'I wanted to thank God in public': Fighting tears, Victor Glover gives legendary speech on return to Earth



NASA's Victor Glover showed once again why he represents some of the best of what the United States has to offer.

After Glover and the Artemis II crew splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on Friday, the pilot almost broke down in tears while delivering his first remarks since returning to dry land.

'It's too big to just be in one body.'

The crew members were in Houston, Texas, following their successful lunar orbit when Glover was asked by Commander Reid Wiseman to give a few words. Glover, who has been revered for providing on-the-spot wisdom before and during the mission, was at first at a loss for words.

"I have not processed what we just did, and I'm afraid to start even trying," Glover began.

Fighting back tears, he powered through.

"When this started on April 3, I wanted to thank God in public, and I want to thank God again," he said, as he became visibly emotional. "Because even bigger than my challenge trying to describe what we went through, the gratitude of seeing what we saw, doing what we did, and being with who I was with — it's too big to just be in one body."

The audience at NASA's Johnson Space Center erupted in applause as the pilot then thanked his wife and four daughters, whom he referred to as "those five beautiful cocoa-skinned ladies."

RELATED: NASA astronaut gives very American response to DEI questioning

"I love you ... all of you," Glover continued. He then turned his attention to NASA staff and leadership.

While the leadership has changed since 2023, he remarked, "the qualities haven't. And we are fortunate to be in this agency at this time together."

Wiseman wasn't short on wisdom, either. The crew leader fought back tears of his own when he had the microphone, mostly talking about the worry and anxiety the astronauts' families had ahead of mission launch.

"This was not easy being 200,000+ miles away from home. Like, before you launch, it feels like it's the greatest dream on Earth. And when you're out there, you just want to get back to your families and your friends."

Wiseman concluded by noting how special it is to be human and how grateful he feels to be on planet Earth.

RELATED: NASA's Victor Glover shares gospel as he circles dark side of the moon: 'Love God with all that you are'

Danielle Villasana/Getty Images

Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) took the podium soon after to thank the Artemis II crew on behalf of America. The congressman stated that the United States, as well as the world, "desperately needed this."

Cloud said the mission reminded him of Psalm 8, affirming that "even as we look to the night sky and as we look at creation, and behold the stars and the moon, we begin to think about what is mankind from God's perspective."

The Artemis II crew reached a point 252,756 miles from Earth and set a new human record for the maximum distance away from the planet.

Artemis III is set for mid-2027, while Artemis IV is targeted for early 2028 and is expected to land humans on the moon.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

American Youth Are Returning To Church, But They Need Encouragement To Keep Them There

Older Christians must commit to providing new converts with the support, discipleship, and community they need to thrive in life-long faith.

Chick-fil-A worker on why he didn't keep $10K cash left in restroom: 'That's not what Jesus would've done'



Chick-fil-A employee Jaydon Cintron told WITN-TV he was taking his break on Good Friday morning when he found two white envelopes in the men's restroom at the restaurant in Kinston, North Carolina. Kinston is about 90 minutes southeast of Raleigh.

“They were on the floor next to the toilet. My first thought was just like, ... OK, no, this isn’t happening,” Cintron told WITN. “Something is wrong.”

'Money is useless without character.'

But it was happening — and something most definitely was wrong for the person to whom the envelopes belonged.

Return to sender

You see, one envelope was labeled First Citizens Bank, and it contained $5,000; the other envelope was labeled Truist Bank, and it contained $4,333, the station said.

And how did Cintron react?

He told the station he simply picked up the envelopes and brought them to human resources.

A WITN reporter asked the 18-year-old why he didn't keep the cash for himself.

Cintron replied to the station with the following: "That's not what Jesus would've done. That's not what God would've wanted."

RELATED: The secret to Chick-fil-A's success has nothing to do with chicken

'True integrity'

Cintron added to WITN that his faith guides his thought process: "Money is useless without character."

Kinston Police Chief Keith Goyette told the station that "a lot of people will unfortunately take that money and run with it. But kudos to that employee at Chick-fil-A. [He] definitely deserves an award."

John McPhaul, owner of the Kinston Chick-fil-A, noted to WITN that Cintron embodies the restaurant's principles: "True leadership, true integrity is doing the right thing when no one's watching. And Jay did that in this case, and he should be commended for it."

The station said the restaurant tried to search security video in an attempt to identify the owner of the money but had no luck.

However, Chief Goyette told WITN the owner of the money came forward Monday morning to claim the $9,333.

It's own reward

Cintron revealed to the station that the owner of the money approached him and offered him a $500 reward for his good deed, but Cintron initially declined and told the man he expected no reward for what his faith told him was the right thing to do.

"I don't want anything out of this," Cintron told the station, adding, "I did this because that's what Jesus would do."

WITN noted that after declining the reward multiple times, the teenager finally accepted it — and numerous viewers agreed that Cintron deserves all the recognition he's receiving.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

My son is fighting for his life. The FDA doesn't seem to care.



I’ve been fighting Duchenne muscular dystrophy for 40 years. My brothers Angelo and Antonio died from it at ages 20 and 22, respectively. Antonio died in 2015, when my son, Ryu, was barely a toddler and had already been diagnosed with the same terminal illness.

My childhood memories are of praying for my brothers, caring for them with my mother, and Mom taking all five of her kids to church almost every day. I always asked God to heal my brothers, and — after Ryu was born — I added him to those prayers.

I’ve been saying the same prayer for help and to be able to lend my voice for over 40 years.

But I also went to God with another prayer — I asked that He would open the door that allowed me to share our family’s story. I didn’t know what that looked like, or when it would come, but I trusted in it.

This year, that prayer was answered when I was asked to speak out not just on behalf of my brothers and son, but for every family that feels isolated because of a terminal rare disease.

I visited Washington, D.C., to share my story with lawmakers from both parties as well as patient advocates and to ask them to push the Food and Drug Administration to stop standing in the way of drugs like Elevidys, the only gene therapy treatment for my son’s illness.

The advocacy worked. I can’t say how much my own small voice, speaking up for the first time, helped, but so many people speaking out made a difference.

The first indicator was when the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Dr. Vinay Prasad announced his resignation from the FDA just a week later — he leaves this month. Prasad blocked treatments, with the support of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, that could have helped kids like Ryu all across the country to live.

RELATED: Trump is keeping his word on health care costs

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

I’m just a mom. But we recently celebrated Easter, where a carpenter saved the world. He overcame the establishment of His time, which was willing to throw the vulnerable and sick to the side. He fell, but He didn’t falter — I hope to follow His example.

As we were approaching Holy Thursday this year, Ryu was having a hard evening. He needed his Bipap machine to help his lungs function, as he so often does. But he looked at me — my 14-year-old wheelchair-bound boy who is the happiest kid I know — and said, “Mom, this sucks. But what you’re doing makes it a lot easier.”

My story may not matter to FDA Commissioner Makary, who seems to have forgotten about Ryu and thousands of other kids like him. But God sees every hair on our heads. He named us before our parents knew us. And sometimes, like Gabriel told the prophet Daniel, prayers are answered long before we see their fruition.

I’ve been saying the same prayer for help and to be able to lend my voice for over 40 years. To the world, Antonio and Angelo may be long deceased, but they are the foundation for how my husband and I have cared for Ryu. And God has allowed me to carry their stories from my home in El Paso to our nation’s capital.

Commissioner Makary and Dr. Prasad may have forgotten that their job is to save lives, but God seems to have different plans. He’s just getting started with me in spreading His good news, and so far it has been amazing.

But I’m also not surprised, because I knew God would take care of it all.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the Christian Post.

Fine-tuned for life: How our one-in-a-million universe points to God



One of the remarkable scientific discoveries of the past several decades is that the universe and Earth appear fine-tuned for life.

Philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer explains that fine-tuning “refers to the discovery that many properties of the universe fall within extremely narrow and improbable ranges that turn out to be absolutely necessary for complex forms of life ... to exist.”

Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the Goldilocks Zone, where it’s not too hot and not too cold.

It’s important to note that the term “fine-tuning” or “fine-tuned” is a neutral description that doesn’t imply the existence of God. It’s a designation routinely used by scientists and scholars of all stripes.

Although scientific findings are always provisional, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that an incredibly powerful and intelligent being designed our universe to support life.

In what follows, we’ll look at the scientific credibility of fine-tuning, specific examples, possible explanations for it, and some objections to it. Fine-tuning is not surprising if Christianity is true, since God intended to create human and animal life (Genesis 1), but it is surprising in the case of naturalism, where it appears to be an astounding coincidence.

Believe the science

One will occasionally meet skeptics who believe fine-tuning is an idea invented by Christians but not taken seriously by scientists. This is a misconception, to say the least. Consider the following testimony:

  • Agnostic physicist Sir Fred Hoyle: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
  • Atheist physicist Stephen Hawking: “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
  • Agnostic physicist Paul Davies: “The entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.” “On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings.”
  • Atheist physicist Steven Weinberg: “Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.”

It’s notable that cosmic fine-tuning was one of the reasons the distinguished atheist thinker Antony Flew changed his mind about God’s existence, as recounted in his 2007 book “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.”

Against all odds?

Philosopher Robin Collins points out, “If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060 [i.e., 1 followed by 60 zeros], the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible.”

This is a mind-boggling number. Collins likens this improbability to “firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.”

He also observes that “if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist.”

If gravity were slightly stronger, stars would burn out in millions, rather than billions, of years (our sun is about 4.6 billion years old). If gravity were slightly weaker, most stars would never form at all — or would be too small and cold.

Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox helps us understand this vast improbability as follows:

Cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one of the billion piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick it out. The odds are about 1 in 1040 that she will.

A little closer to home, Earth’s position in the solar system is in what scientists call the Goldilocks Zone, where it’s not too hot and not too cold, allowing for liquid water to exist on its surface. The size of Earth also ensures that it has the right gravity to retain an atmosphere suitable for life without being too strong to inhibit the mobility of organisms.

Many other examples could be cited, but these illustrate the almost inconceivable odds against a life-permitting universe and Earth.

By design

These numbers are so surprising that they call out for an explanation, and there seem to be only three options: physical necessity, chance, or design.

Regarding physical necessity — that the universe had to have the properties that it does — there are no good reasons to believe this. As far as scientists can tell, the universe could have had a vast range of different laws, constants, and qualities.

To cite Davies again, “There is not a shred of evidence that the [parameters of our] universe [are] logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality.”

Regarding chance, we saw earlier how incredibly unlikely it is that any possible universe would support life. When you combine the improbabilities of all the fine-tuned parameters together, the odds against life become overwhelming. The one remaining option is design. All our experience tells us that only rational agents design things, and thus a cosmic designer is the best explanation for the universe’s fine-tuning.

Multiverse muddle

Space prohibits an extended discussion of objections to fine-tuning. I’ll briefly address two that are frequently mentioned.

The first is known as the weak anthropic principle, raised by physicist Martin Rees, among others: “Some would argue that this fine-tuning of the universe, which seems so providential, is nothing to be surprised about, since we could not exist otherwise.”

Thus, we should not be surprised that the universe is fine-tuned for life, since we are here observing that it is. But as philosopher Douglas Groothuis points out, this confuses two related but distinct ideas: 1) the truism that we couldn’t observe anything unless the universe was life-permitting and 2) an explanation of why the universe is so finely tuned. Acknowledging the first observation doesn’t negate the need to explain why, against all odds, our universe is life-permitting.

Second, some thinkers appeal to the idea of a multiverse to explain fine-tuning. If billions, or even an infinite number, of other universes exist, one of those universes will inevitably permit life. We happen to be in the lucky universe that does.

God is in the details

There is no experimental evidence, however, that a multiverse exists, and some see it as an ad hoc proposal to avoid the theistic implications of fine-tuning. As physicist John Polkinghorne writes, “Let us recognize these speculations for what they are. They are not physics, but in the strictest sense, metaphysics. There is no purely scientific reason to believe in an ensemble of universes.”

While the multiverse hypothesis is complex, ad hoc, and lacks evidence, the design hypothesis is simple (one Creator) and, as noted earlier, draws on our universal experience that only minds design things.

Thus, fine-tuning provides compelling evidence that God exists and intended to create living beings. And this sounds very much like the kind of God we find described in Genesis — one who, from the beginning, “created the heavens and the earth” and declared his creation “very good” (Genesis 1:1, 31).

A version of this essay originally appeared on the Worldview Bulletin Newsletter.

The case for banning the burqa



Kemi Badenoch — Conservative Party leader, survivor of the 2024 electoral rout, and arguably the sharpest political mind left in British conservatism — is considering a ban on the burqa as part of a broader review of Islamist extremism.

She should stop considering and start legislating.

'Freedom' that produces permanent public anonymity for one group, in spaces where no one else enjoys it, is not freedom’s finest hour.

The case does not begin with Badenoch, and it does not end in Westminster. Across six European democracies — Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Switzerland — full or partial bans are already law.

Their constitutions survive. Their Muslim populations remain. The predicted social cataclysm never arrived.

What arrived instead was policy — enforced and producing measurable outcomes.

Facing facts

The deeper question is why the rest of the Western world has been so slow, so squeamish, to reckon with what the burqa actually does in public space.

Full facial concealment — not the hijab, not the headscarf, but the garment that renders a woman’s face entirely invisible — removes her from the basic grammar of human interaction. Faces carry trust, intention, fear, and consent. Humans have read them for a hundred thousand years, and no amount of progressive goodwill has updated the firmware.

When you cannot see someone’s face, you cannot treat the person as a fully present participant in civic life. You can only treat the person as a shape moving through it.

Free societies depend on legibility among their members. Not total transparency — nobody is proposing to ban sunglasses or launch inquiries into wide-brimmed hats — but the basic mutual visibility that public life requires.

Courts require faces. Banks require faces. Polling stations, airports, and schools all require faces. Nobody marches on these institutions screaming tyranny.

Anonymity in shared space has always carried costs, and open societies have never been shy about saying so.

The burqa asks for a permanent exemption from an obligation everyone else accepts without drama.

Enforced invisibility

That exemption makes a certain grim sense in Afghanistan, where the Taliban reinstated the burqa as compulsory law in 2022 — a country where female faces are treated as a political problem requiring a legislative solution. In that context, the garment is a uniform of erasure, imposed top-down by men who find women’s faces inconvenient.

Which makes its romantic defense in the West, as an expression of individual freedom, not just ironic but absurd. The symbol of enforced invisibility does not become an emblem of liberation simply by crossing a border.

The First Amendment crowd — loudest in America, with philosophical cousins across the Atlantic — will say that mandating what a woman removes from her face differs not at all from mandating what she puts on it.

The argument does not survive contact with consistency.

Masks off

Masks at protests are already banned in multiple jurisdictions. Religious exemptions from generally applicable laws have limits even under the most robust free-exercise jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has never held that faith confers a blanket right to opt out of civic norms that apply to everyone else.

Employment Division v. Smith settled that much in 1990, and the decades since have not reversed the principle that neutral, generally applicable laws can coexist with religious freedom without apology.

A ban on full facial concealment in public spaces would likely qualify.

“Freedom” that produces permanent public anonymity for one group, in spaces where no one else enjoys it, is not freedom’s finest hour.

Female agency is the argument’s most seductive register. She chooses this. She owns it. Perhaps. But agency exercised under doctrinal pressure, familial expectation, or community sanction has a habit of resembling choice from a distance.

RELATED: Syria's Bloody Crescent

Mike Mercury

Feminist exception

Western feminism spent decades insisting that personal preference does not close the conversation when that preference is shaped by systems that constrain what preference can look like. That reasoning dismantled arguments about beauty standards and industries far less coercive than religious orthodoxy.

Applied here — to a garment entire governments have made compulsory — the same movement suddenly finds the question too delicate to pursue.

None of this requires hostility to Islam, to faith, or to religious expression broadly understood.

The headscarf is not the burqa. Private devotion is not public concealment.

People are entitled to their beliefs, entitled to wear almost anything behind their own doors, entitled to worship as conscience directs.

But public space is shared space, and shared space carries shared obligations.

Turning your face away from those obligations — permanently, behind fabric, as a matter of principle — is less religious liberty than a form of civic withdrawal.

There is a meaningful distance between religious expression and civic withdrawal. The burqa travels the full length of it.

Open society? Closed case

British polling puts support for a ban at 56%. For once, democratic instinct and reasoned argument are pulling in the same direction — not always a luxury policymakers enjoy.

In America, a federal ban would face genuine First Amendment scrutiny. The constitutional architecture differs, the judicial culture differs, the politics differ enormously.

But “legally complicated” and “morally unclear” are not synonyms.

Many Americans who correctly distrust government overreach have no difficulty concluding that facial concealment in courtrooms, classrooms, and government offices warrants regulation.

The legal pathway varies by country. The underlying social logic does not.

The burqa is not compatible with open societies. The only remaining question is how long open societies intend to pretend otherwise.

NASA's Victor Glover shares gospel as he circles dark side of the moon: 'Love God with all that you are'



NASA's Artemis II pilot found time to speak about Christ and Christianity before circumnavigating the moon on Monday.

Before Victor Glover and his fellow crew members traversed the dark side of the moon, losing radio signal as they went out of Earth's line of sight, Glover said he wanted to remind Earth-dwellers about one of the "most important mysteries" in the world.

'We love you from the moon.'

In a message to NASA's mission control, with the radio transmission broadcasted live, Glover revealed he was talking about "love."

"Christ said in response to 'what was the greatest command' that it was to love God with all that you are. And he, also being a great teacher, said the second is equal to it, and that is to love your neighbor as yourself," Glover stated.

He concluded the transmission, marked at 6:44 p.m. ET, by saying, "And so as we prepare to go out of radio communication, we're still going to feel your love from Earth. And to all of you down there on Earth and around Earth: We love you from the moon."

After a pause, mission control responded: "Houston copies. We'll see you on the other side."

"We will see you on the other side," Glover affirmed.

RELATED: NASA astronaut gives very American response to DEI questioning

According to NASA's log, the crew had just witnessed an "Earthset" three minutes earlier, the moment Earth drops below the lunar horizon.

This marked the beginning of about 40 minutes of darkness as the astronauts traveled behind the moon, which blocks the radio signals from NASA's network.

The Artemis II crew reached 252,756 miles beyond our planet 18 minutes later, at 7:02 p.m., at a new human record for the maximum distance attained from Earth.

By 8:35 p.m., the crew entered a solar eclipse that lasted about an hour, before beginning their trip back home.

RELATED: UConn star Tarris Reed praises Jesus ahead of national championship: 'He changed everything about me'

Glover has been full of memorable and insightful quotes throughout the mission, including the remarks he made before Easter. Glover spoke on video alongside his crew members about "the beauty of creation" over the weekend, saying that from his perspective, he could see Earth as one whole, and it reminded him of Scripture.

"When I read the Bible and I look at all of the amazing things that were done for us who were created ... you have this amazing place — this spaceship. You guys are talking to us because we're in a spaceship really far from Earth. But you're on a spaceship called Earth that was created to give us a place to live in the universe — in the cosmos," Glover explained.

Astonishingly, without having prepared remarks, Glover delivered an extemporaneous motivational speech to all those listening.

"Maybe the distance we are from you makes you think what we're doing is special, but we're the same distance from you. And I'm trying to tell you — just trust me: You are special. In all of this emptiness — this is a whole bunch of nothing, this thing we call the universe — you have this oasis, this beautiful place that we get to exist together."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UConn star Tarris Reed praises Jesus ahead of national championship: 'He changed everything about me'



University of Connecticut star Tarris Reed Jr. spoke beautifully about Easter, the Resurrection, and how Jesus has affected him following the March Madness semifinals on Saturday.

Reed took the podium following a 71-62 win over Illinois, which sent UConn to the national championship against Michigan, his former team, on Monday night.

'He changed everything about me.'

Surprisingly, a reporter in Indianapolis brought up Easter weekend during Reed's press conference, asking the 22-year-old what the Resurrection means to him.

Praise and proof

With a smile on his face, Reed rubbed his chin and said, "That's a great question."

"The resurrection is really everything," he began. "That's like, the staple of Christianity. So like, without the Resurrection, there is no Christian [faith], there is no Jesus."

Reed then went into details that are rarely heard in the sports world, which may signal a continued shift into faith being proclaimed by high-level athletes.

"I feel like once you can show a lot of significant evidence for the Resurrection, I mean, it shows a lot of proof towards Christianity. So I feel like just to go through, where I came from throughout my college career ... Jesus just literally changed my mind."

RELATED: Olympic Committee adopts new policy on 'trans' athletes

Bible based

Before the national tournament, Reed said he has been drawing inspiration from his Christianity, saying he reads the Bible every morning. When his confidence has been low, he has turned to God and been "strong" in his faith.

It was then that Reed began telling reporters that his belief in Jesus has changed him completely.

"He changed everything about me," Reed said on Saturday night. "It's crazy looking back; like I saw my old team Michigan the other day and spoke to a couple of those guys. We [have] just seen each other just grow so much and just change. So it's just been a blessing just to see myself just, like I said, grow through Jesus. I mean He just, like I said, wiped my eyes clean."

While there aren't as many instances, Reed had spoken about being a Christian during his time at Michigan, but he admitted recently he did not read the Bible when he played there.

Interestingly enough though, he cited similar reasoning for turning to his faith in 2023 with the Wolverines.

"When things are crumbling down, I know that I have faith in Jesus Christ. He's going to produce and carry me through the storm," he said at the time.

RELATED: Jason Whitlock: The NCAA tournament has a Bruce Pearl problem

Patrick Smith/Getty Images

Walking of faith

Ahead of the tournament final, the 6'11'' center says he has completely changed due to his faith, right down to the way he walks.

"My whole mind is different. The way I talk, walk, act changed. The way I treat other people. It's like more not to get, but more to serve. You know, I feel like I'm here to really serve and serve others."

UConn plays Michigan Monday night at 8:50 p.m. ET for the national championship.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Catholic churches PACKED for Easter as conversions skyrocket



Catholic churches across the U.S. and other parts of the Western world welcomed historic numbers of new members over the weekend. Although popularly characterized as a "surge," some analysts have suggested the flood of new and often young converts is actually a rebound.

Prior to welcoming 20 people fully into the faith during the crowded Easter Vigil at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles, Archbishop José Gomez said, "Tonight your story will be joined to His story, to the beautiful history of salvation, the great story of God’s love for His people."

'This generation just seems open to the call of the Lord.'

Altogether, 8,598 catechumens and candidates were received into the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles this Easter, reported Angelus News.

On Saturday, Archbishop Ronald Hicks welcomed some of the over 3,600 new catechumens who reportedly joined the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of New York this Easter season, telling a packed house at St. Patrick's Cathedral, "It does feel good when you belong, and we belong to Jesus and we belong to our church."

Father Andy Matijevic of Holy Name Cathedral in the Archdiocese of Chicago told WBBM-TV, "We had six Masses so far, last night and a few this morning, and all of them have been packed inside."

Holy Name, which held overflow Masses on Sunday, reportedly saw 18 people baptized and another 23 confirmed, contributing to the archdiocese's total of over 600 catechumens who received the sacraments of initiation at the Easter Vigil.

Chicago Catholic noted last month that the archdiocese was also set to welcome 445 individuals from other Christian traditions this past weekend, representing a 78% increase in members over last year.

RELATED: Catholic church sees huge surge in conversions — due to inclusivity?

Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Ronaldo Bolaños/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Father Burke Masters, whose St. Isaac Jogues Catholic Parish in the Chicago suburb of Hinsdale reported a 124% year-over-year increase in new members, told WLS-TV that the average age of those being received into the church is 28 years old.

St. Mary's Church near Texas A&M's campus in College Station, Texas, also managed to roughly double its 2025 Easter baptism numbers, welcoming 61 catechumens into the Catholic Church. Again, most of the newcomers were apparently young adults.

"Most of the [new members] are students, most of them are invited by other students, most of them also maybe heard a call or were drawn to the church," Rev. Will Straten told KBTX-TV. "So it’s great to see more students desiring to be baptized and to live the faith."

Boston Archbishop Richard Henning, who saw the churches under his purview similarly packed over the weekend and expected over 680 catechumens to join the Church at Easter, told CBS News, "I think this generation just seems open to the call of the Lord in a way that we've not seen in a while."

Numerous other American dioceses — such as the Archdiocese of Newark — similarly reportedly years-high numbers of new Catholics converts, as did dioceses elsewhere in the Western world.

In Canada, for example, the Archdiocese of Toronto counted a total of 2,050 adult catechumens baptized at its Easter Vigil celebrations — a 12.4% increase over last year. Other Canadian dioceses, including those covering the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, and Vancouver, were also reportedly set for significant growth over the weekend.

In France, over 13,000 adults were set to be baptized into the Catholic Church over the weekend, including more than 700 catechumens in Paris, reported the National Catholic Register.

The numbers appear especially high in large part because conversion numbers in recent decades had fallen so low.

According to U.S. diocesan statistics compiled by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University and analyzed by the Pillar, there was a precipitous decline in the number of people becoming Catholic from 2000 to 2020.

Whereas, for instance, there were 173,674 adults baptized or received into full communion in 2000, that number reportedly had plummeted to 70,796 in 2020.

The Pillar noted that while there has been a significant increase in the number of new adult Catholics following the pandemic, the number of babies baptized every year has dropped by over 50% since 2000.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Peter Hitchens: Leftist gadfly who found wisdom in fear of God



The late Christopher Hitchens had no shortage of objections to Christianity. But he reserved special contempt for hell — a doctrine he believed reduced faith to fear and the divine to a “celestial dictatorship.” A God willing to resort to such primitive extortion was hardly worthy of man's admiration, let alone worship.

Hitchens also certainly knew that bringing up eternal damnation was a good way to unsettle his Christian sparring partners, who often seemed vaguely embarrassed by the punitive side of the faith.

'I am no longer shocked by the realization that I may be judged,' he wrote later. 'It has ever after been obvious to me.'

Peter Hitchens had no such compunctions. Although he was every bit the cosmopolitan sophisticate his older brother was, it was precisely fear — base, desperate, and visceral — that led him back to the Anglicanism of his British childhood.

He was well aware of how unfashionable a motivation this was. "No doubt I should be ashamed to confess that fear played a part in my return to religion," he later wrote in his 2010 memoir "The Rage Against God."

The gift of fear

But it was the truth, and he was too rigorously honest to pretend otherwise. Besides, moments in his career as a globe-trotting journalist — crashing a motorcycle, dodging gunfire, confronting an angry mob — had taught him that fear could be a gift, a way of focusing the mind on what was essential to survive. Who was to say that it couldn't produce the same clarity in matters of the soul?

The crucial moment happened not in some far-off danger zone, but on a vacation in Burgundy with his then-girlfriend.

There, seeking a break from fine food and wine, he dutifully made a brief cultural excursion. Standing before the famous Beaune Altarpiece, 15th-century painter Rogier van der Weyden's massive polyptych depicting the Last Judgment, Hitchens initially expected very little.

Instead, he found himself rooted to the spot, mouth agape in terror.

The figures in the painting did not seem distant or medieval. “They were my own generation,” he wrote. Naked and therefore stripped of period detail, they seemed unnervingly modern — recognizable, immediate. “They were me and the people I knew.”

One detail stayed with him: a figure recoiling in terror, “vomiting with shock and fear at the sound of the Last Trump.”

Good and evil

The encounter forced him to confront something he had spent years dismissing — that the Christian account of judgment, of good and evil, might not be a relic of the past but a description of reality.

Raised in the Church of England, Hitchens discovered atheism as a teenager. As the 1960s gave way to the '70s, this adolescent rebellion gave way to an enthusiastic embrace of revolutionary politics with confidence. Reason and progress, Hitchens believed, could create a far more durable moral order than religion ever had. Like many of his generation, he assumed that once Christianity faded, nothing essential would be lost.

Experience had already chipped away at this faith in humanity. His reporting had taken him to societies where ideological systems had already tried to replace older moral frameworks. What he found — especially in the Soviet sphere—was not liberation but repression. Systems that promised a new moral order instead revealed how fragile moral claims become when they rest on nothing beyond power.

Then came that worn yet still vivid tableau, before which the 30-something Hitchens “trembled for the things of which my conscience was afraid.”

RELATED: Chuck Norris: Martial arts legend who submitted to a mother's prayers

Sunset Boulevard/Getty Images

Inevitable judgment

“I am no longer shocked by the realization that I may be judged,” he wrote later. “It has ever after been obvious to me.”

That recognition did not produce instant conversion. But it changed him. A year later, faced with a private moral decision, he found himself held back — by the same fear of doing wrong. “Without Rogier van der Weyden,” he wrote, “I might have done that thing.”

Hitchens did not return to Christianity for comfort. His account of faith is unsentimental, grounded in the belief that moral reality is not something we create and certainly not something we can escape.

The latter fact can chafe, leading to a rejection of God that is nowhere near as rational as its proponents would like to think. Instead, argues Hitchens, it amounts to a wishful thinking no less deranging than any "pie in the sky" sentimentality.

The most urgent question

That conviction has shaped his public life ever since.

Today, Hitchens defends Christianity not as a private belief or cultural artifact, but as the foundation for any coherent understanding of justice, responsibility, and human worth. Remove it, he argues, and what remains is not freedom but confusion — and, eventually, coercion.

The two brothers — one a leading "New Atheist" and author of "God Is Not Great"; the other the most outspoken defender of Britain's disappearing Christian heritage — may not seem to to have had much in common.

But what they did share is a willingness to challenge a sacred assumption of modern life: that faith is optional, interchangeable, and purely subjective.

To both Peter and Christopher Hitchens, the question could not be more urgent. To ignore it leads to hell — either here on Earth on in eternity. Wherever we think we're headed, the beginning of wisdom is to undertake the journey with our eyes open.