Above, Mrs. Erika Kirk mourns at the casket of her fallen husband, Mr. Charlie Kirk. Charlie was assassinated on 10 Sept 2025 by a male shooter (who had a trans-identifying boyfriend.)
Candace Owens recently stated: “I can tell you factually: Charlie was praying the Rosary. Charlie was going to Mass.” Additionally, I am told by a good authority in Phoenix that Charlie and Erika had their marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church the day before his assassination. Thus, more and more evidence is surfacing indicating that God Himself might honor Charlie not just as a political martyr, but perhaps even as a religious martyr.
Of course, many normy Catholics will scoff at my last paragraph: “Silly rad-trad, of course he was a martyr even if he just died a Christian but not a Catholic.” But it’s not that simple. Old school Popes said heretics who shed their blood for Christ do not get credit for martyrdom. That’s why it’s important to figure out if he was a catechumen in his heart, even if not on paper. Well, I can say after overdosing on his videos the last week that Charlie’s teaching was more Catholic than 97% of the bishops and priests I have ever met.
And again, we have Candace’s shocking statement above that Charlie was already praying the Rosary and going to Mass before his untimely death. And she was one of his best friends. Thus, I think he is saved even under a rigorous approach to Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. Keep in mind: The early Church considered the catechumenate to be entered upon based what they believed, not what they got on a silly modernist laminated name-tag. Also, Charlie probably attained baptism-by-blood even according to early Roman standards.
But I’m still offering private Masses for Charlie just in case I am wrong. Technically, only private Masses (not public Masses) can be offered for deceased non-Catholics according to pre-Vatican II rules.
In any case, the forces of hell know what is at stake here. Following the assassination, one of the most horrible posts from the left even threatened Charlie’s wife: “Can Erika Kirk be next? Then the two children can be placed with foster parents who will have them properly educated and growing up hating their parents.” Yes, that was one of the worst.
On the other hand, certain leftist outlets read the tea-leaves and called for restraint when they saw the sleeping-giant of conservative Christians awakened across the globe following the shot heard around the world. It wasn’t that they cared for Charlie Kirk. Rather, they were afraid of losing their jobs. As could be predicted, they rang their hands and called for restraint “on both sides,” as if we had also killed one of their own. The vicious leftists of the 21st century all of a sudden became like the likable liberals of the 19th century, charming the people with the microphone just to “accompany” them a little bit.
Usually, the right is gracious to such requests. But not this time. Michael Knowles posted: “In the wake of Charlie’s assassination, many people are demanding that we redouble our devotion to the ‘free marketplace of ideas.’ The call seems at first glance courageous and noble. In reality, it is reckless and impractical. We had an open marketplace of ideas; the Left shot it up.”
Matt Walsh posted in support of him: “I cannot ‘unite’ with the Left because they want me dead. They will spit on my grave when I die and laugh in the faces of my wife and children. There can be no unity with such people. But I will unite with anyone on the Right. I hereby discard any grudge or personal feud I may have had with anyone on my side. Maybe we will pick up those arguments some time in the future. Now we have to stand together.”
I agree with both Knowles and Walsh.
How about the Catholic Church? Even good traditionalist friends occasionally criticize me for putting too much of the weight of the problems on Vatican II. “Don’t you know the infiltration started before Vatican II?”
I think they’re right.
In fact, I’ll go a step further in throwing a curveball to you readers: I truly believe if I had been born around the turn of the century (around, say, when Fulton Sheen was born) I would have totally bought into Vatican II, just like he did. Yes, if I had been at the Council (Fulton Sheen was not) I would have signed all the documents and probably even supported the overhauling of all seven sacraments that followed. (God have mercy on me for being such a weak man.)
Of course, I would like to pretend as a 47 year old priest that I can sit here on my MacBook and say “Those people were such fools at the Council! How couldn’t they see God can’t change His mind on dogma and liturgy!” (In fact, I think I have written those exact same words somewhere else.)
But now I admit I would have gone along with most or all of the changes. In fact, even Archbishop Lefebvre signed the original documents of Vatican II before he saw where it was going.
But one reason the many good guys believed the few bad guys at Vatican II is because the latter were such smooth talkers. They were whiny, effeminate men who just wanted to be heard. “Just give us a chance! Dialogue with us and accompany us!” And, wanting to be pastoral prelates, the good guys listened to the bad guys… and got taken for a ride. The rest is history about how a nearly-new religion was created nearly-overnight in the late 1960s within the Catholic Church.
When leftists clamor for dialogue, it’s never for their hearts to be understood by their interlocutors as they claim. Rather, it’s in order to put a foot in the door to dominate their opponents. Like Muslims, they will kiss your hand until they can cut it off. Once they’re the majority, the tyranny begins.
And that’s why the left killed Charlie Kirk: Because they were lying about dialogue from the start. Charlie made the mistake of believing them, of going to university campuses, of asking hard questions, of “meeting them where they’re at,” of, well—in a word— “dialoguing.” (Of course, I don’t think this was “a mistake” from the point of view of heaven. Just some people would say it was a mistake from the point of view of earth, as it led to his death.)
Ah… but this cause of death goes way back in human history. Who was the first tyrant to request dialogue before tyranny? It was obviously satan in the garden, asking Eve to just enter into “dialogue and accompaniment” with him. This was his strategy despite (or rather, because) God had told Adam and Eve never to enter into dialogue with the ancient serpent. This began the downfall of the family with women talking too much, and men not talking enough… Good thing that’s not the case anymore in modern families.
The above post is obviously a conservative replying to a leftist. Notice the conservative’s tweet: “Charlie Kirk was reconciliation. He was killed for it.” In other words, the very leftists who asked for dialogue never really meant it. They always despised real Christians. They always hated the truth. They always hated the Logos. And when Charlie Kirk actually believed (rather naively, because he was a better man than me) the leftists that they wanted to talk, they killed him for believing them.
Leftists never wanted dialogue. Not on the American University campus. Not in the current Vatican. “Dialogue” was always the tactic for a subversion of the truth. It’s been that way since the Garden of Eden. And that’s why it’s now time to pray so hard for the great Prelate to replace dialogue with the Vetus Ordo in the sacraments, instruction to heresy in catechesis across the globe and the classic Magisterium to liberation-theology in the current Vatican apparatus.
We conservatives entered into the devil’s dialogue for over 60 years in ecclesiastical affairs. It failed us. Miserably.
This is now abundantly true in both Church and State. In the Catholic Church, we have especially seen the death of dialogue in the Vatican over the last 14 years with the canceling of even mildly-orthodox bishops like Bishop Strickland. In fact, just last week, a traditional priest of Rome got suspended for publicly criticizing the Novus Ordo Mass.
In State, of course, we just saw the slaughter of Mr. Kirk. Again, we saw the full “death of dialogue” as the nicest guy on the right was shot through the throat. Now we need to return to law, order, and instruction… not dialogue anymore. Someone has to do something in Church and State, to save souls and bodies respectively. The pious talking-points are over.
