Balance and Truth

TRANSCRIPT IS AUTO-GENERATED. FORGIVE ERRORS OR DEFECTIVE FORMATTING.

[00:00:00] Welcome to the Catholic experience. I am the Catholic adventurer, your humble host. This is recorded, believe it or not, Saturday, February 17th in the year of our Lord, 2024. Very happy that you’re joining me today. We’re talking about balance. Balance, balance the secret ingredient of truth. Some of you more astute listeners might be thinking, Wait a second, did he say it’s February 17th?

I thought this was supposed to be done on Sunday afternoon. Boy, the funniest thing happened to me. You’re not going to believe it. But before Before I get into that, excuse me, I’d like to open with a prayer Join me if you please in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit. Amen Lord Jesus Christ with your [00:01:00] most Holy Mother Send the Holy Spirit to be with me and to be with the audience That we may know and understand your truth wholly and fundamentally Elevate our minds Above and beyond their natural limitations so that we can truly absorb the light of truth.

We ask this of the Father in your holy name. Amen. St. Maximilian Colby, pray for us. St. Anthony of Padua, pray for us. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us. Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Come Holy Spirit. Funniest thing happened.

So, I am the hardest working man in all of podcasting. It’s true. Yesterday, Friday evening, I was supposed to do an [00:02:00] episode, a live episode on Twitter Spaces, X Spaces, sorry. Um, it was supposed to be episode two of the podcast Meditations. Something suddenly came up. said Marsha Brady, and I had to shift that an hour earlier.

Now, I don’t like to be caught off guard before a broadcast, so already that’s stressing me out. It was kind of a stressful day, there were stressful things happening in the house. 5. 30 I go on the air, and I’m a mess. I’m a mess. I felt like there was like a knot tied in my chest. I got a show out there, I got it out there, it was okay, but I was really dissatisfied with it because I, I was, I was a mental mess.

And I, I couldn’t, anyway, I couldn’t deliver the way I know that I, I can when I’m at my best. I [00:03:00] start today to edit the, the episode, the recording, to make it available on demand, and I’m really not liking it, so what do I do? I scrap it and I do the whole show over again. That’s available on demand right now.

The, uh, podcast, the, the, the, the podcast known as Meditations. It’s on, uh, iTunes and Spotify. Meditations. Now, I finished that today, literally just like two hours ago. And then, surprise, surprise, I’m supposed to do a show, this live show tomorrow, Sunday. At 2 p. m. something suddenly came up. Now I’m not going to be able to do it.

But I’ve been advertising this all week. You know, plugging it, tweeting about it, posting about it, whatever. I can’t not do this now. This already happened last week that something came up and I wasn’t able to do it. Which now that trend is really kind of ticking me off by the way. [00:04:00] I really should kind of yell and scream and stomp my feet about that after I’m off the air.

Anyway. So, I decided, after already doing a podcast, re redoing the Meditations podcast, editing it, publishing it, the whole nine, now I’m doing another podcast that I’m sort of prepared to do because this is a topic I know really, really, really, really, really, really well. So, you’re catching it live because I’m going to set it up to stream live at 2pm, as advertised, as promised.

But really, by the time you listen to this, I, it, by the time you listen to this, I will be somewhere else. I’m not, I’m not actually streaming live. I am streaming live, but I’m not the one live, only the show is live. Okay. Today, we’re talking about Balance. Now, balance is the secret ingredient of truth. And I have to tell you, every time I talk about this [00:05:00] in my broadcasting days, I did a broadcast on this.

I have given talks on this, two of them, in fact. Every time someone misinterprets what I’m saying. It’s unbelievable. And I will tell you why. Across the board, I was, well, I will say this. Maybe about, let’s say 90 percent of the time, I’ll tell you why they get it wrong. Because they don’t like what they’re hearing.

Because people have a mental infatuation with lies, but they won’t call it that. They’ll call it a truth that they want to believe in. And it’s a mental infatuation with believing what they want to believe, the way they want to believe it, it doesn’t matter what the facts say. And so, a talk or a lesson or a broadcast about balance removes the veil.

You know, it’s like Dorothy peeking behind the curtain and seeing that the Wizard of Oz is [00:06:00]just this crotchety old man. They don’t like someone looking behind the curtain. So they always misinterpret what I’m saying. 10 percent of them, I would say, of the people who have taken exception to things I have said when I talk about balance, about 10 percent of them really just misunderstand.

But I’ll tell you, 90 percent of them, they just don’t like what they’re hearing. Because what they’re hearing when they’re told about balance and truth, what they’re hearing indicts them. And if anyone thinks, well, Catholics love truth, I can tell you as a professional evangelizer and communicator, I can tell you that is not true.

Many Catholics love lies. And it’s not, and it has nothing to do with their faith. Do you know why it is? Do you know why many Catholics love lies or love something that’s less than truth? And that’s an important distinction. They love what is less than the truth. [00:07:00] Because it suits, it suits what they want to believe.

I’m calling it a lie because that’s really what it is. But they are not liars. They just want to believe something that is less than the truth. But what is less than the truth is a lie. If you didn’t hear my, uh, podcast from two weeks ago, it’s called What is Truth? I very strongly suggest you give that a listen.

So, do you know why even Catholics suffer from this? First, it’s because they are not trained to think differently, and that is not their fault. Second, it’s because we bring a lot of bad habits from the secular world into our faith experience, or our faith life. And this obsession with not wanting to, to give assent to truth, this comes from the secular world.

And it’s not just lay people who suffer from it. There are [00:08:00] people in the hierarchy who suffer from it too. I use the term suffer from lightly because that makes them sound like victims. And I’m not sure I’m ready to go there. So. As I go through this show, I’m going to try really hard to be clear about everything I’m saying, but I want you to really stretch your minds.

I want you to really stretch your minds and give me the benefit of the doubt. If it sounds like I’m saying something crazy, give me the benefit of the doubt and think maybe that’s not what he meant. What else might he have meant? Stretch your minds and make the connections if I, for some reason, which can happen if I fail to make the connections adequately.

And if you’re still really confused, man, I’m not far away. You can hit me up on Twitter or on X for the Queen Bee VM. You can mention me in a post or you can even DM me. I’m okay with that. [00:09:00]I love to answer questions. Folks, I’m not here for me. I was telling this to two separate people in two separate replies.

For two separate reasons. I was basically saying this. I, I don’t enjoy this. Is that clear? I don’t enjoy the twittering and the Facebook. I don’t enjoy it in the least. I’m only here for you. If anyone thinks I’m getting paid thousands of dollars a week to do this, I’m My friends, this costs me money to do.

I don’t get paid for it. I’m here for you. If you have questions, I want to answer them. If you have challenges, I want to meet them. But give me the benefit of the doubt. And understand that I’m here for you, and I’m here with good faith and good will. So, just keep that in mind as you listen to this, and if you do decide to drop a comment [00:10:00] or contact me.

Okay? I’m here in good faith and good will. Because I love you, and I care about you, and I, and I want to help you. I want to help sharpen you. I’m not here for me. I’m not here for fame and glory. I’m not here for any negative reasons. So keep that in mind, okay? When you, if you have to hit me up, even if you don’t like something that I said, that’s okay.

Hit me up. I don’t care. But keep it in mind that I’m here in good faith and goodwill. Okay, so don’t be nasty. Because whatever awful thing you think I said, I probably did not mean that. All right, let’s move on. Now, I did have a couple of plans for this show that I’m not going to be able to execute because now I don’t have time to do it.

That’s okay. What I’m going to do is, before major podcasts like this, I do a little article that I call Prelude to a Podcast. I did one for the, in advance of this episode. It was called Truth Without Balance is a Lie, a Prelude to a Podcast. And [00:11:00] what I’m going to do is I’m going to go through that. It’s a little essay.

I’m going to go through that. And I’m going to explain things that I’ve said in there. And I’m going to give you a couple of examples. At least one example I’m going to give you is a Catholic news article that demonstrates a profound lack of balance. But this is how they make their money, is by not being balanced.

So before we get into the action, I do want to remind you, um, to follow me at for the queen BVM and a couple of interesting things I want to share with you. These are, this is good news stuff. I’ve started, um, doing portal websites for my podcasts. And these are basically mobile friendly websites that give you instant access to my podcasts, plural.

Cause now I do two of them. And they’re really good because it gives you access to where you can get the shows. Right on various podcast carriers and you can just pick whichever one that you like to use [00:12:00] and also it’ll have like extra Resources check this episode’s description for more on that on with the show I’m basing this on what I’ve already written on my website truth without balance is a lie wherever you’re finding this You’ll probably see a link to this article there in the description, or if you’re on the portal page, you’re gonna see a button that’ll take you there.

Truth without balance is a lie. Prelude to a podcast. Except now, it is the podcast. Let’s get rolling. Balance is the secret ingredient in truth. You don’t, you don’t have truth. Without it, you don’t have truth, but what you have is a lie. Balance is not centrism. for listening. Let me say it again. Balance is not centrism, my friends.

Centrism is a position in between opposing sides of any truth. That’s what [00:13:00] centrism is. Centrism compromises a truth, thus manufacturing a lie that resembles truth. Let me give you an example.

Human life is sacred. But, sometimes abortion is necessary and should be permitted. This is now the talking point of modern conservatives, my friends. That is centrism. That is, is, is something that compromises the truth. Human life is sacred. But, dot, dot, dot, doesn’t matter what the but is. Once you have the word but in there, you’ve compromised the truth.

Whatever follows compromises the truth. Human life is sacred, but sometimes abortion is necessary and should be permitted. That is a lie. It’s a lie that compromises the truth. Abortion is always objectively wrong because it always ends an innocent human life. [00:14:00] Now, I said a moment ago balance is not centrism.

Let me explain that. Where balance differs from centrism is that while centrism Attempts to find synthesis between opposing sides. Balance reconstitutes the whole truth from its fragmented parts across ideas. So it’s basically a composite of true fragments on every side of an argument. Now, what do I mean by that?

This is very, very apparent, very, very easy to spot in secular politics. It may surprise you to hear that liberals have some things right. Well, no, they don’t. They have some truths in their philosophies, less and less of, they have fewer and fewer truths now than they did, say, 30, 40, 50 years ago. It’s kind of a new liberalism today.[00:15:00]

But liberalism has some truths. Political liberalism. Political conservatism has some truths. But neither side has the whole of it. You understand?

Balance reconstitutes the whole truth by taking some parts, let’s pick any issue, let’s say it’s, uh, human dignity. Well, liberals have some ideas that are pro human dignity, and they have many that are not, but that’s another story. They have some ideas that are pro human dignity, the dignity of work, right, the dignity of, um, They used to be the dignity of right to free speech, but they’re getting less and less about that now.

Liberals have some truths about human dignity. Conservative, secular conservatives have some truths about human dignity. [00:16:00] But they don’t have the entire truth. The best political idea is one that, first of all, one that reflects God completely. That’s number one. But the way we do that On a human plane, is we take some of what’s true from the liberals and some of what’s true on the same issue from the conservatives.

We put those together to reconstitute a fragmented truth. Now what we have is the whole truth, the real truth. I hope this is not sounding brainy. I’m going to give you like solid examples in a minute, okay? Just follow me. But hopefully it’s making sense already.

Now, what is this fragmentation of truth and what is this pieces of truth and true composites and all of this? This is again why I encourage you to listen to the episode titled, What is Truth? Because I explain a lot of this in there. In that [00:17:00] episode, I give you my definition of truth, which goes like this.

Truth is truth. Whole, it’s anything that is, by thing I mean a material thing, an idea, anything, anything that exists in reality is a truth. Truth is that which is whole, complete, and exists in a state that’s in accord with its intrinsic nature. I’ll give you this example, I think this is the example I used in that show actually, a pencil.

A pencil, it has its eraser, it’s, I don’t know, 7 inches long, and it’s sharpened, it’s got a point that is not broken. It is whole. It is complete. And it exists in a state that’s in accord with its intrinsic nature or purpose. What’s the intrinsic nature or purpose of a pencil? It’s not to stab somebody in the eye.

Although it can do that, it’s intrinsic nature of purpose is to write. And it is, it exists in a state where it’s able to do that, to, [00:18:00] to fulfill its function. Right? The pencil is a truth. It exists in truth. If we break the pencil in half, it is no longer whole. And each Each piece is no longer complete.

It’s missing something. The eraser half is missing the point. The point half is missing the eraser. You might also say the point half now is too short and an adult hand is not really, you can make marks with it, but you’re not really able to write the way that you write. It might look more sloppy or whatever.

Each piece is missing something. It’s no longer whole. And it’s no longer complete. And therefore it does no longer, it no longer exists in accord with its nature. It cannot fulfill its function. It’s no longer, it no longer exists in truth. Another example, a car.[00:19:00]

You buy a car right off the showroom floor. It’s in perfect working order, perfect condition. It exists in truth. If you remove one spark plug, That car does no, no longer exists in truth. It’s no, it technically it is no longer a car. Why? Because by removing the spark plug, the engine doesn’t work. And the car whose intrinsic nature or purpose is to take you from place to place, the car can no longer fulfill its function.

It no longer exists in truth. It’s technically no longer a car. And all you did was you removed one spark plug.

It’s no longer, I mean, you could say it’s whole, you can say the car is whole, but it’s not complete and it no longer exists in a state that’s in accord with its nature. Now, you put the spark plug back in. You [00:20:00] remove all of the windows and the windshield. Does the car still exist in truth? Yes, it does, because the windows and the windshield are not necessary in order for the engine to run, the transmission to function.

And for the car to get you from place to place. You might say, well, but it’s no longer whole. It’s missing something. But what it’s missing is not something essential to its nature. It’s not something necessary in order for the car to do what a car does. The windows. You understand? Put the windows back.

Take off the doors. Same thing. The car will still get you from place to place. Put the doors back. Take off one wheel. The car no longer exists in truth. It cannot bring you from place to place. It, it’s no longer a truth. You understand? The wholeness of truth. The completeness of truth. How it must exist [00:21:00] in a, in a, in a chord with its intrinsic nature or purpose.

Now where does this all come from? This comes from God. This starts with God. Reality starts with God. Let me go back to my little essay here. God is truth itself. He is the whole truth. Human beings, made in His image, naturally aspire to truth. So, because we’re made in His image and likeness, we naturally aspire to truth.

We want it. We desire it, right? We pursue truth in the hopes of finding it and applying it to our lives. But because we are fallen, Get this, folks. We tend to approach and apply truth imperfectly. Because we’re fallen, we kind of suck at seeking out, [00:22:00] finding, identifying, and applying truth. You get it? The result, then, is that different parties, or individuals, or segments of the human order will have portions of truth mingled With ideas that are false.

They wind up with portions of truth mingled with ideas that are false. They wind up with the Frankenstein, basically. Life is sacred, but abortion is sometimes necessary. Drugs are bad, but I think everybody should be able to smoke pot. I don’t know where you guys stand on that, and I kind of don’t care. I kind of don’t care.

I think that, that is contributing to the downfall of this country. The legalization of pot. It’s, it’s everywhere. It’s, I don’t, I, anyway, moving on. That’s most apparent in politics. So this idea that [00:23:00] we kind of seek out the truth, right? But we only wind up with some of it and then we mix it. It’s, it’s like that broken pencil.

The pencil’s missing a point, so you glue, uh, the bottom half of a pen to it. It’s a truth mixed with a lie. Okay, you see that a lot in politics. So let’s look to that. Let’s look to political philosophies and apply this to how politics plays out in the secular world. You ready for this? Let’s look at conservatives and liberals.

Now, liberals and conservatives each have portions of the truth. And folks, this is just true. I mean, it is just true. It’s becoming less true. Look, the liberals have changed a lot over, let’s just say, 50 years. And the conservatives have changed a little over the past 20. They haven’t gone off the cliff yet, but you give it another decade.[00:24:00]

You give it another decade. The conservative parties in 10 years are going to be more disfigured than they are today, much more. Where it took the liberals 50 years to get from where they were to where they are. Hmm. 20, 30. It might take conservatives 30 years. That’s what I think. So it’s happening across the board.

Anyway, sorry for that breakout there. Liberals and conservatives each have portions of truth. Neither side possesses the whole of it. My friends, neither side possesses the whole of truth. Truth. I don’t care about opinions. We’re talking about truth. That which is. The driving force of all reality. Truth.

Not opinions that everybody shares. Truth. Hmm?

So, here’s an example. Should we care for [00:25:00] people from cradle to the grave? Or should individuals Or rather, should individuals be empowered to command their own destinies? Now those are two opposing ideas, right? Should we care for people from cradle to grave? That’s a liberal idea. Should individuals be empowered to command their own destinies?

Small government, get off my back, leave me to be, leave me to do what I do. Leave me to command my own destiny, leave me alone. That’s conservative, right? Which is more how I feel. So which one is right? Well, the answer is they’re both right. They’re both right. But two truths cannot coexist. It’s impossible.

So while they’re both right, they can’t both be true. It’s impossible, folks. It is impossible for two truths to coexist. It does not happen.

Should we care for people from cradle to the grave? Yes. Should individuals be empowered to command their own destinies? Yes. Well, how [00:26:00] is it possible for those both to be true? Well, they’re not true. They’re just correct. What’s the difference? They’re both lacking something. Both of those ideas are lacking something.

They’re technically not truths. That’s why they can coexist. They’re technically not truths. So they are both correct, but they are both lacking. Each side of that argument gets it wrong somewhere. You Liberals want government to be the master of the individual. That’s their care from cradle to grave.

Right? And they compromise human dignity in the process.

Out of control social assistance programs demonstrate that reality. Right? It happens all the time. There are generations, there’s at least two generations of people who have always been taken care of by the government. I would say two, but there’s definitely for sure at least one. One generation of [00:27:00] people.

Where their whole lives, they’ve had government handouts. They don’t know what it is to work. They don’t know what it means to have personal responsibility for your finances and so on and so on.

And that’s just unheard of, right, in our history. Out of control social assistance programs. We take care of people to such a degree that we actually degrade their humanity. Because there’s dignity in work. When we enable people to never work again, to never have to work again, we degrade their dignity. Or we assault their dignity, because you can’t really degrade it.

So, should we take care of people from cradle to grave? Yes, but the way they do it, they get it wrong. Now, conservatives, on the other hand, favor an inordinate emphasis on individual power. [00:28:00]Failing to recognize that sometimes individuals are disempowered by misfortune or circumstances or other obstacles.

What do I mean by that? I don’t remember if this was a joke or a legend or what that I heard. This is back in high school. But, if the founding fathers, if you went to the founding fathers and said, I’m homeless, they would have handed you an axe and pointed you to the nearest forest. In other words, okay, go and build a house.

Here’s an axe. That’s kind of where my philosophy is. You know, you have to, you have to fight and survive. But the truth is, some people are disempowered by misfortune, by circumstances, or other obstacles. Some people Are either deprived of power or they are lacking in the power necessary to command their own [00:29:00] destinies.

And so, people in those situations need help from a source that possesses the power they are lacking. Social assistance programs, for instance, just for one example, right? Help to buy food, help to pay your bills, help to pay your rent. Or, I don’t know, education programs that are free, I don’t know, whatever.

Sometimes people need that. We can’t just say, here’s an axe, go and build a house. Listen, if you gave me an axe and told me to build a house, I’d just bury the axe in my head. I don’t know how to build a house. Are you nuts? Some people just need help.

So conservatives favor an inordinate emphasis on individual power, failing to recognize that sometimes individuals are just disempowered and they need [00:30:00] help. Sometimes that help comes in the form of the government, or other charitable organizations, or the community, right? I think it’s fair and reasonable that that assistance, in most cases, should be temporary, in most cases, but in some cases, maybe it needs to be permanent.

Depends on the individual case. You know, but sometimes the people are disempowered and they need help from a source with more power than they have. Sometimes it is the government, sometimes it’s the community. Liberals tend to overemphasize, let me pause there. So, in these two examples, caring from cradle to grave or individual empowerment, well, they’re both correct but neither one of them are true because the liberal way of caring from cradle to grave Disempowers persons.

The conservative [00:31:00] way of empowering people fails to recognize that some people don’t have the power that they need to command their destinies. You understand? Both of those philosophies lack balance because they only have a portion of truth and truth must be whole and complete. Having a portion of it.

Doesn’t get you there.

Back to my essay. I’m getting a lot of air time today, boy. Man, oh man. Liberals tend to overemphasize mercy. True. That’s just true. Conservatives tend to overemphasize justice. That is also true. Liberals are all heart, sometimes to a fault. I say this a lot. Liberals are all heart, sometimes to a fault.

[00:32:00] Conservatives are all head. They’re very intellectual, sometimes to a fault. To establish the whole truth, fragments of the whole truth, which are found on both sides of any argument, fragments of that truth must be reconstituted in order to establish the whole and real truth. So liberals overemphasize mercy, right?

They just want to help everybody. They don’t care if they’ve earned it, deserved it. They don’t care if they’re being abusive of the, of the help that they’re getting. They don’t care. They just want to throw help at everybody. I, I’ve made this joke a lot and it’s only half a joke because I think it’s half serious.

If the modern liberal party line ever became squirrels should have human rights, Bruce Springsteen would write a song about it. Bruce Springsteen, who is just a regular, blue collar, working class Democrat in the 60s, [00:33:00] 70s, and 80s, and this is just emblematic of all of them, all of the liberals of his generation.

Today, he is so radical because he just trucks right along with the Democratic Party line. I, I don’t know why, can, can you not think critically, Bruce? I’m a huge fan, but can’t you think critically, can’t you realize that so much in that party line is just so stupid? If the party line today became, squirrels deserve human rights, should have human rights, he would write a song about it, he would play at a fundraiser for that cause.

Liberals are all heart, they really are, sometimes to a fault. They care. They’re good at caring. They really are. They really are. They’re very, they’re very kind of compassionate, kind of tender, but often it’s to a fault. That doesn’t, that doesn’t mean that’s the whole of their philosophy. I mean, the liberals support abortion.

How tender and [00:34:00] merciful is that, right? It’s not the whole of their philosophy. But the liberal parties, it’s not just the Democrats, the liberal parties That, that is something that’s in, that’s woven into their philosophy. Mercy, mercy, mercy. But it’s mercy overboard. Conservatives are the other way around.

Justice, justice, justice, justice. Throw him in jail for a hundred years. Justice, justice, justice, justice. I don’t know about that, champ. Throw him in jail for a hundred years. Hey, criminals should pay for their crimes. But do you want to put somebody in jail for, let’s say, 20 years? For something that’s fairly minor.

Do you really, do we really want to take 20 years away from someone’s life? I’ve known people who’ve gone through the justice system. And they all deserved to do time. But most of them, one of them is a business owner today. And he really turned himself around. [00:35:00] But most of them were really harmed by their sentences.

Because they were never able to find their legs once they got out. They were never able to find their legs. They’d lost a lot of time, they’d lost a lot of connections, they weren’t able to, they’d trained, they’d gone, you know, they, because there are education programs, training programs that will teach you trade and stuff like that.

And they had done things like that, but they couldn’t get work because now they’ve got a record. I get it. Hey, I’m on board. Criminals need to pay for their crimes. But we’re talking about human persons. And the way the justice system is today, I, I feel like we’re really, really screwing human persons over with some of these sentences, with some of the treatment, you know, maybe, maybe the prison system should not be what it is.

I’m not saying it should be a country club. I [00:36:00] don’t know what it should be. This is not a field of research for me. I just think there’s something wrong with the justice system. There’s a lot wrong with the justice system. Which is why recidivism is so high. You know? There are going to be some people saying, Oh, the justice system is too lenient.

I don’t know, maybe sometimes it is. Maybe sometimes it is. I’m with that. I’ve heard of sentences where I’m like, What? He only got five years? For what he did? Are you joking? I get that. I get that. But the other extreme is also true. You know? So conservatives rule about justice, justice, justice. Well, I’m on board with that.

But sometimes it’s too far. Liberals are all heart. To a fault. Conservatives are all head. Intellectual. Nope. They did this. They should pay. Sometimes to a fault. We’re talking about, in case you, in case you missed it, we’re talking about [00:37:00] secular liberals and conservatives. Secular. Secular. Okay? You see where balance comes into play here?

Let’s take the justice system and I’m just literally, I’m just now doing this. I haven’t really thought this through, so I’m not going to have a lot of specificity to give you, but let’s take the justice system. Let’s say some sentences are too, too severe. That’s kind of a liberal thing, but maybe that’s, maybe that’s true.

Maybe that’s a truth, not just true, but a truth. Well, let’s take a piece of that, right? Some sentences are too severe. And let’s say. Some sentences are not long enough and, and the sentence does not fit the crime. You know, second degree murder and you get five years for instance, I, I, I don’t know. Maybe don’t lock them up in a prison cell for five years.

Maybe make them do something else for ten or [00:38:00] twenty years. Something other than just sit in a cell. Something that actually corrects them. You know, when, when I have to correct my children, I’m very careful. I’m mindful of this. The punishment I, I dish out reverses the virtue that they have violated. Right?

Let’s say, um, someone was rude to somebody at school. I mean, like, really rude. I don’t know what, what kind of rude. Just rude. So the punishment would be you have to do something kind for them tomorrow. Share, I don’t know, give them a piece of your candy, I don’t know, and do something kind for them.

Compliment them the next day. So the punishments that I dish out reverse the violation of the virtue that was broken. You understand? Sometimes it’s hard to do, but you, you, usually you can do it that way. Okay, what was this, [00:39:00] what was this vice? Did I say vice before when I meant virtue? What was this vice?

What virtue did it violate? What action can we do to send it back in the right direction? Maybe that’s something we should be doing. And the liberals would say, You can’t make somebody do X and Y and Z just because they committed murder. All heart to a fault. And from the conservative point of view, justice, justice, Well, yes we can.

Yes we can. Because this guy is going to come out of jail in ten years. Not five. It’s going to be ten. He’s not going to sit in a prison cell. You know? Or spend time in the yard. He’s going to, I don’t know, work on a farm. I don’t know. Raise chickens. I, I have no idea. But he’s going to do this. They’ll call it slave labor.

Well, that’s just tough. It’s not slave labor. And if you look at it that way, that’s your problem. So, we take a little bit from the conservatives, a little bit from the liberals, and we [00:40:00] completely overhaul the justice system to something that better reflects the nature and character of God. Because, folks, truth Is the nature and character, not even character, it’s who he is.

He is truth. All truth reflects God. All truth reflects God. Truth is goodness, like, every truth is a good. And every good, one of the definitions of good that I dish out, which I’m going to do a show on goodness also, just not yet. One of the definitions of goodness, how, what is good and how do you know? One of the characteristics of goodness is it reflects a characteristic of the divine.

It’s, I don’t know, it’s creative, it’s procreative, it supports life, it, uh, I don’t know. I’ll do that in another show. The point is, all truth, because all truth is good, all [00:41:00] truth points back to the reality of who God is. And the justice system right now does not. Leave it up to the liberals, everybody’s getting out of jail.

Leave it up to conservatives, everybody will rot in prison. I’m going extreme here, I get it. I’m only going extreme to make a very clear example. That is a fragmented truth. The real truth is a little bit of what, a little bit of the liberal approach and a little bit of the conservative approach. That’s the, that’s the real truth.

Or it’s at the very least closer to the real truth. Much closer.

Now, I want to get into this, into the subject of balance and what it is. And is not. Every time I talk about this, someone thinks I’m talking about compromise. Or centrism. The reason why centrism [00:42:00] was in this essay and therefore in this podcast is because people throw this allegation, this charge at me all the time.

That you’re a centrist. No I’m not. I’m really not a centrist. Balance is not centrism. And balance is not compromise. I’ve already stated balance starts balance. with God. I might be jumping the gun a little bit, but let me say this. God is not balanced. God simply is. Balance is human. It is not divine.

Balance is something we do in order to, I guess, achieve or establish something that more closely resembles God himself. Balance is what we do, taking segments of where truth is found here, segments of where truth is found there, we put them together, now we have the whole truth. Balance is [00:43:00] not something God does.

Balance is something we do to be more like God. God doesn’t do a balancing act. We have to do that. Let’s go to the essay. This essay, by the way, is brilliantly written and the writer should just get a raise. He should get a 500 percent raise. If it is a he, I don’t know. Might be a she, I don’t know. It’s not named.

I don’t know, but brilliant, brilliant writer. Really, really, really good writer. Balance is human, not divine. There is no balance in an individual truth. Truth itself is not balanced. Let me make that clear. Truth is not balanced. It simply is.

You’ll understand what I mean by that as I progress, as I proceed. We, humans, who are imperfect, we require balance in order to find the [00:44:00] truth. We require it in order to find the truth. God is the whole truth. He’s already truth. He doesn’t need balance. So he isn’t balanced. He simply is. He is the whole truth.

We, who are imperfect in our pursuit and application of truth, we require balance. Let’s get that straight. I’ll say it again. Balance is human, not divine. Balance has nothing to do with God. Balance is how we imitate what God already is. Balance is how we imitate what God already is in His nature. It’s something that we do, rather than something that God is.

It’s something that we do, rather than something that God is. So make no mistake, there is no balance necessary. This is why I’m saying this. There is no balance necessary when making a truth claim. For instance, [00:45:00] and this is something that people have gotten wrong. Probably my fault. Maybe I wasn’t being clear enough in the past.

There is no need for balance when making a truth claim. Abortion is wrong. But, you know, sometimes it is. No, no, no, no. There’s no balance necessary. You got it right. You got it right. Just stop talking. Right? God is. But I understand some people. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You got it right. Stop talking. There is no balance now.

In other words, some people want to apply some kind of charity to truth. Now, charity is important when trying to teach the truth. Charity is important when trying to teach the truth. Not to the extent where the truth becomes violated. That’s another story though. But when just making a truth claim There is no balance [00:46:00] necessary.

Now what do I mean by that?

If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to hell. Now I don’t know how much experience you guys have in evangelization, but I’m telling you, if that’s how you’re starting your conversation, your conversation is going nowhere. You probably pushed that person further away from God and further away from the church than they were five seconds before you spoke to them.

Is it true? Is it true? If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to hell. That claim, it, it, oh boy, I opened a, I opened a real can there by, by, by Saying that, now technically this is, this is on demand. I’m recording this. I could be dishonest and stop the recording and go back and just delete that and then continue.

But no, no, I’ll accept my own challenge.

If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to hell. That is actually, [00:47:00] that actually does require balance. Because, because it is a truth claim that is not whole and therefore it is not true. Hear me out. It’s a truth claim that is not whole and therefore it is not the truth. What do I mean by that?

All things being equal, it is a truth. However, it fails to take into consideration the person’s culpability. Why they’re in it, why they’re not in a state of grace. It fails to consider, does the person know right from wrong? Do they have the ability to choose? And how do we know if they are or are not in a state of grace?

You know, if someone has, does not have, if someone has, for instance, a diminished ability to choose right from wrong, they could do wrong and not be culpable for any of it and still be in a state of grace. Because that ain’t up to you. That’s up to God.[00:48:00]

If we’re talking to a Catholic who knows better, right? A Catholic who knows right from wrong. They know to choose. They’ve been educated in the faith and all that stuff. That statement is true. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will go to hell. That statement is true for them. Because all things being equal, it applies perfectly to them.

But it may not apply to everybody. We don’t know. What someone’s circumstances are, what they choose, why they choose it, whether or not they know, whether or not they’re culpable, how culpable they are, and so on and so on. So that statement might require some retouching. If you’re talking, for instance, to a Protestant, who’s a very good Protestant, and they’re mainline Protestants, and they’re at church every Sunday, and they volunteer, and they’re like model Christians.

But they miss Mass each and every Sunday. Because they’re Protestants. If you die in a state of mortal sin, you will [00:49:00] go to hell. Well, it is true, theologically it is true, but is it true for them? Is it true for them? It becomes a little complicated now, right? Maybe it is true for them, maybe it is not.

That’s a completely different conversation. But, because that statement, because that statement lacks the traction necessary to apply to that unique person, It may require balance. It may require balance. It may require balance. And it may not. It depends on who you’re saying it to. And, you know, what the scenario is.

Now, let’s talk about a truth claim that does not require balance. Now I have to think one up real quick. Truth claim. Because abortion is wrong. That’s kind of easy, right? That’s an easy one. I want something a little more challenging. Um, marriage is [00:50:00] between a man and a woman. That’s That’s a truth claim.

There’s no balance necessary because it’s just true. Water is wet. That’s just true. Water is sometimes wet. No, no, no, no. Water is wet. It really is. Even if it’s ice, it’s wet. Even if it’s vapor, it’s wet. It’s just a different kind of wet. Right? Truth claims. Truth claims. And there’s a difference between claims and statements, by the way.

If you die in a state of mortal sin, you’re going to hell. That’s a statement. That’s not actually a claim. Another, another conversation. Truth claims do not require balance, because they just are. They just are. Marriage is between man and woman. That’s just true. Water is wet. That’s just true. Fire is hot.

That’s just true. Right? There’s no balance necessary when making a truth claim. If you’re standing up for the faith, Like, let’s say, for instance, you say, nah, I can’t vote for [00:51:00] this candidate, um, because they have a very liberal position on abortion and abortion is wrong. Now, you might have a more charitable way of saying that.

I don’t know. I think that was pretty charitable, what I just said. I think that was pretty charitable. It’s not like you’re slamming them over the face with it, right? You’re just making a truth claim. There’s no balance necessary there, right? When making a truth claim, there’s no balance necessary. Because a truth claim comes from where?

God. Are you going to one up God? You’re going to do something better than God’s own nature? When you’re making a truth claim, a truth claim, when you’re making a truth claim, you’re basically manifesting the nature of God. That’s basically what you’re doing. There’s no balance necessary because you already have it right.

Balance is human, not divine.[00:52:00]

Jesus is Lord. That’s a truth claim that does not need balance. Jesus is Lord for some people. Uh, uh, uh, uh. Okay, you understand that part, right? Balance arrives, balance arrives at truth by pulling together true fragments. In other words, fragments of actual truth. Pulling together true fragments from each side in order to establish the whole truth of any argument.

Balance, this is important, balance. Doesn’t reconfigure nice ideas from each side. Balance does not reconfigure nice ideas from each side, but fragments that are objectively true. Well, this is a nice idea from the liberals. This is a nice idea from the conservatives. This is a nice idea from the Green Party.

I don’t know, whatever. Well, no, now you just have, now you’ve just collected a handful of lies from each of these parties, and none of them happen to be [00:53:00] true. That’s not balance, because balance reconstitutes truth fragments, fragments of truth, not fragments of nice ideas, which may be true and may not be truths.

You follow?

So that’s balance. Now balance comes in all shapes and sizes, and its absence comes in all shapes and sizes too.

I’m going to use this one example. Jordan Peterson slams Pope Francis fixation on climate change.

This is from LifeSite News. I have to tell you, and I’m sure some of you read LifeSite News, and I feel very sorry for you because I hate them. I hate, I hate LifeSite News. The other day, I was in the bathroom and I ran out of toilet paper. And I shouted to my kids, [00:54:00] we’re out of toilet paper. My God, my God, quick, print out something from LifeSite News and slide the print out under the door.

I And then I used that to finish my business. Lifesite news is that bad. And I say that as somebody who read them for, and I read them like daily for maybe a year or two before I started smelling something foul because they started swaying more and more out of balance, which I always saw. They were a little bit out of balance, but they weren’t that bad, but they got worse and worse and worse and worse.

If you read Lifesite news, please save your soul and stop reading it. Please stop reading it. It’s, it is the worst. It is the worst. I have to tell you, you know who’s actually not even as bad as Lifesite News, but is still pretty bad? America Magazine. America Magazine is also sufficient for toilet paper, but, but, they get closer to the mark of [00:55:00] truth and balance, not, they don’t, they don’t nail it, but they get closer to the mark of truth and balance than Lifesite News does.

It’s, I know, I know how that must sound to you, but I’m telling you it’s the truth. Just a quick reminder, if you’re not subscribing or rather signed up for my newsletter, please consider it. It’s dead easy, it’s free, and it really helps me because the social networks are really killing this apostolate.

But as long as I’m able to get the word out to people interested in what I’m doing, that’s why that newsletter is so important. So, I encourage you to sign up for my newsletter. And if you’re feeling really generous, because the newsletter is free, if you feel like spending five whole dollars a month, now I know that’s a lot of money for Catholics, but if you pretend for just a moment that you’re Protestants, and you feel like subscribing to my website for five dollars a month, [00:56:00] That’s the number five.

Not five hundred, not fifty. Five dollars a month. Pretend that you’re Protestants and consider it. Go to catholicadventure. com slash my dash plans. You know what I’ll also do? I’ll put that link in my bio. So that when you click on the link in my bio, You scroll down the page that brings you to, I’ll submit this, I’ll put this link up there as well, or type it in manually, catholicadventurer.

com slash my dash plans, the dumbest URL ever. And you can, you can start your journey that way. And you can sign up to become a subscriber for 5 a month. What do you get for your subscription? Not a whole lot. And what are you paying for your subscription? Not a whole lot. I do, I do provide some articles that are subscriber only, some podcasts that are subscriber only.

I’m looking right now at four things right in front of my face that you can only, [00:57:00] on my website, that you can only get as a subscriber. Um, aftershows to podcasts, those are subscriber only. Uh, and, and so on and so forth. I just did a, published a subscriber only episode called Endgame, which was really, really, really tight.

Uh, endgame. The devil doesn’t have to destroy an army to defeat it. He only needs to disable it. But why? What’s his endgame? Subscriber only. Really? You know what you get for your five bucks a month when I said not much? But you know what you do get? You support my apostolate. That’s really what you get.

You’re supporting my apostolate. Because there are bills to pay. In any apostolate, mine included, even though it’s tiny. There are bills to pay. Again, catholicadventurer. com slash my dash plans. I’ll also put a link to this in my bio. Click the bio link in my, in any of my social media platforms. Click that bio link.

It’ll take you to my, my bio page. And I’ll put, post the link to the subscription sign up form in [00:58:00] there. What do you get for it? You get to support the hardest working man in Catholic podcasting. So on to LifeSite News. We’re going through, we’re gonna go through this article. I’m gonna explain why it lacks balance.

Going back to LifeSite News now. Jordan Peterson slams Pope Francis fixation on climate change. Soft quote, he should be saving souls. LifeSite News loves to use the soft quote. You know who also loves, well really that’s used throughout media, but there is a right and wrong way to use that. Lifesite news and many, many in liberal, secular news also overuse it and abuse it.

Why? Because statements don’t just convey, they don’t just convey ideas, they convey meaning. They [00:59:00] convey temperament, attitude, they convey a spirit. You understand? So, if somebody says, It’s cold out, and I hate when it’s freezing. And then, someone writes about that statement, and they say, Catholic Adventurer, um, hates being cold.

Catholic Adventurer, soft quote, hates being cold. Well, I didn’t say that. That’s not, that’s not a quote. That’s not what I said. But they put it in soft quotes, because that reflects the fact of what I said, and the spirit of what I said, right? That’s how soft quotes should be used. Soft quotes should not be used.

So a soft quote, going back to the Frankenstein example, should not be a Frankenstein. Lifesite News loves to make Frankenstein soft quotes where they, they, they, they may reflect the fact of what is being said, but they over, they overwork the spirit behind what’s being said, or the [01:00:00] attitude behind what’s being said.

The reason Lifesite News loves, and many others do it, The reason why they do this in the headline and in the subtitle is because by the time you get to character 1, sentence 1 of paragraph 1, your mind has already been shifted to see the content the way they want you to see it. Because you’ve already got, you’ve already gotten a healthy dose of a terribly written headline and an even more terribly written subtitle.

So by the time you get to the content, your mind’s already made up. You just don’t know that yet. Prominent anti Catholic, I’m sorry, prominent anti Catholic, prominent Canadian anti woke psychologist Jordan Peterson blasphemed Pope Francis for neglecting the salvation of souls and focusing on climate change.

Let’s fast forward to where souls is mentioned. He stated that the desire for adventure [01:01:00] Is the reason that young people feel called to save the planet. There may be some truth to that, but that’s not the entire truth in my opinion. Anyway, climate change, which Pope Francis seems to be on about constantly, when you should be saving souls.

It is not the mission, the direct mission of the Holy Father to save souls. That is the mission of the Church. And the Holy Father has a role to play in it. And the Cardinals and Bishops have a role to play in it. And the parish has a role to play in it. It has the most direct role to play in it. It’s very, and you know, and this is why Lifestyle News is not balanced because that is a stupid statement from someone who isn’t even Catholic, so it’s understandable that the statement is lacking in intelligence.

It’s lacking in aptitude. It’s understandable. I mean, I’m making a joke, but it truly is. But LifeSiteNews should know that. LifeSiteNews should know better. That is a stupid statement. It’s understa [01:02:00]I’m not calling Jordan Peterson stupid because he’s not expected to know this. It’s understandable that he would say something ridiculous like that.

Because he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. But LifeSiteNews does. And they printed it anyway. Now I’m getting all animated and heated. It’s not that all every secularist loves to say The Pope should be focusing on saving souls. The church should be focusing on saving souls meaning like the parish You know fathers should be focusing on saving souls Everybody loves to be saying that they love to point out every imperfection and say is that how you save souls?

You should be saving so it is no individual’s responsibility to save souls. Not one not even the Pope It is the mission of the Holy Church, capital C, to save souls. And everyone in the church, lowercase c, the church, lowercase c, has a role to play in that. [01:03:00] From the Pope all the way on down, yes. But the Pope is not failing to, quote unquote, save souls.

He may not be working this mission the way you like or the way I like, but the church is still on mission. And we are still in the middle of a war. Why Lifesite News is publishing garbage like this? It’s not actually beyond me. I can tell you why. Because Lifesite News does not like the Pope. Lifesite News is a radical traditionalist rag.

And so anytime someone comes on board that appears to be bashing the Pope, Lifesite News is going to print it. It can be laced and laden with all kinds of crazy comments and statements from people who have no experience, no context, not even Catholic. Does not matter. They’re going to print it. Now, why do I say this piece lacks balance?

[01:04:00] Well, I didn’t see the interview, but I would, I’m, I would bet money that if I looked at the interview and then read this article, I would say that article does not really reflect what happened in that interview. I’ll, I’ll bet money on it. But why do I say this is not balanced? Well, look at some things in the language.

Peterson blasted the Pope. Right? They have the excessive use of soft quotes. Throughout the article, you have misrepresentation, maybe not of the facts of what was said, but of the spirit or of the temperament of what was being said. You have rhetoric that paints a story that the facts don’t tell. You basically have an article full of fragmented truths.

Does it represent what Jordan Peterson actually said? I didn’t look at the interview, but I would say probably. Most news organizations are not going to go so far as to deliberately misquote, um, people. They may misrepresent the [01:05:00] attitude or temperament or spirit of what was said. They may even, they may even misrepresent the meaning of what was said by putting the exact quote, but surrounding it with rhetoric that they make up.

And then they drop the quote.

Right? So, for instance, I hate the cold. And let’s say someone writes about that. And they say, it is well known, scientists in Germany, Russia, and the UK have said that there’s something psychologically wrong with people who have a fundamental issue with the season of winter. Even Catholic Adventurer said, quote, I hate winter.

I’m sorry, I hate the cold. So what are they saying with their rhetoric? There’s something psychologically wrong with me. And they’re probably right. But what are they saying with their rhetoric? They can say whatever they want with their rhetoric, but they cannot [01:06:00] misquote me. But what they say with their rhetoric changes how you receive the The words that they are quoting changes how you receive, perceive, and interpret the words that they are quoting.

LifeSite News is very good at that. I would bet. I would bet that there’s a lot of that going on in this article. Why? Because I’m seeing a lot of fiery rhetoric. I can, I can, I recognize rhetoric. It’s, it’s one of my, it’s a minor superpower, but it’s one of my superpowers. I, I, I see it, it screams at me, you know?

So, as I said, right, right at the top. Anti woke psychologist Jordan Peterson blasted Pope Francis. That word screamed at me. That’s a, that’s a ticket. That’s a red flag. Okay, and that should tell you, ah, they’re painting a picture right away. And why do they have to say anti woke psychologist? Why can’t they just say psychologist?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because when you, when you call, when you [01:07:00] refer to him, when you introduce him as anti woke psychologist, already you’re making friends with the reader. The reader may or may not be familiar with him. Or the reader may need some reminding that this guy is on your side. And he’s critical of Pope Francis.

It conditions the reader to interpret and receive the facts in a way that the author or the brand, the outlet, wants them to receive and perceive and interpret the facts. The headline, the subtitle, painting a picture right away. Choosing to use the word blasted when they say blasted Pope Francis. Okay, so you’re painting a picture.

And as I proceed to the rest of the article, I see a lot of rhetorical acrobatics and maneuvering. Peterson explained that just as Christ faced and triumphed over death and hell, and quote, each person must [01:08:00] likewise triumph over death and hell in their own lives. According to Peterson, the Catholic Church is currently not challenging her members to take the difficult path.

Oh, really? Here’s a lack of balance. LifeSite News should know that that is not true. They should know that that is not accurate. They should know that that’s a statement from a position of ignorance. And the very next paragraph should be a correction. Peterson may not be aware that the Catholic Church has, you know, that the Holy Father has spoken often about changing lives.

That the Holy Father is always exhorting people to go to the confessional. Yada, The very next paragraph should have been a course correction, correcting Jordan Peterson, who’s making this statement from ignorance. The very next paragraph should have done that, but you don’t have that here. The very next paragraph says what?

The gateway to paradise is barred by [01:09:00] the church. I’m sorry, barred by the cherubs, who have swords that flame, he said. It means it’s hard to get into the club, man. Well, that, yeah. I don’t know about the cherubs with the swords guarding the gates. This isn’t Eden. But okay, he’s not Catholic. I get it. I get it.

He’s right, though. It means that it’s, it’s hard to get into the church, you know, into the club, man. Anything that isn’t worthy gets cut and burned away. That’s obvious. No, he didn’t say that’s obvious. I said that. I included that. Because he likes to say stuff like that. That’s obvious. All right, all right.

Let me stop messing around. Anything that isn’t worthy gets cut and burned away. He warned, adding, Well, of course, that’s hell. That’s where, you know, anything that’s not worthy gets cut and burned away. No, that’s actually purgatory, and again, Lifesite News should have jumped in and corrected that. But they didn’t.

They didn’t. [01:10:00] It lacks balance because of the rhetorical maneuvering, because of the formulation of um, their, their headlines and subtitles, certain language selection. Lacks balance, right? And frankly, it lacks integrity. And I guess the boldest example of where it lacks balance is when Jordan Peterson says stupid things, and he does several times here.

Not that he’s stupid. He is not Catholic. He has no perspective. He is not expected to know what he doesn’t know. The statements are stupid, though. But he’s not stupid for saying them. But LifeSiteNews is stupid for not correcting them. For even printing them at all. If I were to say something like, you know, the problem with, uh, confession, nobody ever goes to confession, thanks to Vatican II.

Well, [01:11:00] what the hell does that mean? Nothing. Nothing. What causal connection or link is there between the Second Vatican Council and few to no people in a confession line? Nothing. Now, if LifeSite News were to print that, They would be printing something stupid. Unless their agenda is to cast a shadow over Vatican II, so anyone who says anything, however stupid, critical of Vatican II, they’re getting published.

Maybe that’s the secret. Maybe I should pretend to be stupider than I am, and write an article for LifeSiteNews and say, Hey, can you pay me a few bucks to publish this? Oh, I should do that. I should just play the game, man. I should just play the game. Hey, I got mouths to feed. I should write an article for Lifesite News.

Oh, I think I will do that. Maybe if I have the time, maybe I [01:12:00] will write an article that I know is riddled with BS. And I’ll send it to Lifesite News. And I’ll bet you a buck they print it, baby.

That’s a lot of work. I don’t think I’m going to do that, but I’m interested. Maybe I will do that. Let me see. Let me see. It’s going to be riddled with nonsense like, Thanks to Vatican II, nobody goes to confession. Nowhere in the Second Vatican Council documents does the church encourage people to go to confession.

Therefore, people not going to confession, Vatican II is to blame.

Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Why there are no people going to confession is, as I keep, I’ve said several times throughout this episode, that’s another story, but it has nothing to do with Vatican II, my friends. Oh boy. So to recap, I’m not really going to recap. This has been going too [01:13:00] long already, but my goodness, really, really long.

To recap, my friends. The truth is whole and complete and exists in accord, exists in a state that’s in accord with its intrinsic nature or purpose. If you lack, if a truth lacks balance, if a thought lacks balance, if an argument lacks balance, it is not true because it’s fragmented. Balance is not compromise.

Balance is not centrism. Well, let’s just, let’s just meet in the middle. That’s not balance. That’s compromise. Balance is balancing some of the truth from that argument, if there’s truth in it. Some of the truth from that argument, if there’s truth in it. Now, one side may have more of the truth than the other, and that’s where balance comes in.

Right? You balance it. You have to balance things that don’t weigh the same, but you have to balance them, bring them in [01:14:00] the middle, and create something whole from them. Balance is about reconstituting true fragments, or fragments of truth. On every side of the spectrum of thoughts or ideas or philosophies.

People on the left and people on the right, neither side has the whole of the truth. The truth is in the middle because God is in the middle. And that doesn’t mean God is a centrist. God is where, God is where He is and so that’s where we need to be. And God is not a lefty. And God is not a right winger.

He just is where He is. From the human perspective we would just call that in the middle, in the center. That’s not a position of compromise, that’s not a position of compromise, it’s just where God is. And that’s where we have to be, in our efforts to pursue, discern, identify, apply, speak, and defend the truth.[01:15:00]

Balance without truth, you’ve got no truth. I’m sorry, truth without balance, you’ve got no truth. You have a lie.

Man, am I starting to sound like this is my second long form broadcast of the day? Because I’m sure feeling it, man. Thank you for checking me out. I’m sorry I couldn’t be there live with you. I probably wouldn’t have had any attention left to look at a chat room or anything. Anyway, take phone calls, none of that.

But, uh, I hope you enjoyed this episode. You’ll catch it on demand. I don’t know. Maybe it’s on demand already. Maybe I stayed up late and published it. I have no idea. I can’t see the future. Please say hail mayor for me and my family. Please, please, please sign up for my newsletter and please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

It’s five bucks a month. If you’re on the wall. Just pretend that you’re a Protestant. If you’re on the fence about it, pretend that you’re a Protestant. Just pretend for a [01:16:00] few minutes, just as long as it takes you to sign up. Pretend you’re a Protestant. Spend the big fat whopping 5 a month. And become a paid subscriber.

You get some free content, but also most importantly, you help support this apostolate. God bless you. God be with you all. Bye bye. Follow me on X at ForTheQueenBVM. Follow me on Facebook at CatholicAdventurer.

Oh, no, no, no. No, sir. No, sir. We got to cut it right there. That was brilliant. Bye bye.