What Is Catholic Fundamentalism? (And Is It a Problem?)

[00:00:16] Recently, catholic apologist Trent Horne condemned catholic fundamentalism, and many took it as a veiled attack on catholic traditionalism. We'll look at the crux of Trent's arguments and what he gets right and wrong about the issue of catholic fundamentalism. Well, Merrick Samuels, your host, editor in chief of Crisis magazine. Welcome to Crisis Point. Before we get started, I just want to encourage people to smash that like, button, just destroy it like a fundamentalist thump in his Bible. [00:00:45] I try to think of something every time off top of my head. I thought that was pretty good. One fundamentalist stump in his Bible. Anyway, also subscribe to the channel, let other people know about it. Follow us on social media rsismag, and subscribe to our email newsletter. Just go to crisismagazine.com, fill in your email address, and we'll send our articles to you once a day, every day, usually two articles a day. Okay, so let's get started. The, like I mentioned, Trent Horne last week released a video on his podcast, council Trent. I think it's called. I'll have a link to it, and I think I already have a link to it in the show notes. I'll make sure I do. And it was a relatively short one, and it was called the heavy burdens of catholic fundamentalism. Now this is a topic Trent has brought up before. In fact, he recently wrote a book on, like the problems with catholic liberalism, which I had an interview with him about that here on crisis point. I encourage you to check that interview out. And he mentioned during the interview that he is playing to write a companion book to it about the problems of catholic fundamentalism. And there was a lot of pushback actually in the comments because a lot of people took it to mean he's basically going after trads, maybe rad, trans, whatever you want to call it. And in fact, when he released his video last week, a lot of people were interpreting it that way. So I, and I've talked to Trent actually personally off air about this as well. So I'm not going to speak for him, but I think I know what he's basically, his major points are, and he makes it clear in his video, like he always does when he's explaining something. Now, before I really get into this, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. [00:02:23] The number one problem in the Catholic Church today is progressivism, which is really a type of modernism, but it's progressivism. It's not. The church isn't too conservative or fundamentalist or traditional. [00:02:38] Progressivism rules the day. It rules today from the lowliest parish or chapel all the way up to the Vatican. [00:02:49] You go to your typical parish in just in America, probably any western country, and it's going to be either dominated or heavily influenced by progressivism. [00:03:02] And note, the problem isn't just the outward progressives like a Father James Martin or somebody like that. The problem is a lot of so called catholic conservatives have been infected by the scourge of progressivism. [00:03:18] It's this, I mean, it's taking, I mean, there's a lot of problems with progressivism, but one of them is taking Newman's and the church's idea of development doctrine and warping it and making it where we can just change things. That's progressivism. We're progressing forward. It's not how the church sees it. We were given the entire deposit of faith 2000 years ago. Our understanding of it will develop over time, hopefully increase over time through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But it's not like progressivism would say it changes over time. [00:03:56] And so what was once holy might no longer be holy. What was once true might no longer be true. [00:04:03] You see this in progressives, which, like I said, dominate the church. But also I honestly believe you see it in conservative Catholics at times as well. I'm not going to go real deep in that because that's not the topic of this podcast, but I just want to make sure that that's clear when we talk about catholic fundamentalism, if it's a problem, it's not the dominant problem in the church today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't address it. In fact, I often get criticism because I criticize our side and people don't like that. And I get that. But I don't get the point in constantly criticizing those we know are wrong. Like I'm done videos on Father James Martin. I've criticized, you know, Pope Francis, I've criticized others. You know, I'm going to continue to do that. [00:04:44] But sometimes we do have to self reflect and say, okay, hold on a second. What are things we're doing that we shouldn't be doing? What are things we're doing that's wrong? And I think this is one of those opportunities because this is something that touches catholic traditionalists and catholic conservatives at times. But let's be honest, it's more catholic traditionalist that get kind of infected by what we're calling catholic fundamentalism. They're not the same thing, by the way. Catholic fundamentalism is like a subset of catholic traditionalism, and it's a subset that I would argue isn't very healthy. [00:05:20] Let's just, you know, start with the basics. What is, when we're talking about catholic fundamentalism, what is fundamentalism? That is a term used for, originally used for a movement in the protestant world from about 100 years ago, around the early 19th century. In fact, it was during the time, I think it was when Pope St. Pius X was pope. And I bring him up because I wanted to slip him in somehow, because on the traditional calendar, today is his feast day. And of course, he is a hero to catholic traditionalists, and he is a, you should be hero to all Catholics. [00:05:54] And, you know, he did so much to fight modernism, progressivism, those things. And I also want to bring up, I have this beautiful relic. I have a relic actually of, I probably can't really see it too well there, this relic of St. Pius X in my possession, one of my most prized possessions. And so I thought today, being the traditional feast day, at least of St. Pius X, I would bring it up. But anyway, fundamentalism started in the protestant world. And basically it was a reaction to liberalism within the protestant world, particularly as it came to two areas mostly. One was scientific findings or scientific claims, darwinian evolution, things of that nature. [00:06:44] The protestant fundamentalists really wanted to return to what they felt was the proper reading of the Genesis creation accounts, which was a more literalistic view of a six day literal creation, 6000 year old earth, things like that. But it was also a reaction. Fundamentalism was also a reaction to basically the cultural moral decline of America. This is american phenomenon originally. And so the reason they were called fundamentalists is because they said, we're going to focus on the fundamentals, the fundamentals of our faith. And their, their interpretive key, according to them, was a literal interpretation of the Bible. They felt like with the historical critical method gaining so much traction in the 18th century, and more and more people discounting the veracity of the Bible, whether or not it was really true, they want to say, no, we're going to go back to what they call the fundamentals. We're going to have a literal interpretation of the sacred scriptures, and that's going to be our guiding force. Just so you know, I used to be protestant years ago. I'm very familiar with fundamentalism in the protestant world. I was not ever a fundamentalist myself, but I kind of sometimes lean that way. And I know fundamentalists even to this day. [00:08:02] Now, if you notice what I said about fundamentalism, protestant fundamentalism, there is some overlap with legitimate catholic traditionalism, particularly when it comes to kind of rejecting the cultural morale, moral decline of our world. Plus also, I would say it has, the reading of the Bible is wrong. Fundamentalist. I remember when I was in my master's degree in theology program, I actually wrote a paper called something like interpreting sacred scripture, resisting fundamentals, resisting fundamentalism. And I can't really rest part, but there's part in there about resisting fundamentalism. And it was like, the catholic interpretation isn't fundamentalistic, but a true catholic interpretation of the Bible does at times a lot closer to protestant fundamentalism than it would be the atheistic kind of historical critical method. Not the historical method, has no uses, but the way it's been used in so many seminaries and universities and things like that. So there is some overlap there, and both protestant fundamentalism and catholic fundamentalism, as we'll define it here in a second, they have some correct views. It's not all wrong on either side. Now, I would say catholic fundamentalism obviously gonna be more right than protestant fundamentalism, but fundamentalism ultimately, and here's the main point, fundamentalism ultimately has a fatal flaw. [00:09:37] That fatal flaw is this. It limits its source of knowledge to a very small body of text writings, and then it dogmatizes its literal interpretation, their literal interpretation. What they believe is literally their personal interpretation of those texts. [00:10:02] So, for example, a fundamentalist would take a passage in scripture and say, this is the proper interpretation, and no other interpretation is possible. And anything that even slightly diverges from my interpretation is false. [00:10:18] And no other, no evidence could convince them otherwise. [00:10:21] So what happens is they over dogmatize. They dogmatize non dogmatic things. That's where the problem lies. Like if we want to say John six, which is the fundamental, protestant fundamentalist wouldn't say, John six teaches that Christ is truly present in the blessed sacrament. That is true. But the church, of course, has led us to that. I'm not saying you can't have specific teachings, but what it does, it takes non dogmatic things, things that aren't defined by the church, aren't they? And it dogmatizes them. Them. That's where we get in the problem. A true catholic traditionalist always follows the church, both in its teachings, like its official teachings, but also in kind of its ethos, its way of looking at the culture, at the world. And so if the church has not made a final, like dogma or doctrinal decision on something, that's a signal to us that we can't either. [00:11:21] If it hasn't said, this is absolutely evil or this is absolutely false or whatever, we can't say that either. That's what catholic traditionalists should be. A fundamentalist, though catholic fundamentalist doesn't always do that. At times, it makes things. And what it does, it takes some selected text from the catholic tradition and it dogmatizes that text above all others and in spite of all other evidence. [00:11:48] And so it's like, okay, this is the specific, like this writing of. Usually it's a writing of some pope from the past, maybe even Pius X, the great pope, but today, and it says, okay, it takes a section of it and says, okay, this, now what this, this pope wrote is dogma without looking at the context of what the church has always taught or how the church has addressed it in other ways. And so that becomes now a problem again. [00:12:18] And it's a reaction often to progressivism's evils. [00:12:25] The catholic traditionalists, but also catholic fundamentalist, rightly sees those problems and it reacts to it and says, okay, I found this quote from this pope from long ago that says, you're wrong, and also says this. And that's down. That's dogma. And I'll give you some examples here. So it makes a little more sense. [00:12:44] How does this play out? And Trent Horn in his video actually makes a few, gives a few examples. And I think some are good. One of them I think is particularly good is dancing. [00:12:54] There's a quote that's been sent to me multiple times by a pope, and I apologize. I meant to grab the actual quote and the pope who said it, but essentially it's a pope who said, this is at least hundred or more years ago, he condemned dancing generally. And so what's happened is that some catholic fundamentalists have condemned dancing. Like, you're not allowed to dance with somebody who is not your spouse or a relative, I guess. So, for example, if there's some type of dance where men and women would hold hands during it or something like that, that's not allowed unless you're married. And by the way, just for those who are listening to us and think all that doesn't exist, trust me, it does. I know a number of people who believe this. I've seen it online, too. But I know in real life I've heard this. [00:13:42] Well, the problem with this, this is a perfect example of catholic fundamentalism. And by the way, this is not catholic traditionalism because I know lots of traditionalists who don't think that. In fact, I know a lot of, you know, traditional Catholics who organize dances all the time. So this is not, again, I know in our mind we might hear, oh, this person is just condemning traditionalists. I'm not condemning that. [00:14:07] I'm condemning fundamentalism. And so they take that. So the dancing is a perfect example. The church has never condemned dancing as some 100%. Okay, this has been dogmatized. Men and women can never dance with each other no matter what, unless they're spouse or related to each other. Now the reason this comes up is, like I've already said, is because there is so much evil dancing in the world today. Just go. I mean, I don't do this, but I'm too old. I don't want to anyway. Go to your, you know, a bar or a dance club or something like that. And the dancing that's done by men and women is immoral. And there's no question about it. What, what they wear. But the way they dress, I mean, the way they dance, the way they interact with each other during the dance, all stuff, 100% immoral, and it should be condemned. [00:14:56] And so in reaction, the fundamentalist says, okay, no dancing at all. But that's not the way it works. That's not the way the church looks at it. [00:15:04] That's a culturally, you know, to take one quote from a pope out of the culture. I mean, if you, if you really think about it, think about all the catholic cultures through the centuries in all the different times and places. [00:15:19] Dancing has always been part of it. [00:15:23] I mean, we're not footloose here. [00:15:25] I mean, Kevin Bacon, I think they made a new one. Kevin Bacon's the only, that's the only real footloose, by the way, movie. We're not footloose here. We're not. That's protestant fundamentalism. And Catholics have adopted it as a reaction to, to protect, usually to protect their kids from the immoral dancing. I get that. I have kids. I want to protect them too. But the answer isn't to dogmatize, say no dancing. Now, as a parenthood, you have every right to not take your kids to dances and not, you know, I'm not saying it's required to go to dances. I personally think it's very healthy. It's a very healthy way for teens to interact with each other, boys and girls, to understand the proper ways to interact with each other and things like that. So I'm very much pro dancing done the right way. [00:16:10] But this is just a great example of dogmatizing things. Another trim brought other examples. Another example is women veiling at mass. My thumbnail has a woman veiling. I hope people didn't think, I mean, that if you veil your fundamentalist, that's not what I mean, but dogmatizing that. I think women veiling at mass is a beautiful thing. I think it's great. I think it's something that should be encouraged. [00:16:38] But there's difference between. Between being encouraged and making it a sin not to. The church has never said it's a sin. [00:16:47] It's never dogmatized this idea that it's a sin for a woman not to veil. In fact, Trenton brought up that Cardinal Burke mentioned, you know, actually wrote explicitly about ten years ago or so that yes, veiling is not, it's not a sin for a woman not to veil at mass. [00:17:06] And all. I'm not going to go through all the examples. Trent did that. But the point is this. [00:17:13] There is always going to be, in these cases, usually some type of support you can find in the catholic tradition for your position. Like there is a pope who wrote one time against, against dancing. [00:17:27] I don't, I've read, I didn't, you know, I've read the quote before, but again, it's not dogma. There is, I'm sure, some writings on veiling women that are very hardcore within the church's tradition. [00:17:41] There are reasons women's roles, that's a big one. Of course, in the home, out of the home, all that stuff, there are writings about this. [00:17:50] And so it's not to say, and in all these cases, it's not to say there aren't dangers that we're trying to protect from like the dangers of immoral dancing or, you know, like the danger of a feminism when it comes to like. Because feminists definitely hate women veiling. And so like, you don't. A woman doesn't veil because she's trying to fight feminism. But it clearly is a. It just by default, it ends up being kind of a rejection of feminism in a lot of ways, but also like women's roles, things like that. I mean, it's horrible what feminism is doing, but we gotta keep that catholic kind of that catholic balance. We can't have the fundamentalist strategy tradition. [00:18:37] It really is, you know, tradition isn't. Here's where I think it comes down the issue. [00:18:45] Protestants are sola scriptura. And I feel like sometimes Catholics can fall into a sola scripture plus sola tradition, whatever the latin word would be. The idea of we just. That tradition is, is confined to texts. It's like Protestants read the Bible, we read tradition, we find a text and we say, okay, this pope wrote this this one time, therefore it's dogma. That's not how tradition works. We have a magisterium that interprets the living tradition of the church. Now, I know living tradition term living tradition, that's a trigger word for traditionalists. And it should be, because if there's one word that's been, one term phrase has been used to abuse the idea of development doctrine, it's living a living tradition because it can just be used to basically justify anything. But there is truth in that, that over the centuries the church lives out her faith and she does it in different ways in different cultures and in different time periods. And how it's exactly practiced is going to be, there are going to be different cultural norms. There's going to be your dogmatic norms that the church always makes very clear what they are. [00:19:59] Do not kill, do not commit adultery, things like that. And then it's going to have cultural norms that just kind of develop over time. And the church, if it feels like a cultural norm, is starting to go against a dogmatic norm, then it steps in and says something. [00:20:17] And so the fact is, you know, the fact that we don't have some dogmatic decree on dancing against dancing or whatever, we don't have, like lots of bishops over time, not just today, but over time. And lots of pope's always talking about, like, you know, the evils of dancing. If we had that, if we had centuries and centuries of popes and bishops and saints and theologians condemning dancing and saying it's evil, then even if we don't have a dogma that's defining it, I think then we take it. We're like, okay, this is part of our tradition. [00:20:52] And the magisterium probably over time, would eventually would define it if that was the case. But since it doesn't, that's a signal to us that we can't dogmatize it if the church isn't going to dogmatize it. [00:21:04] Here's the problem. I feel like in the world today, if we think something's wrong, we want to ban it. We want to force, you know, we want to force make laws for everything. We see this in government, and like, if something is wrong, we want to make it, you know, we don't. Like, here's an example, like seed oils, they're terrible, but I don't think the government should ban them. But that's kind of our knee jerk is if something's bad, we want to ban it. Well, make this absolute. And I feel like that's what catholic fundamentalists are doing. They see something bad, like immoral dancing, and they didn't want to ban all dancing. They see something immoral like feminism. And then they want to react to it with, like, an anti feminism that really ends up being. Going beyond what the church allows and what the church doesn't allow. [00:21:58] So we basically, here's what we want. We want the church to be an overprotective mother. Think about in a familial context, in a family, you know, probably. And I know some mothers who are overprotective. [00:22:11] They don't want Johnny climbing up too high up the tree. They don't want to get roughhousing too much. They're worried about, you know, okay, he might, you know, don't, you know, very worried about who we might hang out with. Now, all those things in moderation are, okay. You don't want a three year old kid climbing, you know, 30ft up a hill. A mountain. I'm sorry, a tree. Geez. 30ft up a tree. You don't want rough housing that becomes so violent. It's, you know, now fighting, you know, for no reason. [00:22:42] You don't want your kids hanging out with degenerates and people who influence poorly. But what happens is, you know, we all know mothers like this, they could become overprotective. They're like, my kid just basically isn't leaving the house. He's like bubble boy now. I won't let him do anything. That's what a catholic fundamentalist does for the church. Our mother, it turns her into this overprotective mother who everything has a law now. Everything is either, you know, very clear, like, okay, you just can't do this. But a good mother allows some, you know, reasonable moderation. Yes, the kid can climb up the tree some. Yes, the kid can roughhouse, you know, you know, these things are allowed because within moderation, they're allowed. And so something like dancing or something like that. And so I think that's, that. That is a big problem with catholic fundamentalism, is they want the church to be an overprotective mother. [00:23:37] Now, I did want to also comment a little bit about a couple other things Trent said in his video that I don't really agree with. So I have a lot of agreement with Trent on that. I think we see things similarly on that. But one of the things he talked about was the role of bishops in the church. As far as, like, if none of the bishops today are saying this, basically, that means we can't believe that type of thing. I think he overplayed his hand on this. Trent did. In this case. We know there are eras in the church in which most of the bishops are wrong. Obviously, the arian crisis is the most obvious one. [00:24:13] 16th century England. All the bishops in England, except for John Fisher, St. John Fisher, were wrong. [00:24:19] And so I don't think we can, like, absolutize this idea that we, if all the bishops are basically saying something's okay, then it's okay. I'm saying things that aren't defined by the church. And so, like, just, for example, just because none of the bishops today are saying anything against dancing, that does not automatically mean dancing is okay. I'm not making that argument. We have to look beyond today and into tradition. Like, you know, the Chester said, tradition is a democracy for the dead. So what we need to look at is the totality of tradition. [00:24:54] And I do think there is a certain weight given to the modern church only in the sense of. I'm. No, our modern church is so whacked in leadership, particularly only in the sense that it's the one that lives today with our issues. [00:25:11] So, for example, something like nuclear weapons, the church wouldn't even conceive that. Nobody would do that, like 100, 200 years ago. We have principles that then the church can apply to nuclear weapons today. So, like, if we're looking at the tradition for the morality of nuclear weapons. [00:25:31] Spoiler, they're immoral, then what we do is we have to look to today's magisterium for that, because the previous one just didn't have any knowledge of that. And so I do think that we can't be absolutists about. Okay, if none of the bishops today condemn it, then it must be okay. Well, to be honest, most of the bishops today are silent about a lot of important issues. And so again, what I would say is you look at the totality of the tradition, totality of all the popes and bishops and magisterial teachings and things like that. And you look at it all and you read them all in context. So, like, you don't, that, that means you don't pick and choose one papal encyclical from 200 years ago where there's one paragraph that says what you want to say and you don't look at every anything else. You don't do that, but you do consider everything. So I think Trent is a little too trusting of the idea that every era in the cat in the history of the Catholic Church, you trust all the bishops. I just don't think that's necessarily true. I don't think. I do think there's a danger in being automatically anti bishop. Like, no matter what the bishops say, we're automatically against it. That's not good. This is the Catholic Church. We are a hierarchy. We do have a spiritual authority that is invested in the bishops as successors to the apostles. [00:26:55] So I think we have to be careful that it's a tough. I'll be honest, it's not something I can answer today and nobody can. Exactly how we do this in practice, I think it depends. In a lot of different situations, I think it's more a matter of, we just have to look at what's going on in the church. We look at the tradition, understand it, look what the bishops are saying, and put it all together. And it's tough, let's be honest. Unfortunately, there are some good bishops, bishop Athenasius Schneider, Bishop Strickland, people like that who are in tune with the tradition and doing a good job of that. [00:27:29] Okay. So the second thing I really disagree with Trent on is that he really came down hard on, like, this idea of criticizing bishops and the pope. Like, he didn't say it, and he did say, you know, it's not that you can't, but he made it pretty clear that at least how I interpret him, I could be wrong, is that you really can't, you really shouldn't at least publicly criticize the bishops and the pope. That it gets to be, you know, it's just really something that we shouldn't do almost ever. I disagree with this. Now I want to make clear, if your life is about criticizing the bishops and the pope, which people think my life is, but if you actually read and listen to all the time I talk about, that's not what I spend my life doing. I do is part of it. If your life is that, though, that is a problem. If your automatic instinct is anytime a bishop says something, you believe the opposite, that's a problem. [00:28:25] All criticism of bishops and the pope should come from a place of charity, obviously, and also sorrow. You shouldn't want to. You shouldn't, like, be jumping to criticize a pope or bishop. It should be a sense of, oh, this is very, I'm sorrowful that a successor, the bishop, is saying something he shouldn't say. [00:28:48] All that being said, I do think the laity have a right and a duty to criticize the hierarchy. At times when they are a field far afield, they're leading people astray, and somebody has to try to bring them, those astray people back. It's not a matter of getting points against the bishops or trying to attack them. It's a matter of, they're literally leading sheep astray. [00:29:11] And so we're in this weird situation where a fellow sheep has to then say, no, guys, we actually are supposed to go, we're not supposed to go off the cliff here. We're supposed to go this way. This is the way back to our pasture. [00:29:22] Do they call it a pasture for sheep? I don't know. I've never been a shepherd. I mean, obviously the way it should be is the shepherds lead their flock to the green pastures. [00:29:32] But we know for a fact that many bishops, and let's be honest, a pope or two haven't done that. And so as a fellow sheep, if I know the pastures right this way, and I see the shepherd leading somebody that way, and I see sheep following him, do I just say, well, too bad for them? No. I think I have do say no, actually, guys, the pasture is this way. You need to, you need to go over this way. It's not the ideal, but I do think it is something that has to happen. [00:30:05] So I do think, you know, don't. We shouldn't be in such an overcritical mode. We're not listening. We're not trying to follow our bishops. But I do think there are times, and I think today, a modern times is one of those times where there's gonna be more criticism than is quote unquote normal than ideal. Definitely. [00:30:26] Okay, finally, I just wanna, I just wanna kind of say, kind of in conclusion, that the devil comes at us from every direction. [00:30:36] The number one attack in the church today is progressivism, as I said, but don't think the devil is, doesn't have other ways. He's coming in after us. When he sees people resisting that attack, he's going to come in the opposite way. And I feel like that's what fundamentalism, catholic fundamentalism is. It's coming in. It's like a err on the other of the other way. The church is, you know, both, and we've heard it said we, we don't want to just be reactive like, okay, progressive isn't. Progressivism is bad. So I'm just going to do everything. I possibly be the opposite of that and be as extreme as possible. The other way. That's not the way it is. [00:31:15] The church is not a cult like group in which we minutely detailed every single thing you do in your life. [00:31:25] The church gives us guide, like a good mother, again, not an overprotective one. The church gives us these guidelines because some are very hard in the sense they're very direct and obvious. Those are the guardrails. Keep us from falling off the cliff. But there's room within it. It's not like this tiny little way that you have to do this or this and this, and we're going to lay it all out. Otherwise, you know, you're off the team or whatever. You're going astray. So, ultimately, I think the point is we need to be faithful, not fundamentalist. Faithful to the tradition of church, to scripture, to magisterium, not fundamentalist about it. Okay, so, like I do on the live chats, we got some comments here. I wanted to go ahead and bring them up and read them. Put them up here. [00:32:09] Carsonian. The great Trent Horn fundamentally misunderstands the way the magisterium works, conflating positive law with all magisterial declarations. Christian Wagner did an excellent job explaining. I did not see Christian Wagner's comments, what he said, so I can't talk about that. I don't think. I would not say Trent Horn fundamentally misunderstands the way the magazine works. I do think he probably puts a little bit too much emphasis on the modern magisterium over kind of the magisterium of the ages. [00:32:34] But I do think that I would not agree that he fundamentally understands that's something goes too far for my view. Carsonian degree also says also something to keep in mind. The consensus of the scholastics is infallible, as it is extension of the ordinary magisterium. Catholic entrance downplays this fact of times to a detriment. I don't think that's true. I don't think the consensus of the scholastics is infallible, because I don't think. What does that even mean? Are you talking about St. Thomas Aquinas? Anybody who called himself a scholastic? I mean, I just. I think that's not true. I would not say the consensus of the scholastics is infallible, because I think you can't define it, because who is a scholastic? You can't. What does it mean to be in consistence, in consensus? If there are 100 scholastics and 98 agree, is that consensus, or is it 90? Is it 70, 51%? What is it? So I don't think that's. [00:33:30] I just don't think that's true. So maybe I'm misunderstanding what carsonian means by consensus scholastics, but as I'm reading and I understand it, I think that's false. Okay, last one. Um, August tv, August v. 123. When I see Catholics posting anti dancing type stuff, I see it as a science group velocity in their own lives. Yeah. I wouldn't judge them necessarily you know, their personal, moral, moral lives and things like that. I do think, though, when you, when you talk about fundamentalism, I do think scrupulosity is part of that often, and I think that's a real danger. I don't think scrupulosity, by the way, is a sin that a vice that infects a lot of people today. I do think it infects some, and I think they're more likely to be in the traditionalist or conservative camp of Catholicism. And so I do think that that's what happens, because they just feel like. And scrupulosity, by the way, if people don't know what that means, it's this feeling of when something is not a sin, you believe it's a sin. Martin Luther actually had scrupulosity, a great device, discrupulosity, in great measure. But it's like, you know, so, for example, you pray for a half hour a day. You see somebody say, we really should be praying 1 hour a day, and we should be. And also, you think it's a sin that you didn't pray an hour a day. That's not true. That's not a sin. You need to talk to your spiritual director, if you have one, but just understand where you are and work towards it, whatever it is. But when we start turning things into sins that are really maybe just weaknesses or mistakes or just some failings we have of human nature, we can't make it that. And, um, and I think, you know, there, there is the problem of, um. You have to know yourself, I guess the best way to put it is. And that, that keeps you from scrupulosity. Um, but I do think fundamentalists sometimes do, often that is a cause of it. So. Okay, I think that's all of them. So I will wrap it up there. Until next time, everybody. God, love.