As I write this, it has been 24 hours since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, who was killed while speaking at a college campus event centered on free speech and debate. Gunned down on a university stage in front of thousands of young students, while engaging in and demonstrating what academics used to call “disputatio.” Placards with the words “Prove me wrong” still hang at the murder scene.
Charlie Kirk was a phenom. Courageous. Committed. In love with his country, his family, and with Jesus Christ, his Lord and Savior. Kirk spoke about each very joyfully and determinedly. Remembering Kirk on X just hours after his death, Bishop Robert Barron described him as “a man of great intelligence, considerable charm, and real goodness of heart.” He recalled texting Kirk recently after he witnessed him “debate twenty-five young people who were, to put it mildly, hostile to his views.” He complimented Kirk for keeping his “cool and his charitable attitude in the face of some pretty obnoxious opposition.”
Describing Kirk as “a great debater and also one of the best advocates for civil discourse,” Bishop Barron remarked that Kirk was “first and last, a passionate Christian.” And, as a passionate Christian, Charlie Kirk managed to engage the minds of millions of college students all across the country. He did it in person. Out in the open. Quite literally–in the wide-open spaces of college quads–just like the one at Utah Valley University where an assassin shot a single bullet through his throat, ending his life and shattering the lives of his young wife and two children.
Since his murder occurred on a university campus, one might expect to have already read statements from dozens, or even hundreds, of college presidents. But with a few exceptions, they have been quiet. Remember, by comparison, the campus response to George Floyd? January 6? These things occurred nowhere near a college campus. Yet university administrators wasted no time tearing themselves away from CNN and MSNBC to denounce “systemic racism” and “insurrection.” Colleges rushed to ensure stakeholders knew that they and their students were committed to justice and civic virtue.
Those events, we were told, were teachable moments. So, where are those college presidents now?
Where were those administrators a few years ago when an unprecedented and uncontrolled surge in illegal immigration raged across the country, resulting in the brutal murder of Laken Riley, a beautiful 22-year-old nursing student who was killed by an illegal immigrant while actually running on a college campus? While young female college students across the nation–and their families–worried that they, too, could have a similarly dangerous encounter on or around a sanctuary city’s university campus, their concerns were met with crickets.
In fact, instead of alleviating the real worries of students and families, some schools actually held meetings to discuss the possible trauma students might experience if ICE agents showed up to arrest illegals on campus. Given that, perhaps it should not be surprising that a day after a 31-year-old conservative Christian activist who captured the hearts and minds of countless young people was viciously gunned down in front of a crowd of thousands in the middle of a bustling college campus, we haven’t heard much from college administrators.
So, let us be clear here. We don’t need focus groups to write the copy or run it by a team of public relations experts. The statement writes itself: Charlie Kirk’s murder was a heinous, deplorable act of hatred which every American educator should condemn. It is a reminder that evil is real and unrelenting. Period. Full stop.
Unfortunately, in the context of other campus chaos the past several years, Kirk’s assassination provides the clearest reminder yet: too many colleges continue to foster a shockingly low tolerance for civil discourse and campus speech and an astonishingly high tolerance for actual campus violence. Yesterday’s heinous act makes it abundantly clear that such moral confusion has fatal consequences.
Kirk’s life’s work–bringing reasoned, open debate and the search for truth back to the academy–is unfortunately not the life’s work of many of our universities. Their safe spaces are an embarrassment; their silence is deafening.
R.I.P, Charlie Kirk. God help us all.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Meanwhile, uncontested from the dark corners of the Church, we have Cardinal Hollerich who is so broadminded that he can’t tell the difference between a male sexual organ and a sigmoidoscope.
Peter, simply brilliant amd mightily accurate!
How did this witticism make it by the moderator?
Excellent article, however, I think we need the genitive case for the title: Hence, “disputationis,” as in the “End of Disputation”?
“I am The Way, and The Truth, and The Life.”
Charlie Kirk took Jesus at his word, and committed his life to making a way for Truth, and he was publicly assassinated for successfully showing young people how to engage in civil discourse to make way for Truth.
As Dr. Jelinek argues, the presidents and administrators and faculty of most universities and colleges of the US are opposed to freedom of speech, and the search for Truth. This is equally true for formerly-Catholic universities like Georgetown and Fordham, which compete for last place at the bottom of the free speech surveys, rivaling Harvard and Columbia. They are opposed to the notion that there is Truth. Truth is not even a category in their view of life. Hence the oft-heard phrase: “my truth.”
“If One Doesn’t Wish to be Blind” is the title of Solzhenitsyn’s address to the British people on BBC Radio in 1976.
As disciples of Jesus, we should honor Charlie Kirk, a great disciple of Jesus, and dedicate ourselves to the civil and candid pursuit of free speech for the sake of the Truth. Because, as Charlie Kirk said: “When you decide to stop talking to other people, that’s when the civil war begins.”
Yes, you are right about Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk was an extraordinary young man, a good father and husband, with a beautiful family and his work on college campuses was incredible and tremendously important. He was a role model to many young men. He was turning around young men and women poisoned by the educational system. He created indeed a Turning Point for so many young people. Hence his enormous danger to the Left. He was countering, effectively, the poison poured on the young in college, after being poisoned in elementary and HS. He was incredible. The most effective warrior in the Culture Wars. And therefore so dangerous that obviously the darkest powers on the Left decided he must be killed. His being assassinated shows how dangerous he was to the Dark Powers. His courage was exemplary; imagine walking on a regular basis into the lion’s den of college campuses, and without the kind of protection that politicians get at mass events. What a man he was! He died a hero’s death, killed by a cowardly assassin’s bullet while fighting for the Good with his eloquence and knowledge. May God keep him in His Glory. This short video tells his remarkable life, a life of Faith:
https://x.com/TPUSA
Am praying for the peace of Christ for Mr. Kirk, his family, his country and even his killer. We are being called to repent, forgive and worship the Triune God, the Lord of Life. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)
The five paths of Christian repentance are condemnation of our own sins, forgiveness of our neighbor’s sins against us, prayer, almsgiving and humility. (St. John Chrysostom)
Amen, God’s Fool. And I personally think humility belongs at the front of that list. It enables us to practice the rest.
The children in Minnesota are martyrs for Christ. We have thousands of recent martyrs all over the world. Political movements are not Christ. If Mr. Kirk is a martyr, he died for Christ, not MAGA.
Charlie Kirk died for Christ, not MAGA. I find your remark, at best, to be gratuitous.
Christ knows His martyrs. I await His judgement.
If my comment was gratuitous, why did President Trump rush to claim Mr. Kirk as a “martyr.” To be fair, perhaps demagogues like Mr. Trump equate the martyrdom of Christ with dying for MAGA. Do you? Also, if Mr. Kirk was martyred for Christ, it was on a political stage after flinging MAGA hats to the crowd.
Very true God’s Fool. Thank you for that.
In the face of such hatred, we must not forget what the saints remind us: the greatest charity is to snatch souls from the evil one. This is possible only through the Cross of Christ, where hatred is conquered by unconditional love for one’s enemies. Padre Pio said that priests do this above all in the confessional, while laypeople are called to it through prayer and fasting.
As Dominican theologian Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli has often observed (whose works I translate on my Substack), the false humanisms of Bruno, Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and today’s gender ideology weaken man before Satan, “the liar and murderer from the beginning,” who unhinges hearts with hatred. Against this perverse iconography, the Christian response must always be the same: to cling to the Cross, to charity, to the salvation of souls. This is the true battlefield—and the true victory.
I’m not anti-intellectual but just from personal experience it seems universities don’t always influence their communities for the better.
mrscracker, you write: “don’t always…” I’d suggest: “almost never…”
There you go Deacon Edward.
🙂
There are exceptions for some Christian universities & colleges.
mrscracker: And God gave us only two hands because God knew that was all we needed to be able to count certain things.
are you being facetious?
per CBS news report:
President Barack Obama’s planned commencement address at Notre Dame has prompted outrage from students and activists upset that the Catholic university has invited a pro-choice politician to its campus. The controversy has generated headlines and with them consistent debate in the media about whether or not the president should show up at all.
But the situation is less controversial than it may seem from all the chatter over the past few weeks. Indeed, it seems that the most vocal opponents of the president’s visit only represent a small minority of the college community…
With respect, and with humility knowing that I may be very wrong–I don’t think Notre Dame is as Catholic as it perhaps once was.
I do know that there are still Catholic ministries on campus. And I know many Catholics who graduated from Notre Dame and are often seen in Notre Dame sweatshirts and other “spirit of Notre Dame” garb at Mass on game days and are often hosting game parties in their homes for other Notre Dame grads and people who want to see the game. I’m glad that there is school spirit. I hope that this continued loyalty from faithful Catholics results in Notre Dame (and other universities) guarding their Catholic roots and messages even while encouraging open and CIVIL debate about various issues.
A message to us, here and now, prepared for us 2000 years ago, from The-Man-Born-Before-All-Ages:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt0hh1sNUXM
It’s a bit over-the-top to describe a particular murder as the result of irregular migration. If the culprit’s irregular status gives one the right to assert this, then each and every crime perpetrated by members of a certain ethnic group with entirely legal status (which I’m not going to name, but which constitutes 11.5% of the population, and accounts for violent crime stats vastly in excess of irregular migrants) can be asserted as due to the existence of this minority.
In the wake of this particular crime against Charles Kirk, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Conservatism’s basic beliefs are at odds with Christian belief. To sustain the Christian West, we need Christianity, not another Enlightenment worldview.
“… let’s not lose sight of the fact that Conservatism’s basic beliefs are at odds with Christian belief.”
You keep saying this, even though it’s quite false. Either make your case or stop with the sweeping, pathetic falsehoods in these comboxes.
I wrote this reply to you on another post. But here it is again. I’ve provided material to support the sweeping assertions.
Pius XI and Leo XIII rejected several core conservative beliefs. It’s true that conservatives often deny following an ideology, but there is no doubt that their worldview is an ideology derived from the Enlightenment. A leading conservative, Robert Nisbet stated characterized Conservatism as “one of three modern ideologies”, along with liberalism and socialism (Conservatism, Dream and Reality, 1986).
Kirk addressed natural law very late, and in a very problematical way. Natural law is in conflict with his life-long views, such as this, “original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design” (The Conservative Mind) – this makes good and evil part of the nature God created, compromising both natural law and original sin. Kirk endorsed Samuel Coleridge’s belief that, apart from “intuitive reason”, there was no “standard for determining what is good and what is bad” (The Conservative Mind), compromising natural law.
But he was only following his mentor, Edmund Burke, “[the Creator] has mixed in [man’s] cup a number of natural Evils… In the state of Nature… mankind was subjected to many… evils”, God “designed [man]… for a state of imperfection” , “How far mere nature would have carried us, we may judge by… those animals, who still follow her laws” (A Vindication of Natural Law). For Conservatism, “nature” is a mix of good and evil. Even if natural law exists, it can’t be known with certainty, and society does not answer to it, “Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject” (Burke, Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs).
In the essay you quote, Kirk uncompromisingly applies the conservative refusal to make society answer to natural law, “No code of the laws of nature ever having existed, it is ineffectual to try to enforce that body of ethical principles through courts of law” Kirk says natural is rational, yet he deconstructs what the term means by enthusiastically quoting R. English “The natural law cannot be understood except through the elements of poetry and imagination in the soul.” Kirk’s term “right reason” was modelled on Coleridge’s romanticist notion, which was not reason at all, but which he endorsed in The Conservative Mind. Kirk’s essay views natural as a personal code for individuals firstly, and then for legislators and governors, which he defines as “man’s endeavor to maintain a moral order”, once again eluding the objective, universally verifiable character of natural law.
But natural law can’t be applied to society as a whole, because, he asserts, this law, though it exists somewhere, isn’t agreed upon and suffers from a variety of opinions etc. Only society’s own prescriptions form an “objective” basis on which to act. But this only shows up the great contradiction of conservative ideology as it has existed for two hundred years – different societies establish contradictory and often false prescriptions and secondly, they change them beyond recognition over time.
Because Kirk thought only subjective knowledge of this law was possible (depending on the validity of one’s “imagination”), obviously society as a whole had no choice but to rely on its own prescriptions. This contradicts the Church’s view of natural law as universally applicable and recognisable, and that its arbitration can be employed by individuals as well as societies as a basis upon which to act. This permits social conformity on a day to day basis. It also permits individuals, including judges, to challenge social norms and prescription if it contradicts natural law (we’re obviously not talking about the woke version of natural law).
But Kirk challenged this directly by appealing to Orestes Brownson’s idea that the individual may not base himself on natural law to challenge the authority of the state, even if the state’s prescription is unethical. Brownson dispenses with the traditional Christian view that there is indeed an objective basis upon which to challenge civil society, the Church’s authoritative arbitration, saying that US institutions take no notice of this. This is not the Catholic view, but it’s an entirely logical consequence of Conservastism.
Conservatism views religion as subject to and indistinct from civil society. Burke declared “An alliance is between two things that are in their nature distinct and independent… But in a Christian commonwealth the Church and the State are one… thing, being different integral parts of the same whole” (speech on the Unitarians, 1773), “by no alteration will you get rid of [the Articles of Faith’s] errors… [modifying them must reflect] the inclinations of the majority of people” (speech of the Acts of Uniformity).
Roger Scruton, the most influential contemporary conservative continued the same complete autonomy of society from natural law – “The subjection of politics to determining purposes, however ‘good in themselves’… [is] irrational”. Scruton defined Conservatism as “a political doctrine that recognises no ruling purpose” (The Meaning of Conservatism). Scruton not only continued Conservatism’s belief that religion was just a “code” for community life determined by society. He rejected core Christian belief. Original sin and creation were “fictions”, “purport[ing] to be an account of what actually happened” (The Soul of the world). He denied personal immortality (Our Church). It’s hard to see how one can hyphenate Catholicism with such an ideology, though I’m aware that many do. Reading what the most influential conservatives actually believed would cure this.
Cervantes is another AI malfunction. He seems to “think” that Christianity and the Enlightenment came out of the same Amazon bubble wrap. Fortunately, he obviously has no experience with sharp instruments.
Miguel’s comment appears to be in alignment with the teaching by the “nouvelle theologie” of the Modern’s Catholic Church to the dismissal of RadTrads consistent with the leanings of Pope Francis and perhaps Pope Leo. The theological divide between tradition and modernism is far more significant than the cultural divide between Christianity and secularism within the world. Does Rome lead with the certainty of Truth or the desire to conform to the world?
Perhaps my comment was too long to appear as one post. Here it is again in two parts.
Pius XI and Leo XIII rejected several core conservative beliefs. It’s true that conservatives often deny following an ideology, but there is no doubt that their worldview is an ideology derived from the Enlightenment. A leading conservative, Robert Nisbet stated characterized Conservatism as “one of three modern ideologies”, along with liberalism and socialism (Conservatism, Dream and Reality, 1986).
Kirk addressed natural law very late, and in a very problematical way. Natural law is in conflict with his life-long views, such this, “original sin and aspiration toward the good both are part of God’s design” (The Conservative Mind) – this makes good and evil part of the nature God created, compromising both natural law and original sin. Kirk endorsed Samuel Coleridge’s belief that, apart from “intuitive reason”, there was no “standard for determining what is good and what is bad” (The Conservative Mind), compromising the compromising natural law.
But he was only following his mentor, Edmund Burke, “[the Creator] has mixed in [man’s] cup a number of natural Evils… In the state of Nature… mankind was subjected to many… evils”, God “designed [man]… for a state of imperfection” , “How far mere nature would have carried us, we may judge by… those animals, who still follow her laws” (A Vindication of Natural Law). For Conservatism, “nature” is a mix of good and evil. Even if natural law exists, it can’t be known with certainty, and society does not answer to it, “Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject” (Burke, Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs).
In the essay you quote, Kirk uncompromisingly applies the conservative refusal to make society answer to natural law, “No code of the laws of nature ever having existed, it is ineffectual to try to enforce that body of ethical principles through courts of law” Kirk says natural is rational, yet he deconstructs what the term means by enthusiastically quoting R. English, “The natural law cannot be understood except through the elements of poetry and imagination in the soul.” Kirk’s term “right reason” was modelled on Coleridge’s romanticist notion, which was not reason at all, but which he endorsed in The Conservative Mind. Kirk’s essay views natural law as a personal code for individuals firstly, and then for legislators and governors, but he defines it as “man’s endeavour to maintain a moral order”, once again eluding the objective, universally verifiable character of natural law.
But natural law can’t be applied to society as a whole, he asserts, because this law, though it exists somewhere, isn’t agreed upon and suffers from a variety of opinions etc. Only society’s own prescriptions form an “objective” basis on which to act. But this only shows up the great contradiction of conservative ideology as it has existed for two hundred years – different societies establish contradictory and often false prescriptions and secondly, they change them beyond recognition over time.
Amen to that Miguel!
I would echo some of the sentiment of M. Olson however, (minus the bit saying “it’s quite false […] stop with the sweeping pathetic falsehoods”) it would be interesting for you to make your case or at least make some good reading available to all. 🙂
What is the reason Mr. Cervantes for not naming a population of people but providing their percentage?
Conservatism developed from the idea of “transcendence” in a divergence from Christianity with and without parallelisms.
Miguel Cervantes as I read him wants to preserve important distinctions and quite rightly so.
I think the Christian can capture and moderate the tensions in secular compacts, via philosophy and NOT through bias or diffidence of conservatism thought and not through conservative principles of any particular description or branch or era or stripe.
Which is to say, from philosophy, prudence, the wisdom of life, natural law and ethics; the Christian concern being in the particular witness in grace.
A fellow might aspire to such things without being in grace or without even being Christian. The particular poignant aspiration would not be conservatism. On the other hand, if he had these motions but turned away from the faith when it is put to him, or maintained them in the absolute service of the purely secular, one would encounter in that the limit of it for that person for the time being.
‘ Kirk described American conservatism as a steady flow of “prescription and prejudice”; Kirk defines his use of the word “prejudice” as an inherited wisdom over the ages, rather than any form of discrimination. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
Regarding the 2nd Amendment, was Charlie Kirk an absolutist or did he allow for some forms of gun control? For example, even some Republicans are in favor of restricting purchase of firearms for illegal aliens, transgenders and violent felons. I am curious as to his position with regards to this subject.
There is a certain irony regarding him and this subject. I think he would advocate reasoned debate here.
Very misleading. Having witnessed him speaking several times I witnessed his hate speech. He mistreated, insulted, and bullied those who were different than him. I doubt that Jesus would have been sitting at the table agreeing with him. He would be praying for his healing as I am now. Pray for the healing of our country and church.
Accusing Charlie Kirk of hate speech is, ironically, a form of hate speech, in addition to being patently false. We will be praying for your repentance.
I have watched many of his presentations online. I saw him “mistreat” “insult” and “bully” no one ever. He was eminently respectful. If anyone, the terms “mistreat” “insult” and “bully” ought to be applied to the more obnoxious and idiotic of his interlocutors (who seem to have been in the majority of those coming to the microphone.) What I did see was Kirk relentlessly cross examining the opponents on the enormous holes of their so-called logic. Their response–almost to the man and woman–was to dodge and weave and obfuscate endlessly. His response was to ever more insistently demand an answer to his question, which I suppose could be taken by your average non-thinker as meanness and bullying, but is really the doing of a favor for that person and the rest of the listeners. When the partner-in-dialogue could go no further, the usual response was for the person to mutter profanely and/or gesture obscenely and walk away–or admit he/she had no answer. At any rate, Charlie would then politely point out that the interlocutor could not answer the question, thereby letting the illogic illustrate itself for all the world to see. That you would consider this bullying says far more about your own disdain for logic and reason (and paradoxically, your need for a Charlie Kirk in your life) than it does about Mr. Kirk. I must also point out your own chutzpah in presuming to speak for Jesus without backing up your assertions with quotations. Let Jesus speak for himself.
Scott: For you, truth is “hate speech.” For you, my guess is that you think Jesus was murdered for hate speech. But for Christians, He was murdered because he spoke a truth others didn’t like hearing (like, “I and the Father are One.”)
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”
So, NO, Christians do NOT believe that Jesus was murdered.
It’s a both/and truth: Christ willingly gave His life and he was murdered, according to the first pope: “… this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Act 2:23).
God’s, hello, your comment above September 12, 2025 at 5:44 am –
‘ The five paths of Christian repentance are condemnation of our own sins, forgiveness of our neighbor’s sins against us, prayer, almsgiving and humility ‘
follows from St. John Chrysostom and sense of faith.
Conversion today in many places is an obligatory “pathway” and “journey” and “moving forward” in synodalisms. Synodalisms are manifold, they are unchecked and they are mixed up with heresies, false collaborations and guilt corroborations, as for eg. my Archbishop: “I agree with Pope Francis, we should legalize homosexual civil union.”
Recently in Rome there was (from what I heard) what could have been or might be a mea culpa session among Augustinians; however, one report suggested it was more a support group tell-all activity for the comforting of homosexualist clergies. Whatever it was it didn’t seem to stand apart from the other events taking place in the same period of time, “LGBT pilgrimage”, Fr. James Martin, etc.
Perhaps CWR can examine this issue in your quotation and also make to recollect Chrysostom more fully. And for that matter Augustine.