There is still much being written about Charlie Kirk, his death, and his influence. To be honest, since I live under a rock, I didn’t know who he was until his assassination became big news. So, I began to research him, and I am dismayed that someone who professed to be a dyed-in-the-wool Christian could advocate such un-Christian policies. Are we sure that Catholic leaders should be praising someone so xenophobic, racist, and sexist?
Kirk’s admirers laud his college tours as attempts to engage young people in reasonable dialogue; they say he was healing the cultural divide with open debate. However, when I watched videos of some of his campus appearances, I saw that Kirk was a highly skilled debater against whom college students had few defenses. He’d trounce, even humiliate them, then arrogantly claim his victories as proof that his assertions were correct. So, was he really on a mission of “truth,” was he really debating, or was he enacting a carefully orchestrated plan to promote an ideology?
People like Kirk who have the ability to make even bigotry sound acceptable often sell the public a bill of goods that benefits the seller and not the buyer (think snake oil salesman, cult leader, hedge fund crook, or the Nazi Minister of Propaganda). Their pitch is not true or righteous, but a means to personal gain. As always, I advise you to follow the money—Kirk made millions of dollars from his “mission.” He became famous. He hobnobbed with the powerful.
For those who are rushing to remind me that one shouldn’t speak ill of the dead, let me say that I am objecting to what he said, not to the man himself. He might have been otherwise a good person, but good people can do bad things. What worries me most is the number of well-known Catholics/Christians who are perpetuating his errors. Every Kirk quote I read lacks the charity that Christ espoused. So, how could all these Christians say Kirk was a hero, a champion of our values, when what I am reading is the vile assertions of a bigot?
Let me give examples of what Kirk advocated. His last podcast was about immigrants, and it was dismayingly xenophobic and racist. He warned against American cities becoming like London and Paris, which, in his opinion, had been ruined by too many Muslims and other outsiders. The title of that podcast was “Keep Japan Japanese,” and the show praised policies designed to bar foreigners from moving to Japan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38Hz-ccVwWU
He touted keeping America American, but who are Americans? People who are the product of successfully blending different nationalities or just white Christians? In other podcasts, he talked about the danger of America becoming “less white,” of being “unafraid” to drop to a low percentage of foreign-born people. He perceived the influx of immigrants at our southern border to be “a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”
Throughout history, conflicts have most often erupted because one group of people feared another group if they looked different, spoke a different language, had different customs, and so on. Sadly, it seems to be part of human nature to fear differences rather than embrace them.
We fear strangers because we fear that they and their ways might actually be better than ours, and we can’t admit that. We have to establish our superiority over the “barbarians,” the strangers who dared come into our territory and who might, we also fear, take away what we have. This is what Kirk taught—not Christian hospitality and love of neighbor, but “stranger danger.”
Why? Did he truly believe in white superiority, or was it the ploy of many a power-seeker who unites the public with a common enemy? Think Hitler portraying Jews as leeches on German society; or Hutus blaming the minority Tutsis for dominating government and the economy. In each case, the result was a genocide. This time, it’s immigrants taking our jobs and being a drain on our resources. Vilifying immigrants has unified a political base.
This rejection of our neighbors in need is not what the Church teaches. Pope Leo has recently reminded us that it is our Catholic duty to welcome and assist migrants: [The Church] “knows that in every rejected migrant, it is Christ himself who knocks at the door of the community.”
Pope Leo also called on Catholics to “open our arms and hearts to [migrants], welcoming them as brothers and sisters, and being for them a presence of consolation and hope.” Yet Kirk said that America is full and cannot take any more immigrants. Open arms or “stranger danger”? Which is the more Christian response?
On one tour, a college student asked Kirk about feeding hungry children in America. Kirk answered that there are no hungry children in America because there are food stamps and welfare. He ignorantly believed that these programs eliminated hunger! No understanding of the difficulties in getting assistance, of the limitations of these programs, or seemingly of anything about being poor.
If he had done even the simplest research or volunteered at a food bank or talked to a social worker, he would have known that “In 2023, nearly 14 million children in the United States . . . had inconsistent access to enough food for a healthy life. This represents about one in every five children and is a slight increase from the previous year.” (Google AI)
Kirk’s “let them eat cake” pronouncement indicates that he was a privileged white male who had never experienced poverty and never, God forbid, gotten near those nasty poor people. We all know the type: elitists who think people are poor because they are lazy or losers.
Kirk wasn’t Catholic, but his widow is. Rumor has it that Kirk was considering joining the Church. I have to wonder how he would have reconciled his positions with those of the Church. They do not match. The Church advocates the Consistent Life Ethic. Kirk claimed to be pro-life on abortion, but he was not consistent with other life issues, like the death penalty. Therefore, a few Catholic writers are finally questioning how our church leaders could applaud Kirk.
For example, Gloria Purvis, writing for the October 6, 2025, issue of America magazine, asked: “What are Black Catholics hearing when church leaders praise Charlie Kirk?” Are they hearing them “sanctifying a figure who championed rhetoric that served to maintain white supremacy”? https://www.americamagazine.org/faith-and-reason/2025/10/06/charlie-kirk-racism-black-catholics/
Purvis points out that Kirk “trafficked in the same dehumanizing stereotypes that justified slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, and systematic exclusion.” While she does not believe that church leaders endorsed or even knew about Kirk’s racism, Purvis asks them to live up to the Catholic principles that recognize “Kirk’s language about Black people is fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” [emphasis mine]
So, how can it happen that Catholic and Christian leaders, spiritual and political, can praise someone like Kirk? Purvis wondered if people can get excused for being racist (xenophobic, misogynistic, etc.) as long as they are “sufficiently vocal about their love of Jesus.”
In my extensive political experience, the answer is yes. if people talk the talk, even though they don’t walk the walk, they are still golden. I used to have a Congressman who led a scandalous private life, but he could be relied on to talk family values and vote pro-life, so his party kept hiding his nasty secrets and getting him elected.
Sadly, pro-life leadership is so desperate for victories that they have repeatedly made similar deals with various devils. “We’ll mobilize our forces and get you elected if you promise to (fill in the blank).” In like manner, powerbrokers use this leverage as a tool to get pro-life voters to go along with other “conservative” values that are not necessarily conservative but rather a cover for an agenda of greed and classism.
The dynamics of labeling politicians and activists as “right” or “left,” conservative or liberal, results in shoving people behind fences instead of letting them free range in any pasture. Catholics should not allow themselves to be pigeon-holed by political labels, nor intimidated by those who have more power or who debate better.
Certainly, Catholics should not admire those who claim to be Christian but do not act humbly with love, compassion, and charity. Gaining power, wealth, and fame by rejecting immigrants and the poor, touting male dominance as a Christian ethic, and promoting white privilege is not Christ-like behavior. Rather, Christ pointedly reached out to society’s rejects, the untouchables, and the lowest of the low.
Kirk preached that he was on a campaign to bring the truth to America (yet he espoused conspiracy theories and multiple false claims). Ephesians 4:15 says that we should “speak the truth in love.” St. Paul said that someone who speaks with arrogance and not out of love will be “a resounding gong” and have no worthwhile effect. (For a similar discussion of lies disguised as truth see: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/musingsfromthepew/2024/02/the-progression-of-evil/
Kirk had a huge effect, but Catholics, particularly Catholic leaders, should ask if it was, in fact, a good effect. Look at the comments to Kirk’s posts: he brought out the worst xenophobia, racism, and misogyny in people, not Christian love.
For Catholics, our only hero should be Jesus Christ, and our values should be set, not by a resounding gong, but by Christ’s teachings and His Church. (See also https://www.patheos.com/blogs/musingsfromthepew/2023/06/left-or-right-or-jesus/)
Select your answer to see how you score.
