47 It'll be, he just hasn't done that yet. But one of the key prophecies about the Messianic Age, and this is not just in Isaiah, this is also in Micah. So this is in more than one prophet, is that in the messianic age, knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth like the waters cover the seas. Now, you think back to Isaiah and Micah's Day, which was about 700 BC. And what was the earth like then in terms of knowledge of the Lord? Well, there were a few tens of thousands of people, maybe, maybe 100,000 people who were. worship the God of Abraham, and the rest of the world is worshiping pagan gods and has never even heard of the God of Abraham. Now, look at the world today. Half of the world population worships

Starting point is 03:27:45 the God of Abraham. That's Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Christians are a third of the world population. Muslims are a sixth, and there are a few million Jews who are neither, who are not. either Christian or Muslim, since Jew is an ethnic category, not just a religious category, can be understood more than one way. But half of the global population now worships the God of Abraham. The other half of the world population, have they heard of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and the God they worship? Yeah. So now half of the world population worships the God of Abraham. The other half has heard about the God of Abraham. So we are in a situation where knowledge of the Lord covers the earth like the waters cover the seas.

Starting point is 03:28:37 How did that happen? Were there any key events that led to that happening that you could propose our part of God's plan? Well, one of them was the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. and that, in fact, is the key pivotal event. If it hadn't been for Jesus of Nazareth, you wouldn't have Islam, you wouldn't have Christianity, you wouldn't have this breakout into the broader Gentile population. And we would have no reason to suppose it would be any different than it was in the ancient world, where a small number of people were worshippers of the God of Abraham, and that was basically it.

Starting point is 03:29:23 Well, when you see this dramatic fulfillment, it ought to raise questions in your mind about how did it happen and is this part of God's plan since God told us it was part of his plan that this would happen. Well, this is how it happened. So you need to think about the implications and that, I think, should generate open-mindedness on the part of a Jewish individual to maybe Jesus really was the Messiah and they'd want to look into the broader evidence for it like I have in my book. Very good.

Starting point is 03:29:57 Thank you. You were speaking earlier about how most of us, and I think social media brings this out in people, react from the gut. They react emotionally. They don't react with intelligence and thoughtfulness and nuance. And I think that's why, if I was to go on Twitter right now or X, which was the worst name change in the history of companies, I would think. I don't mind because it means I have to only have to type in one letter and then my browser will automatically take me there.

Starting point is 03:30:28 Well, that's one argument for it. But if I was to go online right now and I was to say, do Catholics and Jews worship the same God? Because Twitter is a garbage heap, I think a lot of Christians would say no. Okay, a lot of ignorant Christians. And if I said, do Christians and Muslims worship the same God, same thing? So what is your response? I'm of the opinion that the reason Christians want to say, I don't, you know, I don't wish it the same God as Muslims. I think it's a way to kind of emotionally state the differences that exist, which certainly exist.

Starting point is 03:31:07 But why should a Christian agree that Christians, Jews, and Muslims? See, this is interesting, but worship's an interesting word, right? There's a believe in the same God. But it sounds like you want to say Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the same God and all worship the same God. How do you make the case for both of those things? Okay. So the first thing is do they believe in the same God? Now, this gets into some fairly interesting philosophical waters, but I'm going to keep it terminologically simple just for clarity's sake. The first thing is, well, Christians, Muslims, and Jews all agree that there is a single creator deity who made the world.

Starting point is 03:32:00 And they believe different things about that deity, but they all acknowledge there is a single creator deity who made the world. And they believe that this creator deity also appeared to Abraham. Okay, so let's suppose you know nothing about God. You grew up in a part of the world where there are no Jews, no Muslims, no Christians, but you have the idea all on your own that there must be one God who, regardless of whatever other celestial beings there may be, there must be one God who made, is at the root of it all, who made everything, the ultimate creator, even if some contractor made your local mall and someone else made North America, let's say, there's got to be one intellect at the root of everything, one ultimate creator.

Starting point is 03:32:54 And let's say you're in trouble. Let's say you got cancer and you know it. And you're really concerned. And you know there's a creator who came up with the whole world. and you say, Lord, Creator, whoever you are, I need help.

Starting point is 03:33:22 I've got cancer and I'm scared and I don't want to, I want to be well. Please help me. Question for you, Matt. If you say that prayer, knowing nothing else about God, does God hear,

Starting point is 03:33:41 does he know you said that prayer? Yes. Yeah. Why? Why? Because he's omniscient. Yeah. And are you talking to him? Yes. Because I intend to talk to the baseline, base reality God. Yeah. Okay. So you're talking to him and you have less knowledge of this God than a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim.

Starting point is 03:34:04 So if Jews and Christians and Muslims have the same concept of the creator at the base of it all and the and the world and the, they're intending to talk to that creator, then they're going to be talking to him as well. Now, what if they have some ideas about him that are wrong? Okay, well, let's think about that, because that's usually where people go in this, is they'll say, oh, Muslims don't believe he's as merciful as he should be. They think he's too strict and not enough of a father and so forth. and they reject the Trinity. And, well, okay, Jews don't know about the Trinity either.

Starting point is 03:34:50 But, you know, by the way, with the unknown God, which is where I started, you know, where that's in Scripture, that's Acts 17, where St. Paul says, he's in Athens, and he says, I was walking around and I saw your altar to an unknown God. And they're not even thinking necessarily the Creator. just there is a God that we don't know about. And we want to worship him too. So they add an altar to an unknown God. And Paul says, what you worshipped in ignorance I'm here to tell you about. So you can worship God in St. Paul's view, not knowing anything about him, not even that he's a creator, just there's a deity that's different than all the ones. And that word worship is in Acts 7.

Starting point is 03:35:38 Yeah, it is there. So there's that. But then Jesus, in talking to the disciples, he says, you know, you believe in God, believe also in me. And he is helping them understand the concept of the Trinity. But they didn't have the concept of the Trinity before the time of Christ. There were some anticipatory ideas that are consistent with the Trinity, but the full revelation had not been made. And so Jesus thinks Jews before the time of Christ worshipped God, even though they didn't believe in the Trinity. So what if they exclude it by a positive act of will?

Starting point is 03:36:24 Well, okay, let's look at another situation. Here you and I are having this conversation. We're from different places. I am from the American South. You are from, let's say, New Zealand. Sure. Is that right? No, I'm from Australia. You're from Australia. Okay, well, let's suppose I was mistaken and thought you're from New Zealand.

Starting point is 03:36:49 And that's why you obviously have a wooden hanging of New Zealand right there on your wall. So I'm convinced that Matt Frad is from New Zealand. And I am wrong about that. Does that mean if I'm talking to you, Matt Frad, and I'm having this interview with you that, We are not really in conversation because Matt Frad is actually from Australia rather than New Zealand. It does not mean that. It does not mean that. So I can have a conversation and a relationship with someone and still not know things and be mistaken about things about that person.

Starting point is 03:37:29 So merely the fact that Jews and Muslims and Christians have different ideas about God and they can't all be right. doesn't mean that they are not talking to or believing in the same person. They may just have some mistaken beliefs. So how would you end up with a situation where they're genuinely not talking to God? Because there's got to be some limits here. That's right. You know, it's not like if I believed Matt Frad was not only from New Zealand, but that he's, you know, not you, the person.

Starting point is 03:38:08 I'm talking to. If I think Matt Frad is someone else who, um, who, you know, is a New Zealander that has brown hair and is only three feet tall and is not biologically male, but pretends to be, you know, it's just someone completely different. Well, there's got to be a limit. I'm not talking to the same Matt Frad then. I may be talking to you, but I'm, if I, if I, Anyway, there's got to be a limit here. So what's that limit? Well, this is where analytic philosophy comes in handy because what analytic philosophy does is it trains you to make distinctions. That's what the analysis in analytic philosophy is.

Starting point is 03:38:53 So if I'm talking to the creator of the universe and nothing else applies, you said I would be talking to God, right? Like in our first example. And like the example in Acts 17. Okay, what if I really hate Christians? And I want to talk to the Creator of the universe only on the condition he ain't the God of the Christians because I hate him so much. So it's like, Creator, please help me with my cancer unless you're the God of the Christians, in which case I don't want to hear from you at all. I'm not talking to you if that's who you are. Did I just talk to the creator of the universe, or did I include in my intention a condition that excluded the creator of the universe?

Starting point is 03:39:54 Because he's also the God of the Christians, and I didn't want to talk to the God of the Christians. Yeah. In that case, I didn't talk to the creator because I had an exclusionary condition that blocked me from... Now, God still knew about the prayer, but he also, because he's omniscient, but he also knew I was excluded talking to him if he's the God of the Christians. So that is the scenario that will really block someone from talking to or worshipping or believing in the same God. if you include a condition like, I want to talk to this person only on condition, they're not this. And that's the dominant factor in your intention. Then that shifts your intention to, I'm not talking to this person.

Starting point is 03:40:46 But as long as you're not doing that, as long as you're not put in a condition that dominates the will, then even if you're mistaken, you might think, oh, yeah, I want to talk to the creator of the, universe and I don't believe he's the God of the Christians, but I want to talk to the creator. Well, then the fact I'm mistaken about him being the God of the Christians doesn't block me from talking to him because I don't have an exclusive condition on my intention. Okay, that seems disanalogous to the analogy you gave me because if you think Matt Frad's out there, okay, you're not intentionally saying I'm willing to talk to you unless you're Matt Frad. So how is that the same? Because it seems to me that one's concept of God could be so perverted, then even if they're not intentionally saying what you just

Starting point is 03:41:33 said about the Christians, they could still not be... The situation, there's a disanalogy. So every analogy has its limits, and there is a disanalogy here in that you and I are physically proximate to each other having a conversation. But, and that generates some ambiguities. Like, let's suppose I didn't know about Matt Frad at all. I'd never heard of you. I'm just, I stumbled into this studio and somehow they let you in. Somehow got past security and I have to borrow you a lot of. Yeah. Oh, here's. Here's a,

Starting point is 03:42:09 here's another one. I always carry two in case one runs out. Um, so. Oh, I'll hear you. So I, um, stumble in here. And I, stumble in here. And I miss identify you. And think that I'm talking to Matt Frad's brother, Bocefus. Okay. So I think I'm talking to Bocephus, and it's good that I'm talking to you, Bocephus, because I really, in this scenario, I've changed it already. I do know about Matt Frad. Yeah.

Starting point is 03:42:44 But, you know, family resemblance. I think you're Bocephus instead of Matt. And so it's good that Matt didn't hear because I don't want to talk to him right now because I'm planning a surprise party for him, and we're going to have superhero t-shirts and everything. So was I talking to Matt Frad in this situation? Well, in one sense, yes, because you are physically Matt Frad. But in another sense, no, I was talking to your brother Bo Seifus. And so it, when you bring the physicality of conversations in, it complicates matters.

Starting point is 03:43:30 But if you then say fundamentally, who was I talking to? Well, you know, physically you were talking to Matt Fred because he's the only one that was here physically. But it was that your intention to talk to Matt Fred? No, I positively excluded from my intention the idea that it was Matt Frad because I didn't want to talk to him because this is a surprise party for Matt. Okay, same thing applies when it's not physical presence, but metaphysical presence. If I'm praying to the creator only on the condition he's not the God of the Christians, well, the creator metaphysically exists. Metaphysics just means beyond the physical. He's the only thing that exists. So in a sense, I am talking to him,

Starting point is 03:44:18 but I'm not intending to talk to him because he is the God of the Christians also, and I'm excluding that by my will. So there is an analogy here that can be built out. I'm just trying to keep things as simple as possible. Doesn't it say somewhere in the scripture that the gods of the other nations are demons? Yes, it does, but there is that, is a more ambiguous statement than you might realize, because the word demon has a complicated history

Starting point is 03:44:54 and has meant more than one thing. And it was actually in transition in this period. Now, the meaning that it eventually acquired was fallen angel. And so today, when people, at least theologically educated people, when they use it, who are Christian, when they use the term demon, they're referring to a fallen angel.

Starting point is 03:45:16 Yeah. But that is not the only way it's been used. And certainly, and I mean, even as recently as the 1930s, the term demon was often used for damned human souls. If you've ever read there, I did a two-part mysterious world on this. There's a booklet you'll, people will see out there called begone Satan. Yeah. Which is a, an account. Oh, yeah, I listened to this recently.

Starting point is 03:45:47 Yeah, the Erling Exorcism in Erling, Iowa in the, you know, early 20th century. Well, the intergument, that's a fancy term for the possessed person. In that case, reported being possessed not just by the demon Beelzebub, but also by three damned souls. Judas Iskariot, her father, and her biological father, and her father's mistress. And if you read Begone Satan, which was written in the early 20th century, it refers to not only Beelzebub as a demon, but also Judas and the father and the father's mistress as demons. So you've got a broader usage of the term demon. even in 20th century educated Catholic circles, that has an imprimatur on it.

Starting point is 03:46:48 Now, there are other reasons to question this book, as you find out in part two. There are serious reasons to question this account, but my point is the word demon has had a broader uses. And that was clearly the case in the Second Temple period when Jesus lived. the term daemon or demonion the new testament uses both in greek originally did not refer to a fallen angel it referred to a sort of lower level god um so you had the upper tier gods like the ultimate creator and then you had kind of intermediate gods these celestial beings that well they're more powerful than us but they're not the ultimate yeah and then they're like lower level celestial beings.

Starting point is 03:47:45 And saying that like when St. Paul says, well, you, you, if you're eating at an idol's temple, you're participating with demons, he doesn't necessarily mean you're participating with fallen angels. He may mean you're participating with mid-level deities that are not worthy of the top-level deity. But do these mid-level deities exist? Well, or is that not what he's saying? That they, that's a complicated question. There are other uses of the term demon that were common in this period. Yeah.

Starting point is 03:48:22 Like malevolent human souls. The idea that demons are, and there's a split. I've done an analysis of the vocabulary in the New Testament of the cluster of words surrounding demon, because you have parallel passages and you can look up, okay, here we have, this entity is referred to as a demon, and in this parallel passage, it's referred to as an unclean spirit, or it's referred to as an evil spirit. And so you can look for angel, and particularly fallen angel, and see, does that term ever get mapped onto the term demon via parallel passages? And the answer is no. In the fallen angel cluster and the demon cluster are two different clusters linguistically.

Starting point is 03:49:18 And when you read other Second Temple documents, they tend to use the term demon to mean either a malicious human ghost or a malicious hybrid. ghost that's a hybrid of human and angelic parents. These were the so-called Nephilim. And in Second Temple literature, like the book of Jubilees and the book of First Enic, that's who the, that's who the nephaleme are. They're the hybrid offspring of angels and humans. And the term demon is often used for them, not for their parents, the angels, not for their fathers. Or they're used for humans. And you ever notice, like with the Gatarin Demosoniac in Matthew and Mark or the garrisoned demoniac, where's that dude hanging out? In the graveyard? In the tombs. Yeah. There also are usage, and it's not clear there, but there are clear usages of the term demon to refer to a

Starting point is 03:50:26 essentially malicious human ghost that's causing problems. So exactly what this term means in different biblical passages is, now the devil does have angels. I mean, Jesus refers to, this is fire prepared for the devil and his angels. We're not doubting that there are fallen angels. But what exactly is meant by the term demon in these different passages has to be approached carefully because the answer is not obvious. And you can't just assume the modern usage of the term demon to apply to a text that was written when this term was in flight. Okay. And so, um, so there are bad spiritual entities that possess people. And some of them, no doubt may be fallen angels, but there may be some other options too. When Israel,

Starting point is 03:51:20 uh, well, that came out of Egypt and they built a golden calf and they said, you know, this is your God bowed down and worshiped. Were they worshiping the one true God? Possibly. Um, What they may have been doing there, you're going to lose a lot of people here. I can feel the reaction reverberating throughout the internet. Okay. Well, they say, I mean, what Aaron says is this is your God. And if you look at, you know, if you study this and you're not just going, if you're not just preaching from your gut. Yes.

Starting point is 03:51:58 But if you actually look into this, a lot of scholars of all different persuasion. including, you know, not just Catholics, conservative evangelical scholars, too, will acknowledge that this may be an illustration of bull imagery being used as iconic for Yahweh. So the idea would be what they're doing wrong here is they've made an idol of Yahweh. And they think, okay, Yahweh has taken up

Starting point is 03:52:33 his residence because the way idols worked, they weren't just statues. I mean, you first made a statue and then you had a ceremony that caused the God to take up residence in the statue. In the Egyptian context that they just come out of, this is called the opening of the mouth ceremony. So you like open the mouth figuratively. There's a special implement you used to do it. But you touch the mouth of the statue with the implement, which symbolically opens it. so the spirit or breath of the God can enter the statue, and that's the point at which it becomes a God, is once the spirit of the God is living in the statue. That's what makes an idol.

Starting point is 03:53:15 It's this ceremony that consecrates the idol to the God so that it becomes an extension of the God. And the true God, Yahweh, said, y'all ain't doing that for me, except they did, because it was what was normal in the culture and they wanted to do it. So they'd have a visible focus for their worship. And Moses has spent all this time up on the mountain. They think maybe he's dead and we're out here. We want God to protect us. So we want to worship him in the way we're used to. So we can ask him to protect us in this wasteland. We're out in the middle of. So Aaron, won't you please build us a visible focus for our worship? So, make us a statue of Yahweh and we'll invite the spirit of Yahweh into it and then we'll worship

Starting point is 03:54:08 that. Only Yahweh didn't want that. So he's not taken up residence in your golden calf statue. And but this explains why Aaron says, behold your God, oh Israel, because that's what they're thinking it is. Right. He's not saying behold the pagan god of the Egyptians. No, they didn't have they they had a variety of gods that. had, were associated with cow imagery. But scholars of different persuasions will acknowledge this is probably evidence that early Israelites sometimes used a bull imagery because bulls are strong as a symbol of the God of Israel.

Starting point is 03:54:48 And you'll notice it wasn't just in the Exodus. When the north secedes from the south, what do they build up in Samaria? they build another goat, not goat in this case, they build another bull statue to worship as Yahweh. So we've got some evidence that some early Israelites mistakenly used physical bull images as representations of Yahweh. It's just Yahweh wasn't on board with that and he wasn't going to show up when you try consecrating the statue to him. And I love what Moses did because Moses grinds up the statue after he makes them drink it, which means they're pooping out their God statue afterwards. Well, we have to begin to wrap up, unfortunately.

Starting point is 03:55:40 I could talk to you for another four hours, but I'd love you to tell people why they should check out the good work you're doing, especially we've alluded to it multiple times, Jimmy Aiken's Mysterious World. I continually, whenever we're on a road trip. Well, let's see what the latest Jimmy Aiken's Mysterious. world is. And just for those at home, you know, especially those with children, one of the reasons I think it's so excellent is you do a great job, but even when you're talking about sensitive topics, you'll first announce that you're doing that, which I appreciate as a parent, but then you also do it with clinical language. It's not even sensational, but it is often very gripping. So maybe you want to tell people more about that and whatever else you've been

Starting point is 03:56:16 working on. Yeah. So, um, so I got a bunch of different things. I'm actually, I was actually counting a while back and I was on like six different podcasts a week on a regular basis. It's slightly down from that now. I think I'm on one, two, three, four, I think I'm on five now. But, and some of them are religious, some of them aren't. The religious ones include Catholic Answers Live and one called the Jimmy Aiken podcast, because why make it hard for people to find your podcast? If they know my name, they can find my name. They can find my podcast, you just stick the word podcast on the end of my name. I also have some like pop culture podcasts, like I do one called Secrets of Star Trek, which is a review of Star Trek from a

Starting point is 03:57:04 Christian perspective. But the one I'm most famous for that's not religious is called Jimmy Aiken's mysterious world. And as the name suggests, it's, it focuses on mysteries. Now, these can be any kind of mystery. They can be true crime. They can be historical mysteries. They can be scientific mysteries. They can be religious mysteries. They can be paranormal mysteries. They can involve cryptids or hidden animals like Bigfoot. They can involve UFOs. They can involve psychic powers. Anything mysterious is fair game with a few restrictions. Like you said, I want the program to be family-friendly, so I always remain, and I don't want it to be clinical.

Starting point is 03:57:56 Like you listen, I mean, I don't want it to be scary. So I keep everything clinical. Like you listen to some podcasts and they use scary music and I don't do any of that. I, uh, when I need to, I will use clinical descriptions. And usually for anything of a sexual nature, I, I'll, I'll, I'll use surrogate terms, like I'll say reproductive behavior or something like that. And if I need to, or, you know, I'll say like if I'm talking about a true crime case, I'll say the Zodiac killer shot this person and they did not survive.

Starting point is 03:58:37 I don't go into the blow by blow of how it happened. And so I don't want it to be too scary either for children or for adult readers, listeners. if I do need to go into one of those areas, I always have a content warning and say, here's what we're going to do, but don't worry. I'm going to keep it clinical. And, you know, if you're a parent or something, you can listen to it and decide if it's appropriate for your family

Starting point is 03:59:03 because families are different and different kids are different. I mean, I was going over to one family that I know, um, who they had no problem. letting their kids see violence, but big problem letting their kids see anything of a sexual nature. But when it comes to violence,

Starting point is 03:59:31 this family's attitude was, hey, violence is part of the world. The world can be scary, and so kids need to, you know, not be so freaked out by it that, you know. And so I went over and the father greeted me at the door and said, hey, come on in. My wife's in the kitchen. cooking up a storm. The kids are in the TV room watching Psycho.

Starting point is 03:59:53 Gully. And, you know, you get started early enough and you're not going to be able to tolerate certain material that a lot of people would be totally freaked out by. In any event, different strokes for different folks. So I like to warn the audience what is coming. And this is a minority of episodes. Most episodes don't have content warnings.

Starting point is 04:00:17 It's only rare ones that do. Also, another thing that I do in this, so every episode we typically give a background on the mystery, like here's what's reported. These are just the experience reports. And then we look at the experience reports from two perspectives, the faith perspective and the reason perspective. We say, what would the faith tell us about this, if anything? Sometimes it tells us a lot. Sometimes it tells us not. Sometimes it tells us not. The faith may not have a teaching on the subject we're looking at. Like, you know, let's say the Zodiac killer. Okay, murder bad. The faith teaches that, but it doesn't teach us anything about who was the Zodiac killer. Then we look at it from the reason perspective. And my approach here is to try to be open-minded but use critical thinking. And unlike a lot of mystery shows where they just want to generate wonder and imagine, what if?

Starting point is 04:01:17 I want to solve the mysteries. And so I try to use reason to the extent we make a list. Here are the possibilities. We go through the list using open-minded critical thinking to try to narrow it down. Sometimes we narrow it down to here's the solution. Other times it's, well, we can't get down to one solution, but here's the range. And one of the things that I get messages, I did not originally expect this, but apparently a lot of families like the show and listen to it with their kids.

Starting point is 04:01:50 And one of the things they tell me they like about it is it teaches critical thinking. And they sometimes send along stories from their kids. Like one woman wrote that her kids were sitting around a table and they were trying to, they were arguing about something and debating it. And the four-year-old says, we need to think more like Jimmy Aiken. There was another, a father who wrote me and said, he was driving. his kids and they're in the back seat and they heard this big roar in the sky. It was actually a plane going over, but the kids didn't know that. And so they started making a list of what it

Starting point is 04:02:30 could be and working through their list. And they decided it wasn't an alien and it wasn't a robot, but it might have been an alien robot. And I thought, good for those kids, you know, may have differences in details, but they're trying the right procedures. Yeah. So that's what Jimmy Aiken's mysterious world is. Good stuff. Jim. And we've got between 100 and 200,000 listeners a week. Wow. Praise good. And, well, thank you very much for being on the show. We'll be sure to put links below to these things so people can check them out. Awesome. We don't usually forget. If we do, you can text me, yell at me, and I'll quickly get them up. But we're pretty good these days. Okay. Thanks for coming on the show.

Starting point is 04:03:14 pleasure anytime

Pints With Aquinas - Matt & Jimmy Talk About Everything! (Jimmy Akin) | Ep. 596

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.