The problem of evil is the greatest emotional obstacle to belief in God. It simply doesn’t feel right that God should allow people to suffer, or at least to suffer as much as they do. 
The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie, a fellow Aussie, maintained that belief in God was irrational, for if God were all-knowing, He would know that there was evil in the world; if He were all-powerful, He could prevent it; and if He were all-good, He would wish to prevent it. The fact that there is evil in the world proves that God doesn’t exist, or if he does, that He is “impotent, ignorant, or wicked.”
I’ll be honest: when I think about the kinds of evil some people endure, and are enduring even as I speak, I find myself feeling as though an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God may not exist after all.
But feelings, however powerful, are not arguments. And since we are engaged in philosophy here, we ought to be more concerned with right thinking than with how we are feeling. In fact, when I step back and consider the problem of evil from a rational point of view, rather than simply reacting to it emotionally, I do not think it succeeds as an argument against God’s existence.
Mackie was wrong. The existence of God and the existence of evil aren’t mutually exclusive. And to see why, let’s look at the three attributes of God that Mackie named.
Omnipotence
Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do what is logically impossible because what is logically impossible is nothing at all. God cannot make a square circle, for instance, or a married bachelor, not because his power is limited, but because there is nothing there to be made. Logical contradictions are not difficult tasks awaiting divine power; they are empty descriptions.
As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, &#8220;Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them.” It follows then that while God can create beings with free will, capable of choosing between good and evil, He cannot both grant that freedom and simultaneously override it by forcing creatures always to choose the good. A forced choice is not a free one.
C.S. Lewis captured the point succinctly: “If you choose to say, ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God.” 
Omniscience
If God has infinite knowledge, then he knows many things we don’t. This means that He may, in fact, have good reasons for permitting evil and suffering that seem inexplicable to us. Human beings have a very limited vantage point, and we often lack knowledge of things of true significance. What appears to us to be a tragedy may have effects that bring about great good, and conversely, what appears to us as a good thing may, in the long run, prove harmful.
Consider the analogy of a small child being taken to the doctor for his immunization shots. He knows the needle hurts, and he can’t understand why his own parents are allowing the doctor to cause him such pain. The child is unable to grasp that the inoculations will help prevent the much greater suffering of disease. He’s unable to perceive the greater good. Likewise, we should recognize that a being with more knowledge than us, like God, may have good reasons for things, even pain and suffering, of which we are unaware. He allows evils to exist because of His omniscience, not despite it.
Omnibenevolence
As we think about the goodness of God, we must be careful not to impose on Him our inadequate understanding of what goodness is. In his book “The Problem of Pain,” C. S. Lewis writes:
<blockquote>By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness. . . . What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, “What does it matter so long as they are contented?” We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven, a senile benevolence who, as they say, “liked to see young people enjoying themselves” and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, “a good time was had by all.” 
Furthermore, most theists do not believe that God created us merely for happiness in this life. He created us most importantly for eternal happiness with Him in the next. So, His omnibenevolence should be judged neither by our limited human standards of goodness nor by what happens in this world alone.</blockquote>
Putting all this together, we can recognize that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent creator might have good reasons for tolerating abuses of human free will that lead to evil and suffering. We may not know what all His reasons are, but we sense the value of freedom, including the value of being able to choose good freely rather than by compulsion. We can see how God&#8217;s power and knowledge can bring good out of evil in ways that our limited minds aren’t able to comprehend. In faith, we can say along with St. Paul, “We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him” (Rom. 8:28).
Evil: An Argument for God
Evil, rather than disproving God’s existence, can actually point toward it, at least indirectly. To call something evil is not merely to register a feeling of dislike or pain, but to make a moral judgment. And moral judgments presuppose the reality of moral norms that are not reducible to individual preference or social convention. If such objective moral norms exist, then they must have an origin that transcends human opinion.
The theist would say that this origin is God. Moral laws point beyond themselves to a moral lawgiver. Only within such a conceptual framework does it make sense to say that suffering is not merely unfortunate, but unjust, that it cries out for explanation, and that it ought, somehow, to be answered. This does not dissolve the mystery of why an all-good God permits suffering and evil. It doesn’t tell us the meaning, but it does tell us that it’s not meaningless. On this view, God can bring good out of evil, ensure that injustice does not have the final word, and ultimately bring about justice in a way that the bare facts of suffering alone never could.
This is essentially St. Thomas Aquinas’ response to the problem of evil. Citing St. Augustine, he writes: “&#8217;Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.&#8217; This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.”

Silhouette of Man Praying Outside

Why Does God Allow Suffering?

Christianity

Matt Fradd

Religion

Theology

This piece is adapted from the latest episode of Matt Fradd All Access. You can watch the full episode <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/matt-fradd-monologue-joseph-smith?elementPosition=3&amp;row=5&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">here</a>.
***
This is a controversial topic, so let’s dive right in: Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was a false prophet.
A couple of disclaimers, right off the bat: entire books have been written on this subject, so we’re only going to scratch the surface. And to my Mormon friends, I understand that some of this may be difficult to hear. And I just want you to know that this isn’t meant to be some kind of attack. I love you guys, but we have to get to the truth. I encourage you to hear what I have to say, look into it for yourself, and let me know what you think.
Here we go.
<h3>Reason #1: False Prophecies That Didn’t Come True </h3>
Let’s start with one of the easiest ways to test a prophet: are their prophecies actually true? Deuteronomy 18:20-22 lays it out clearly: if what a prophet says doesn’t come true, then they’re not speaking for God.
Joseph Smith gave numerous revelations that are flat-out false.
For example, in 1842 Joseph Smith published a supposedly prophetic translation of real Egyptian documents he owned, which he called The Book of Abraham. He claimed, as a prophet, to translate specific Egyptian writings and drawings, and to know their meaning. Important to note, at the time, scholars couldn’t translate Egyptian. But now they can, and we know that his translations are simply wrong. In one drawing, Smith claimed one figure was “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head,” but it turns out this figure is the goddess Isis, and the characters above the head read, “Isis the great, the god’s mother.” He falsely claims the god Osiris is Abraham, and that the god Anubis is a slave. A prophet’s words have to match reality, and in Smith’s case, they just don’t.
<h3>Reason #2: Contradicting Revelations</h3>
Another red flag with Joseph Smith is his contradicting revelations. For example, the Book of Mormon says, “Is there more than one God? And he answered, No.” But in a later revelation, he says that “the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth,” and that righteous Mormons “shall be gods,” “from everlasting to everlasting,” with “all power.” Smith even claimed that God was once a man who became divine.
This is a huge change in foundational beliefs! If someone is truly a prophet of God, their message should be consistent, especially when it comes to who God is. Yet with Smith, we see clear contradictions that raise serious doubts about his claims to divine revelation.
<h3>Reason #3: The Book of Mormon’s Historical Problems </h3>
Next, let’s talk about the Book of Mormon itself. Joseph Smith claimed it tells the history of ancient American civilizations, including the Nephites and Lamanites, who came from Jerusalem. But here’s the problem: there’s zero archaeological evidence for these civilizations. No cities, no artifacts, nothing.
Now, some might argue, “There’s little archaeological evidence for the Exodus, and Christians believe that.” But while evidence for the Exodus may be debated, there is some support — such as Egyptian records mentioning Semitic peoples and archaeological findings in the Sinai suggesting nomadic groups. Scholars continue to explore these possibilities.
With the Book of Mormon, however, we’re talking about entire civilizations that supposedly existed for thousands of years but did not leave behind a single trace. If these civilizations were real, we’d expect something — but we find nothing. That’s a major problem.
<h3>Reason #4: Fabrication &amp; Plagiarism </h3>
There’s also strong evidence that the Book of Mormon simply mirrors Joseph Smith’s time and place. Many books at this time, and in Smith’s area, theorized that the American Indians had come from Israel. And Smith lifted entire sections from the King James Bible, even copying translation errors from the King James Version into his “ancient” text. This isn’t the behavior of a divinely inspired prophet; it’s the behavior of someone fabricating a religious document.
<h3>Reason #5: Joseph Smith’s Dubious Character </h3>
We can’t ignore the moral inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s life. He secretly practiced polygamy and even married — and slept with — teenage girls, claiming he was divinely commanded to do so.
This is someone who violated the Christian principles of marriage and morality. A true prophet should be held to a high standard of holiness and integrity, but Smith’s life was filled with moral failures. It’s hard to reconcile that with someone who claims to be God’s chosen messenger.
But isn’t there polygamy in the Bible? Yes. But it’s important to note that polygamy in the Old Testament is descriptive, not prescriptive. And the New Testament makes it very clear that monogamy is the only expected and permitted form of marriage.
<h3>Reason #6: Contradictions in the First Vision Accounts </h3>
Smith’s famous &#8220;First Vision,&#8221; where he claims to have seen God the Father and Jesus Christ, is foundational to Mormonism. But did you know there are multiple versions of this event that contradict each other?
In the earliest version, Smith says he saw only one figure, “the Lord,” but later versions claim he saw God the Father and Jesus as separate beings. If this vision were a true, divine encounter, it wouldn’t make sense for there to be conflicting stories about such a pivotal moment. The discrepancies suggest that Smith may have fabricated or embellished his experience over time.
<h3>Reason #7: The Problem of Polytheism </h3>
Finally, Joseph Smith taught that God was once a man who became God, that humans can become gods in the same way, and that there are many gods in existence. That’s not just a different emphasis. It’s a different view of God altogether.
In the King Follett Discourse, Smith said that God “was once as we are now” and that we must learn how to become gods ourselves. In other words, God is not the eternal, uncreated Creator, but a being who progressed to divinity.
This is directly opposed to biblical monotheism. Isaiah 44:6 says, &#8220;I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.&#8221;
The Bible is clear: there is one God. Smith’s teaching of an eternal progression to godhood is not just unbiblical, it’s a complete departure from the Christian understanding of God’s nature. Any prophet who teaches something so fundamentally opposed to Scripture can’t be a true prophet of God.
Whether it’s his failed prophecies, shifting doctrines, or contradictions in his story, the evidence is compelling: Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
***
If you’d like to learn more, see my interview with Joe Heschmeyer, <a href="https://youtu.be/5cvXRlMHMzI?si=U5IBDJNO8Q2qwFSb" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Incoherence of Mormonism</a>.

The church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints sign, Thetford, Norfolk, England, UK

7 Reasons Joseph Smith Was A False Prophet 

Bible

Mormonism

secret lives of mormon wives

This piece is adapted from the latest episode of Matt Fradd All Access. You can watch the full episode <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/matt-fradd-myth-busted?elementPosition=0&amp;row=5&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">here</a>.
There’s a bit of a meme that’s been going around that claims Jesus was a myth, and an unoriginal one at that.
Jesus, this theory goes, is an amalgamation of various Pagan figures blended into some new Christian invention.
If you’re reading this, you probably got a good laugh from that and rightfully dismissed it. Trust me, I agree with you. But I do think it’s worth taking a deeper look at those claims, their history, and to try and think of the best ways to respond if someone brings them up at your office Christmas party.
Similarity Does Not Imply Dependence
Before we look at some of these alleged parallels between Christianity and paganism, it’s important to note that similarity does not imply dependence. That is, even if Christianity did have beliefs and practices similar to those of earlier religions, it doesn’t follow that there must be a causal connection between them.
Similarities among religions shouldn’t surprise us. Most religions, after all, try to answer the same fundamental questions in life: “Where did we come from?”, “Is there an afterlife?”, “How should we live?” Most religions have rituals, sacred stories, and moral codes. It would be surprising if there weren’t some similarities among them. In fact, you might say that the similarities are a sign that God does exist. If he is real, which he is, you can expect different religions in different eras and cultures to reach many similar conclusions about what he’s like and how to relate to him.
Jesus, Pagan Myth, &amp; Anti-Semitism
Claims that Christian beliefs about Jesus are adapted from pagan cults may be popular on TikTok and Instagram today, but they’ve actually been around a lot longer than you might think.
A school of 19th century German theologians sought to interpret Jesus against a pagan background rather than a Jewish one. Frankly, they weren’t a big fan of Jews, and there was a desire for an “Aryan Jesus,” rather than a Hebrew one. The movement continued into the early 20th century with writers such as J. M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, Arthur Drews, and others who sought to deny the historicity of Christ by drawing upon the work of liberal theologians who tended to deny the value of the sources for Jesus outside of the New Testament.
Unfortunately for these critics, their arguments were not taken seriously by mainstream critics, and their work fell into relative obscurity. It was not until a British professor named G.A. Wells rediscovered and translated this German scholarship in the 1970s that the myth argument rose to prominence again. However, it is still a fringe movement, and even Wells has abandoned it and admits there is a historical basis for the stories about Jesus.
The fact is, there is no serious debate among the vast majority of scholars in the fields related to the question of the historicity of Jesus. Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman, who has become popular for his arguments against the reliability of the New Testament, admit that Jesus was a real historical figure. He writes, “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.”
Pagan Deities
Those who claim Jesus’s story was lifted from Pagan myths all follow the same pattern: they choose a Pagan figure — whether Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, or whoever — and claim that there are so many similarities in their stories that Jesus must be a copy.
That might make a good TikTok video. But if you look closer at these so-called similarities, you quickly realize that they’re either completely coincidental, or just plainly fabricated.
Among the many ancient pagan deities of which Christ is said to be a copy, the Egyptian god Horus seems to get the most attention. So let’s take a closer look at the alleged parallels and decide for ourselves.
The first claim is that Horus was born to a virgin mother.
Several different (and contradictory) stories about Horus have developed gradually over the last 3,000 years, but the most common story of his conception espoused by mythicists today involves his father, Osiris, and mother, Isis.
It goes like this: When Osiris was murdered and his body cut up into fourteen pieces, his wife Isis journeyed throughout Egypt collecting them. She was able to find all the pieces except his genitals (not making this up), which had been eaten by catfish at the bottom of the Nile. Isis then makes a prosthetic phallus, gets impregnated by it and along comes Horus.
So, not exactly a virgin birth.
The second claim is that Horus was crucified.
So, how did Horus die? Well, again, that depends on which account you go by. Horus either did not die, or died as a child after having been poisoned by a scorpion. It’s only in the popular mythicist film “Zeitgeist” that we get the claim that Horus was “crucified.”
Debunking this one is easy. Crucifixion was a Roman invention with no Egyptian equivalent. The basis for claims that Horus was crucified? Images depicting him with his arms outstretched. That’s it.
As the film’s study guide explains, “The issue at hand is not a man being thrown to the ground and nailed to a cross, as Jesus is depicted to have been, but the portrayal of gods and goddesses in cruciform, where by the divine figure appears with arms outstretched in a symbolic context.”
By this line of reasoning, we should also conclude that Barney the dinosaur was crucified, since there are many images of him standing with outstretched arms!
The third claim is that Horus rose from the dead.
This one is somewhat true. But the fact is, the dying and revivification of Horus is vastly dissimilar to the death and resurrection of Christ. The idea that the New Testament authors concocted the resurrection story from dying and rising Pagan gods was put to rest by Jonathan Z. Smith in the late 1980s, in his article “Dying-Rising Gods” in the scholarly and authoritative Encyclopedia of Religion. He writes:
“The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts … All the deities that have been identified as belonging to the class of dying and rising deities can be subsumed under the two larger classes of disappearing deities or dying deities. In the first case the deities return but have not died; in the second case the gods die but do not return. There is no unambiguous instance in the history of religions of a dying and rising deity.”
So, sorry Horus. Doesn’t quite cut it.
What To Tell The Pagans
As I said, Horus isn’t the only pagan entity people claim was the inspiration for Christ. So, should you ever find yourself in dialogue with someone making this argument, here’s what you can do:
Familiarize yourself with the alleged parallels by reading authoritative sources yourself. Then, ask your interlocutor where they are getting their information. If they point you to a particular website or movie, ask them where that website or movie got its information.
Take the parallels one at a time. It’s easy for someone to rattle off a list of alleged parallels making it appear that the evidence is overwhelming, but if you take the time to examine each supposed parallel, you’ll find, as we found above, that they are not very similar at all.
And remember: just because an ancient Japanese boat looks a bit like an American birch-bark canoe, that doesn’t mean they were copying off each other’s paper.

Untitled design – 2026-04-24T131400.733

Why Jesus Is Not A Spinoff Of Pagan Gods

Atheism

Debate

Jesus Christ

Paganism

TikTok

In recent days, an exchange between Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump has drawn significant attention.
In a late-night Truth Social blitz Sunday, the president branded the pope “WEAK” on crime and “terrible” on foreign policy. Around 40 minutes after his tirade was posted, Trump uploaded an AI-generated image of himself dressed as Jesus. Both posts dropped as Catholics were celebrating Divine Mercy Sunday and Eastern Orthodox Christians were celebrating Easter.
<iframe class="truthsocial-embed" style="max-width: 100%; border: 0;" src="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/116394704213456431/embed" width="600" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><script src="https://truthsocial.com/embed.js" async="async"></script>
Last week, Pope Leo said Trump’s warning that an “entire civilization will die tonight,” in reference to Iran, was “unacceptable.” The pope has also suggested that a “delusion of omnipotence” is fueling the war between the United States and Iran.
“I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” the president blasted. “He gets it, and Leo doesn’t!”
Pope Leo responded to Trump’s threats on Monday, telling reporters, “I have no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do.” He added, “I don’t want to get into a debate with Trump.”
Trump later wrote: “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” He added: “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.”
Criticism of a pope falls within the bounds of political and public discourse. Depicting oneself as the Lord Jesus Christ, however, enters into territory Christians have consistently regarded as blasphemous.
The backlash has been swift, including from many who would typically be supportive. Here’s a smattering of social media reactions:
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-1076747" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-8.45.58-AM-635x576.png" alt="" width="635" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-8.45.58-AM-635x576.png 635w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-8.45.58-AM-300x272.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-8.45.58-AM-768x696.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-8.45.58-AM.png 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 635px) 100vw, 635px" /></div>
“Honestly how did he think this was a good move?!?”
“He’s absolutely lost it. He’s become everything the left said he was. Makes me wonder if I was just blind to it.”
“He has now confirmed his own defeat- the Lord will not be mocked.”
“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.”
Now, if I may make a personal request.
As one of those Christians who believe what President Trump has posted is blasphemous, I would ask you to pray for him.
And not only for him, but for all blasphemers.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
New media post from Donald J. Trump
(TS: 12 Apr 21:49 ET)​​​‍​​‌‍​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​‌‍​​​​​​‌‍​​‌‍​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​​​‌‍​​​​​‌‍ <a href="https://t.co/uWUoEG1bSQ">pic.twitter.com/uWUoEG1bSQ</a>
— Commentary: Trump Truth Social Posts On X (@TrumpTruthOnX) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpTruthOnX/status/2043523798553743595?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 13, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump Visits Church Across From White House That Was Hit by Fire

Christians Are Right To Be Outraged At Trump’s Blasphemous Post

Catholic Church

Donald Trump

Iran

Pope Leo

A hundred years ago in the United Kingdom, if you said you were going to a “gentlemen’s club,” everyone understood what you meant: a private, upper-class establishment where you could read the paper, have a meal, play parlor games, and trade gossip with others of your social standing.
Today, on both sides of the Atlantic, if you said you were going to a “gentleman’s club,” it is assumed you will be paying to see a striptease in a low-lit bar that smells like urinal cakes and hopelessness.
Is this really what should typify a “gentleman”? Spoiler: No. No it is not.
Pornography is often classified, along with other sexually oriented businesses, as “adult” entertainment — something for “mature” audiences. If these descriptions merely meant these kinds of entertainment are “not suitable for children” then few would protest.
That said, it would be foolish to use this as an argument that pornography is actually suitable for adults. Heroin and racism are also “not suitable for children,” but this does not mean, ipso facto, that they are healthy for those over the age of 18.
Porn advocates are fond of saying —“fond” is an understatement; they repeat it like a mantra — that pornography is sophisticated, mature entertainment suitable for responsible adults. Porn, they will have you believe, is what true gentlemen appreciate — like good scotch and Dostoyevsky. As the infamous Ron Jeremy is <a href="http://tnjn.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">quick to say</a>: “Pornography is consensual sex between consenting adults, to be watched by consenting adults.”
Which leads us to ask: What exactly constitutes “adult” or “mature” behavior? Is it merely a commentary on the age of the participant? Or is it about something more? Stipulating proper definition “mature” is complicated because today these terms are so often used as synonyms for erotic media.
<h4><a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/porn-myth-by-matt-fradd?utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Buy Signed Copies Of Matt Fradd&#8217;s &#8220;The Porn Myth&#8221; HERE.</a></h4>
One way we use the term “mature” is when talking about reaching a final or desired state. We speak of “mature wine” to say a vintage has reached its peak fermentation and is ready to be consumed. We also use the word “mature” to speak of someone who has “grown up” in his or her behaviors and attitudes — those who don’t display the impetuousness and naivety of youth. This is clearly what the patrons of strip clubs are doing by calling these establishments “gentlemen’s clubs”: they are insinuating that the activities that go on are part of manly, not boyish, behaviors.
Ask any neuroscientist what a “mature” human brain looks like, and he or she will likely talk to you about a region of the brain known as the prefrontal cortex. It is located directly behind the forehead and serves as the managerial center of the brain. It is responsible for our willpower, regulating our behavior, and making decisions based on wisdom and principles. When emotions, impulses, and urges surge from the midbrain, the lobes in the prefrontal cortex are there to exercise “executive control” over them. By the age of 25, this region of the brain reaches maturity, meaning that our thinking becomes more sophisticated and we can regulate our emotions more easily.
Why bring neuroscience into the equation? Because <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/porn-myth-by-matt-fradd?utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fascinating research</a> is being done into the impact of viewing porn on this region of the brain.
The brain is designed to respond to sexual stimulation. Surges of dopamine are released during a sexual encounter — and yes, also pornographic encounters — giving the person a sharp sense of focus and an awareness of sexual craving. Dopamine helps to lay down memories in the brain, so the next time a man or woman is in the mood, the brain remembers where to return to experience the same pleasure: whether that be a lover or the laptop in the den.
However, scientists are now seeing that continued exposure to porn gives the brain an unnatural high — something it literally isn’t wired to handle — and the brain eventually fatigues. Anatomy and physiology instructor Gary Wilson <a href="http://tedxtalks.ted.com/." target="_blank" rel="noopener">notes</a> this is the same pattern noticed when drugs are abused: the brain becomes desensitized. More of the drug or harder drugs are needed to get the same high, and the downward spiral begins. Wilson says this brings about significant changes in the brain — both for <a href="http://theporneffect.com/blog/." target="_blank" rel="noopener">drug abusers and porn users</a>.
One of those changes is the erosion of the prefrontal cortex, that all-important center of executive control. My friend, Dr. Donald Hilton, a neurosurgeon, shared what scientists are seeing in their research.
A study on cocaine addiction published in 2002 shows volume loss, or shrinkage, in several areas of the brain, particularly the frontal control areas. A study from 2004 shows very similar results for methamphetamine. But we expect drugs to damage the brain, so these studies don’t really surprise us.
Consider, though, a natural addiction, such as overeating leading to obesity. You might be surprised to learn that a study published in 2006 showed shrinkage in the frontal lobes in obesity very similar to that found in the cocaine and methamphetamine studies.
And a study published in 2007 of persons exhibiting severe sexual addiction produced almost identical results to the cocaine, methamphetamine, and obesity studies.
So we have four studies, two drug and two natural addiction studies, all done in different academic institutions by different research teams, and published over a five year period in four different peer-reviewed scientific journals. And all four studies show that addictions physically affect the frontal lobes of the brain.
When the frontal lobes of the brain are weakened, when the craving for porn hits, there is very little willpower present to regulate the desire. Neuroscientists call this problem “hypofrontality,” where a person slowly loses impulse control and the mastery of his or her passions.
The point is this: The region in the brain that, when mature, is the mark of adulthood is the very thing that is eroded as we view more porn. It is as if the brain is reverting, becoming more childlike. “Adult” entertainment is actually making us more juvenile.
The attempt to make sexual deviancy appear gentlemanly seems to me to be nothing more than the attempt of weak men to justify shameful behavior. Since the very first issue of Playboy hit the magazine racks in 1953, Hugh Hefner’s strategy was two-fold: to distributors he would market the magazine as soft-core porn, but to the target audience he would market it as a men’s “lifestyle magazine” for upwardly mobile men. This began the cultural change of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Pornland-How-Porn-Hijacked-Sexuality/dp/0807001546" target="_blank" rel="noopener">porn’s public image</a>:
<blockquote>[W]hen the editors addressed the reader, the pictures were just one of many attractions, rather than the attraction. The reader was invited not to masturbate to the centerfold but rather to enter the world of the cultural elite, to discuss philosophy and consume food associated with the upper middle class…The markers of upper-class life, which appear causally thrown in as afterthoughts (cocktails, hors d’oeurves, and Picasso), were deliberately placed to cloak the magazine in an aura of upper-middle class respectability.</blockquote>
Just as sure as Playboy would have died without the naked women lining its pages, it also would have died without its articles and advertisements, which gave permission to the self-defined middle-class American male to indulge in porn.
Why is it that adult stores offer back entrances? Is it because their clientele are misunderstood revolutionaries who are plotting the demise of a sexually repressed society? Or is it much simpler than that? Is it because they know that such behavior is shameful?
When one considers the options, which activity sounds more “mature” and grown-up: making love for a lifetime to one real flesh-and-blood woman whom you are eagerly serving and cherishing, despite all her faults and blemishes (and despite your own), or sneaking away at night to troll the Internet, flipping from image to image, from one 30 second teaser to another, for hours on end, pleasuring yourself as you bond to pixels on a screen?
No, indulging pornographic media and other forms of commercial sex are hardly befitting of the adjective “adult.” Actions speak louder than words — even when those words are five feet high, neon, and constitute the phrase “gentlemen&#8217;s club.”

Adult road sign in the middle of nowhere, Nevada, USA

The Porn Myth: How ‘Adult’ Entertainment Makes Us More Juvenile

Pornography

Texas Senator Ted Cruz recently shared an article on social media that many Catholics saw as a direct attack on their faith.
That might be because it was a direct attack on their faith. Treating refutations of sola scriptura as hostility toward Israel, as the article does, is certifiably insane.
I heard rumblings of the situation until this morning, when I watched my mate Joe Heschmeyer’s assessment of it. So, if you’re out of the loop like I was, here’s a quick summary of what happened.
Cruz posted a link to an (almost certainly) AI-generated essay by the online personality “Insurrection Barbie,” calling it “the best, most comprehensive explanation of what we’re fighting.”
The piece itself is … something. It claims that a kind of “Catholic cabal” made up of integralists, obscure intellectuals, and figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes are working to displace evangelical Protestant influence in conservative politics. It describes these Catholics in inflammatory language — &#8220;political parasites in the technical sense” — and frames their theology as not just wrong, but dangerous.
According to the article, this cabal has spent years working to shift the ideological center of the GOP toward Catholic integralism, portrayed as anti-Protestant and anti-Israel, hostile to Jews and evangelicals alike.
More specifically, the article treats Catholic rejection of Christian Zionism as evidence of this supposed hostility. It assumes Catholics who deny that the modern State of Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy are not simply offering a theological opinion, but stating a political position that places Catholics at odds with Israel itself and, by extension, with the moral commitments of the American Right.
&nbsp;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q7_BMSTx1_8?si=UsxdGYtARVcJv-GI" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
In other words, a disagreement about how to interpret Scripture begins to look, in the author’s telling, like a kind of disloyalty.
Given how misunderstood the topic of Christian Zionism apparently is, I thought I’d lay out the Catholic position as straightforwardly as possible. Namely, with a mini-catechism — y’welcome.
&nbsp;
What is Zionism?
People mean different things by the term. Some mean simple political support for the State of Israel, as one might support any ally. Others mean support for a Jewish nation-state, without any claim about biblical prophecy or divine promises. Even Theodor Herzl, the father of political Zionism, proposed other possible locations for such a state. The term itself, then, does not necessarily carry any theological meaning.
&nbsp;
What is Christian Zionism?
It is the ideological belief that the modern State of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy concerning the restoration of the Jewish people and that the promises made to Abraham, especially that of land, await a future political realization.
&nbsp;
Why is the ideology of Christian Zionism incompatible with Catholic teaching?
Because the Church teaches that the promises made to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1725) have already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven, not in any modern political state. How are the promises to Abraham and Israel understood in the Church?
They have been fulfilled and transformed in Christ, who established the new covenant open to all nations (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:20).
&nbsp;
Who now constitutes the people of God?
Those united to Christ through Baptism, as St. Paul teaches (Galatians 3:7-9; 27-28; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13). The Gentiles are grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17), making the people of God no longer defined by ethnicity or territory.
&nbsp;
What is the proper understanding of the promise of land?
It points beyond itself to the Kingdom of God and the New Jerusalem (Hebrews 11:10; Revelation 21:1-2). As Benedict XVI writes, it ultimately “refers to the future world and relativizes the different affiliations to particular countries” (Communio: International Catholic Review 45 (2018), p. 177).
&nbsp;
Why does the Church reject a theological reading of a modern state?
Because, as Pope Benedict XVI explains, a state understood as the fulfillment of God’s promises is “unthinkable within history according to Christian faith” (Communio 45 (2018), p. 178).
&nbsp;
How does the Church view the modern State of Israel?
As a legitimate political entity, but not as the fulfillment of Scripture. The Jewish people, like every people, have a natural right to their own land.
&nbsp;
Why must this distinction be maintained?
To avoid confusing the order of grace with the order of politics.
&nbsp;
What does the Church affirm about Israel’s election?
That it endures, as “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29).
&nbsp;
How is this election fulfilled?
In Christ, whose life, death, and resurrection bring Israel’s original vocation to be a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and a light to the nations to its ultimate fulfillment.
&nbsp;
Can I be against Christian Zionism without being anti-Semitic?
Yes! Catholic teaching distinguishes political criticism of Zionism or Israeli policies from anti-Semitism, which is always condemned as a sin. As “Nostra aetate,” one of the key documents of the Second Vatican Council, reads:
“The Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel’s spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.”
This distinction also means that legitimate criticism of governments must not be confused with hatred of a people. As Archbishop Alexander Sample notes, “All Christians must reject unjust discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity. But that principle must not be misused to silence legitimate criticism of governments.”
&nbsp;
What, then, is the Church’s final judgment on Christian Zionism?
It is an ideology that misplaces the fulfillment of God’s promises by assigning to a political state what belongs to Jesus Christ and the Church that he established.
Now, can someone please send this to Senator Cruz?

US-ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN-CONFLICT-PROTEST

Why Ted Cruz Is Wrong About Christian Zionism

Luke Kornet did something this week that deserves to be acknowledged and applauded.
The San Antonio Spurs center publicly asked the Atlanta Hawks to cancel a promotional night celebrating Magic City, widely known as one of Atlanta’s most famous strip clubs. In a brief <a href="https://lukekornet.medium.com/concerning-the-atlanta-hawks-0f07c62ea65e">public statement</a>, Kornet wrote that he wished to “respectfully ask that the Atlanta Hawks cancel this promotional night with Magic City.”
For saying this publicly, he deserves real credit.
Professional sports leagues spend an enormous amount of time talking about respect, dignity, and protecting women. Those are good goals, obviously. But words like that begin to lose their meaning when the same institutions partner with industries built upon the sexual commodification of women.
Kornet simply pointed out the tension.
“The NBA should desire to protect and esteem women,” he wrote, “many of whom work diligently every day to make this the best basketball league in the world. We should promote an atmosphere that is protective and respectful of the daughters, wives, sisters, mothers, and partners that we know and love.”
That seems difficult to dispute.
If the NBA wants to be a league that honors women and welcomes families, celebrating a strip club is a terrible way to express it.
Kornet also drew attention to something many people would prefer not to think about. As he wrote, “Regardless of how a woman finds her way into the adult entertainment industry, many in this space experience abuse, harassment, and violence to which they should never be subjected.”
That observation alone should give us pause before turning such places into objects of celebration. In “<a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/porn-myth-by-matt-fradd?srsltid=AfmBOoqVyM2W5DgdH9OSkAcJRshTPmFdlKwXey7LBEVuwFtZ7lwVZ_RY">The Porn Myth: Exposing the Reality Behind the Fantasy of Pornography</a>,” I documented at length the exploitation and harm that are often hidden behind the industry’s glossy marketing. Anyone unconvinced by Kornet’s concern should spend some time with the evidence.
The NBA is one of the most influential cultural institutions in the world. Millions of young people watch its games. Families visit its arenas. Players are presented as role models. Given that reality, it is perfectly reasonable to ask what kind of culture the league wishes to promote.
Kornet expressed it clearly: “We desire to provide an environment where fans of all ages can safely come and enjoy the game of basketball.” And then he added the line that captures the entire issue: “The celebration of a strip club is not conduct aligned with that vision.”
In recent years, we have grown accustomed to athletes speaking out about political causes. Much of it has been the sort of fashionable, low-risk virtue signaling that earns applause from the political Left. What is far rarer is seeing someone speak about the deeper moral direction of our culture, particularly when it comes to sexuality.
Yet these questions matter. They shape how a society understands dignity, relationships, and the value of the human person.
In this case, Luke Kornet simply asked his league to live up to the values it already claims to hold.
That is a modest but important request.
And I am grateful he had the courage to make it.

San Antonio Spurs v Brooklyn Nets

In Praise Of The NBA Player Who Asked A Team To Rethink Strip Club Night

Atlanta Hawks

Basketball

Morality

Stripper

There are two basic ways to critique any belief system. You can critique it externally, by judging it according to standards it doesn’t accept, or you can judge it internally, by judging it according to standards it does accept.
Therefore, an external critique of Islam will judge it according to standards that come from outside its own sources, whether philosophical, historical, or theological, whereas an internal critique will begin from the Quran itself and ask whether Islam can stand on its own terms. 
The Islamic Dilemma is this kind of argument. It doesn’t impose Christian assumptions onto Islam. Instead, it begins with what the Quran itself says and follows those claims to their logical conclusion.
One of the strongest internal critiques of Islam is what’s commonly called the Islamic Dilemma. When followed carefully, it presents Muslims with a serious problem that can’t be resolved without undermining the authority of Islam itself.
The Quran repeatedly affirms that God revealed genuine Scripture before Muhammad, specifically the Torah and the Gospel. It speaks of these writings as guidance and light, given by Allah to earlier prophets. Just as importantly, the Quran commands Jews and Christians to judge by what God revealed in those Scriptures. Nowhere does the Quran clearly or explicitly teach that the Torah or the Gospel were lost, corrupted, or unreliable at the time of Muhammad.
The Quran doesn’t merely acknowledge earlier Scripture in passing. Instead, it repeatedly speaks of the Torah and the Gospel as real, authoritative revelations from God that were present and functioning in the world of Muhammad.
For example, Surah 5:44 states that “the Torah, in which was guidance and light,” was revealed by Allah and used for judgment. 
Likewise, Surah 5:46 affirms that Jesus was given the Gospel, “wherein is guidance and light,” confirming what came before it. 
These verses describe living Scriptures that guide God’s people, not lost or corrupted texts.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/plc-260226-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-1054605" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Matt-Fradd-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Matt-Fradd-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Matt-Fradd-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Matt-Fradd-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Matt-Fradd-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Matt-Fradd.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
More striking still, the Quran commands Jews and Christians to judge by these very writings. 
Surah 5:47 instructs Christians to “judge by what Allah has revealed in the Gospel.” 
Surah 5:68 tells both Jews and Christians that they have no firm standing unless they uphold the Torah and the Gospel. 
These commands only make sense if those Scriptures were accessible and trustworthy in the seventh century — when the Quran was written.
Finally, Surah 10:94 tells Muhammad himself that if he’s in doubt, he should ask those who read the Scripture before him. That appeal would be meaningless if those Scriptures were already corrupted or unreliable.
Taken together, these passages show that the Quran affirms the Torah and the Gospel as genuine revelation, present, readable, and authoritative at the time of Muhammad.
This creates a dilemma — with only two possible and mutually exclusive options.
Option one: The Torah and Gospel available in the seventh century were trustworthy.
If that’s true, then Islam faces a decisive contradiction. The Gospel preached in Muhammad’s time proclaims core Christian doctrines that Islam explicitly denies. It teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, that He was crucified, and that He rose from the dead. The Quran denies all three. So if the Gospel is trustworthy, then the Quran contradicts God’s prior revelation. That would mean the Quran can’t be from God.
Option two: The Torah and Gospel were corrupted before Muhammad.
This option also collapses Islam. If the Scriptures were corrupted, then Allah either failed to preserve his earlier revelation or allowed his followers to be misled for centuries. Worse still, the Quran commands Christians to judge by the Gospel they possess and appeals to those Scriptures as confirmation of Muhammad’s message. If those texts were already unreliable, then that doesn’t make sense. In that case, the Quran would be affirming and appealing to corrupted documents, which undermines its claim to divine wisdom.
Either way, Islam is trapped. It can’t affirm the Bible without contradicting itself, and it can’t deny the Bible without undermining its own authority.
Muslims often try to escape this dilemma by claiming that the original Torah and Gospel were pure but later altered. Yet that claim is historically unsupported. We possess New Testament manuscripts that predate Muhammad by hundreds of years, and they teach the same doctrines Christianity teaches today. There’s no evidence of a lost, non-Trinitarian, non-crucified version of the Gospel that Islam could appeal to. That so-called “original Gospel” exists only as a theological escape hatch.
The dilemma is therefore decisive. If the Bible is true, Islam is false. And if the Bible is false, then the Quran is false for affirming it. Islam depends on earlier revelation that it can’t consistently affirm or deny.
Christianity, by contrast, welcomes scrutiny of its historical claims. It stands or falls on events in history, especially the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then Christianity is false. Islam avoids history by rewriting it centuries later, but in doing so, it contradicts the very Scriptures it claims to respect.
The Islamic Dilemma doesn’t merely challenge Islam from the outside. Instead, it exposes an internal incoherence at the heart of its theology. And a revelation that contradicts itself can’t come from God.

Closeup of Muslim hands reading holy Quran book with Arabic text under warm light. Concept for Ramadan Kareem, Islamic religion prayer, spiritual faith, God worship, and reading scripture.

Can The Quran Affirm The Bible Without Contradicting Itself?

Catholicism

Islam

Koran

Muslims

Valentine’s Day is here, and so I thought, as the resident Catholic at Daily Wire (take that, Michael Knowles!), it would be appropriate and, who knows, maybe even helpful, to talk about it.
Now, the first thing I should tell you is that I am not American. I&#8217;m Australian. When I moved to America back in 2005, I was genuinely shocked at how many holidays you guys have. Hallmark and unbridled capitalism. That’s who I’m blaming!
But the truth is that I have a knee-jerk reaction to being told that I must celebrate something. When that happens, I take the reverse position and refuse to celebrate it. This is how I feel about Valentine&#8217;s Day. As my dear wife can attest, not once in our 20 years of marriage have I bought her flowers on Valentine’s day. It’s my petty way of fighting back against the commercialization of Catholic feast days. That’ll show ‘em!
But enough about me, who is this St. Valentine fella, anyway? How might we as Catholics celebrate a day named for him despite — or even in answer to — the marketing blitz that accompanies it?
<h3>St. Valentine</h3>
Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about St. Valentine is how extraordinarily little we know about him. Almost nothing. Maybe nothing at all.
One thing we can say with certainty is that “Valentine” is English for the Latin Valentinus, a fairly common name in the early Church. Valentinus comes from the root-word valens, meaning strong or worthy. But here&#8217;s where things get fuzzy: Early Christian records point to at least three martyrs named Valentinus, all honored on February 14.
So, briefly, one of these martyrs was a Roman priest who lived during the third-century persecutions and was executed for refusing to renounce Christ. Another was the Bishop of Terni, also martyred around the same time. Both were said to be buried along the Via Flaminia. By the Middle Ages, pilgrims were honoring “Saint Valentine” without being quite sure which one he was. Some historians even suspect they were the same man, remembered differently by different communities. And then there&#8217;s a third Valentine, a North African martyr and his companions. This Valentine is only mentioned in passing, without a story, like so many early Christian witnesses.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/hosts/matt-fradd?elementPosition=5&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Hosts&amp;rowType=Hosts+Portrait+Carousel">Watch Matt Fradd&#8217;s Pints With Aquinas On DailyWire+.</a>
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uGAWahLCNZQ?si=8QmXXlmgpBRM8WXh" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
You can see why there would be some confusion about St. Valentine. When several men share the same name, live in the same period, die in similar ways, and are remembered by different Christian communities, their stories naturally begin to overlap. What survives in the historical record is not one clear biography, but several distinct witnesses remembered under the same name. What this means is that once we move beyond the bare historical facts, we’re no longer dealing with a single, settled biography. All that survives are traditions. Some early, some later, some more detailed than others.
But there is value to be found in these traditions. Let&#8217;s look at two stories that may or may not have happened. Each, in its own way, nourishes our faith, and our understanding of what it means to live as a Christian.
<h3>First Story</h3>
In one particularly popular account, Valentine was a third-century Italian bishop from Terni, a city north of Rome. He ran into trouble for the usual reasons Christians ran into trouble back then: He kept being Christian. This did not sit well with Emperor Claudius II.
Valentine was placed under house arrest in the home of a Roman judge named Asterius, presumably so he could think about what he’d done and change his ways. Instead, he spent his time doing what Christians are famously bad at not doing. He talked about Jesus. A lot.
Eventually, Asterius, who was unconvinced and likely a bit worn down, decided to turn the situation into a test. If Valentine’s God were real, surely he could prove it by curing the judge’s blind daughter. Valentine agreed, placed his hands on the girl’s eyes, and she received her sight.
This, understandably, made an impression.
Asterius, now trembling with wonder, asked Valentine what he should do in response to such a miracle. Valentine told him to destroy the false gods in his house and be baptized. Which Asterius did. Asterius, along with his entire household, was baptized, standing, we’re told, among the broken fragments of their former idols. A strong visual.
Word of all this eventually reached the emperor. Valentine was summoned before Claudius himself, who, according to the story, found him quite charming. Sadly, charm only gets you so far when you refuse to renounce your faith. Claudius ordered Valentine executed.
And, so, Valentine was beaten with clubs and beheaded outside the Flaminian Gate on February 14, 269. But not before writing a note of comfort to the girl whose sight he had restored, signing it, “From your Valentine.”
It’s a lovely story. Whether it’s true or not, we don’t know.
<h3>Second Story</h3>
Another story has Valentine as a Roman priest quietly helping Christians during the reign of Emperor Claudius. Claudius decided that unmarried men made better soldiers than married ones. Wives, apparently, were bad for morale. Some things never change&#8230;which is also why I don’t buy my wife flowers. That’s a joke, a bad one, but a joke nonetheless.
Anyway, the point is that the emperor outlawed marriage for young men altogether.
Valentine, undeterred by the imperial decree, carried on marrying couples anyway, but discreetly. The side benefit was that married men could then avoid being drafted into the emperor’s pagan army. Obviously, Claudius took a dim view of this situation once he noticed. Valentine was eventually hauled before the emperor. Claudius rather liked him, found him charming, and very nearly let him off. Unfortunately, Valentine would not stop being Christian, and this proved a deal-breaker. He was sentenced to death.
From there, the stories begin to multiply, and rather enthusiastically. In one telling, Valentine refuses to worship the Roman gods, is thrown into prison, and heals the blind daughter of his jailer. In another, he leaves her a note before his execution, signed, “From your Valentine,” which is either deeply moving or suspiciously tidy, depending on your temperament.
So, what can we take away from these varying traditions?
Well, we could reflect on the certainty of death and what remains after us in this world. There may be stories told about us after we are gone — for a while — until the people telling those stories themselves are gone. A deeper reflection leads us to the truth that ultimately only one person will remember us; only one person knows the inner truth of our lives. And that person is God.
This being true, we Christians should place our stories in the hands of the only One who&#8217;s remembrance matters. As the ancient saying goes, &#8220;Preach the Gospel, die, and be forgotten.&#8221; Yes, forgotten to the world, but remembered by God. St. Valentine may exist for us in the hazy record of varying traditions. But God knows the truth. In God, Valentinus or the several men for whom he stands, is known and loved for eternity.
<h3>A Prayer to Saint Valentine</h3>
Let’s end where the Church has always ended: in prayer.
<blockquote>Saint Valentine, faithful martyr of Christ, 
you who bore witness to love stronger than fear and hope stronger than death, 
pray for us. 
Pray for those who are married, 
that their love may be patient, enduring, and rooted in truth. 
Pray for those who long for love, 
that they may seek not merely affection, but holiness. 
Pray for those who are wounded by love, 
that they may find healing in the Heart of Christ. 
Teach us that real love is not fragile or fleeting, 
but willing to suffer, to remain, and to give itself fully. 
Saint Valentine, 
martyr of faithful love, 
pray for us. 
Amen.</blockquote>
And now, if you will excuse me, I&#8217;m going to pick up some flowers for my wife!

Screenshot

Valentine’s Day Talk

Catholics

Valentine's Day

I’ve got some excellent news to share, beginning January 2026, Pints With Aquinas is partnering with The Daily Wire. We will kick off our tenth year with a bigger studio, a stronger team, and, God willing, an even wider reach for preaching Jesus Christ and inviting people to join the Church he founded (hint: The Catholic Church). You will see a special Christmas episode in December, then weekly shows begin in the new year.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">

Watch me tonight on Friendly Fire at 7pm Eastern on DailyWire+ <a href="https://t.co/UqwXd5uJzd">pic.twitter.com/UqwXd5uJzd</a>
— Matt Fradd (@RealMattFradd) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealMattFradd/status/1983556821555232878?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
&nbsp;
A word from the heart. Earlier this year, while my family and I were in Austria, with a little time in Croatia, I seriously considered stepping back from running the show. I love the conversations, and I love meeting people whose lives have been changed by the podcast. What wore me out was everything around it, production, logistics, thumbnails, flights, the business of it all. When I sat down with Caleb at The Daily Wire, I told him exactly that. I wasn’t trying to sell anything. I said, “If I do this, it must stay a fully Catholic show, and I need help with the parts I am not great at.” Their response, “Keep doing exactly what you are doing, we will build the infrastructure around you.”
So here’s what this partnership means, and what it doesn’t mean: Full editorial control. I choose the guests and the topics. Our mission stays the same, to preach Christ and invite people into the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.
No paywall. If you are a casual viewer, nothing changes except you will get more Pints, same channel, better studio, higher output.
More episodes, better reach. With a world-class team handling operations, I can focus on conversations that matter, and release more content each week.
A Catholic team around the show. Melanie Pritchard, who has been with Pints since the basement days, is coming onboard, and we are adding faithful, prayerful professionals who are committed to the mission.
Why am I excited? Because the Lord seems to be opening a door I did not know how to walk through on my own. Over the years, I have seen how far this little show can travel. I have met listeners from Guatemala to Croatia, from airport kiosks to Lego stores, sharing how Pints helped them encounter Christ. Partnering with The Daily Wire lets us put holy gasoline on that fire, without diluting the faith.
If you&#8217;re cautious, I get it. If one of my favorite Catholic creators joined a big company, I would ask the same questions you’re asking. So let me earn your trust. Watch the next season. You will see the same show, just louder, clearer, and reaching more souls.
Two final requests. First, please pray for me, that I never become a stumbling block, that I stay faithful to Christ, and that every conversation glorifies God. If you are willing, would you offer a Rosary for this intention, Let me know so I can be encouraged. Second, invite someone who is Catholic curious to tune in when we launch in January. Ten years ago this began with a microphone in a basement. By God’s grace, and through your prayers, we are just getting started.
Totus Tuus Maria
Matt Fradd

MF_MF_2025-10-27_Editorial_Special Announcement_004-1

Big News For Pints With Aquinas, We’re Joining The Daily Wire In 2026

Catholic

Daily Wire

There are few things that intersect the culture as broadly as pornography. Big business, big tech, religion, law, and of course, politics.
Porn checks all the boxes &#8230; and then some.
When four Republican representatives<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/12.6.2019-Obscenity-Letter-to-AG-Barr.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/12.6.2019-Obscenity-Letter-to-AG-Barr.pdf&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279443000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGaSZo2GfxbdGycrUINVgq98MkR3A"> recently sent a letter</a> to U.S. Attorney General William Barr urging that federal obscenity laws need to be enforced to address the explosion of graphic and often violent pornography, I winced — certainly not because I’m pro-porn, but because I feared that, once again, the real devastation that porn wreaks in the lives of individuals and families might be obscured by political posturing or other related issues.
For more than a decade, I have spoken to hundreds of thousands of parents, educators, and young people around the world about the predictable misery and despair that can come from exposure to pornography.
For many, hearing such strong language associated with porn seems extreme, perhaps exaggerated; maybe even a pretense to advance a religious agenda.
I assure you, this is not the case.
Over the last 40 years, there has been a great deal of research that states quite emphatically that pornography consumption is detrimental to the consumer, to our relationships, and to society as a whole.
Earlier this year, the World Health Organization adopted a new diagnosis called “Compulsive sexual behavior disorder” as part of the latest edition of its diagnostic manual (the ICD-11). At last, those who suffer from problematic porn use can more easily be studied and treated. There are currently 45 neuroscience-based <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/brain-studies-on-porn-users-sex-addicts/#brain" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/brain-studies-on-porn-users-sex-addicts/%23brain&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHbWQavMFuABM9gUO5UkjjYS5ot_A">studies</a> (MRI, fMRI, EEG, neuropsychological, hormonal) providing strong evidence for how porn fits into the addiction model. There are over 75 <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-to-poorer-mental-emotional-health-poorer-cognitive-outcomes/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-to-poorer-mental-emotional-health-poorer-cognitive-outcomes/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEcJEfu7LQ8HgaLD77C8FlWejm5Hw">studies</a> linking porn use to poorer mental/emotional health and impaired cognitive outcomes. There are over 35 <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-or-porn-sex-addiction-to-sexual-dysfunctions-lower-arousal-and-lower-sexual-relationship-satisfaction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-or-porn-sex-addiction-to-sexual-dysfunctions-lower-arousal-and-lower-sexual-relationship-satisfaction/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEey7p5trQLmstI4dsWGzd18tzx1g">studies </a>linking porn use to sexual problems and lower arousal to sexual stimuli. And over 35 <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-to-un-egalitarian-attitudes-toward-women/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/porn-use-sex-addiction-studies/studies-linking-porn-use-to-un-egalitarian-attitudes-toward-women/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGIs3tCSzZ3k8z1qQImA-ylT9wyhQ">studies</a> link porn use to “un-egalitarian attitudes” toward women and sexist views.
As an easily accessible public figure in this fight, I am in regular contact with people who tell me about their damaged lives and often ruined relationships. These are not prudish, religious zealots who are suffering under the weight of gratuitous guilt or shame. These are good men and women who are seeing serious psychological and physiological effects as a direct result of behavior they could not control.
Just recently, I spoke to a young man who had been struggling for over five years with pornography. In that time, every relationship in his life collapsed as watching porn snuffed out his ability to love or think of anything beyond his own desires for instant, but fleeting, gratification.
Stories like this add to porn’s well-documented destructive power in communities across the country — so much so that over a dozen <a href="https://www.apnews.com/9c91cfd28a7b461b87948f36117a432e" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.apnews.com/9c91cfd28a7b461b87948f36117a432e&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHSDukXjg1tq0amJRxQpRlw-77Jew">states</a> have declared pornography to be a public health crisis.
In my own experience, being exposed to pornography at an early age led to deep personal and relational issues that took years to sort through.
Today, children as <a href="https://fightthenewdrug.org/real-average-age-of-first-exposure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fightthenewdrug.org/real-average-age-of-first-exposure/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHQilnD0Xo0ZNuuaS4nrpwgG_xodQ">young as eight years old</a> are being exposed to the most brutal and graphic forms of pornography. This early exposure quickly leads to a warped understanding of the gift of sexuality, often planting misogynistic seeds in the minds of second graders.
A cynical narrative is being spun on social media that the letter to the attorney general is nothing more than a political play to spur a moral panic and that neo-puritanical tribunals are waiting in the wings eager to jail sinners while violating First Amendment rights.
The concerns being raised are neither a moral panic nor religiously motivated.
Look into the heroic work of private organizations like <a href="https://ourrescue.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ourrescue.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNEi_CG_WDujv98sSrV-Tw8Go2y1cg">Operation Underground Railroad</a>, who know first-hand the indisputable role pornography plays in fueling human trafficking. Estimates are that <a href="https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/human-trafficking-numbers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/human-trafficking-numbers&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHMmzPqrkL_SQtUL3BmoCGIzBR9fg">global human trafficking</a> is a $150 billion industry, with $99 billion of it connected with sexual exploitation.
As evidence that this is a mainstream concern, visit some of the non-partisan, non-religious organizations — like <a href="https://fightthenewdrug.org/get-the-facts/#gtf-world" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fightthenewdrug.org/get-the-facts/%23gtf-world&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNH142aSXDRCCnlIXed-McsruTXGoA">Fight the New Drug</a> and Your Brain on Porn — who publish <a href="https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNE0bWGF5jOAlxncgrZuv9Ztp0zDDw">extensive research</a> demonstrating the negative social, emotional, and psychological impact of pornography.
I’ve dedicated much of my career to researching, writing, and speaking about how to break free from porn. The good news is, it really is possible.
For example, in a recent project I’ve been a part of called <a href="https://www.cardinalstudios.org/strive" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cardinalstudios.org/strive&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHYXvopEvSVnpv0LTJEi5NwwdJwcA">STRIVE</a>, in just nine months over 12,000 men participated in an anonymous online video-based support group that yielded many success stories. As is the case for other addictions, open discussion and having accountability are vital for recovery.
Because this is once again a public conversation, there is an opportunity for all people of good will to come together and positively impact the lives of millions. The harm pornography wreaks on individual lives is undeniable. It’s time we recognize porn for what it is and protect our families, children, and society as a whole from its devastating consequences.

Matt Fradd speaks to tens of thousands of people every year. He is the best-selling author of several books, including <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Porn-Myth-Exposing-Reality-Pornography/dp/162164006X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1515695511&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=the+porn+myth" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amazon.com/Porn-Myth-Exposing-Reality-Pornography/dp/162164006X/ref%3Dsr_1_1?ie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1515695511%26sr%3D8-1%26keywords%3Dthe%2Bporn%2Bmyth&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGpa56iT7z2wlyOR5Lnr8tzKDKoww">The Porn Myth</a>, and is the author of the online course &#8220;<a href="https://www.cardinalstudios.org/strive" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.cardinalstudios.org/strive&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1576387279444000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHYXvopEvSVnpv0LTJEi5NwwdJwcA">STRIVE: A 21-Day Detox from Porn</a>,&#8221; which equips men with the tools needed to quit porn for good.

Menu