w/c 30/03/25

ORDO

Dies	30 SUN	31 MON	01 TUE	02 WED	03 THU	04 FRI	05 SAT	06 SUN
Officium	Dominica IV in Quadragesima	Feria II infra Hebd IV in Quadr.	Feria III infra Hebd IV in Quadr.	S. Francisci de Paula Conf.	Feria V infra Hebd IV in Quadr.	S. Isidori Episcopi Conf. et Ecc.Doc.	S. Vincentii Ferrerii Conf.	Dominica de Passione
CLASSIS	Semiduplex Dominica II	Feria major	Feria major	Duplex	Feria major	Duplex	Feria major	Semiduplex Dominica I
Color*	Rosa	Purpura	Purpura	Albus	Purpura	Albus	Albus	Purpura
MISSA	Lætáre	Deus, in	Exáudi, Deus	Justus	Lætétur cor	In médio	Os justi	Júdica me
Orationes	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro vivis et mortuis	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro vivis et mortuis	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro vivis et mortuis	2a. Feria IV infra Hebd IV in Quadr.	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro vivis et mortuis	2a. Feria VI infra Hebd IV in Quadr.	2a. Sabbato infra Hebd IV in Quadr.	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae
NOTAE	no Gl. Cr. Pref. Quadragesima	no Gl. Cr. Pref. Quadragesima	Gl. Cr. Pref. Quadragesima	Gl. Pref. Quadragesima	no Gl. Pref. Quadragesima	Gl. Cr. Pref. Quadragesima	Gl. Pref. Quadragesima	no Gl. Cr. Pref. Quadragesima
Nota Bene				Proprium Ultimum Evangelium**		Proprium Ultimum Evangelium**	Proprium Ultimum Evangelium**

Laetare Mater!

“Rejoice, O Mother” echoes the first line of the Introit: Laetare, Jerusalem: et conventum facite, omnes qui diligitis eam…—”Rejoice, O Jerusalem: and come together all you that love her…” The Church, seen as the Mater Ecclesia, the New Jerusalem, is both the subject and source of our joy. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

On this Fourth Sunday of Lent, as the Church breaks into song—Laetare, Jerusalem—I write to you with a shepherd’s heart. The liturgy lifts its voice today not in distraction from suffering, but in defiance of despair. It dares to rejoice even while the Cross still stands before us, even as the road to Calvary stretches ahead. This sacred paradox, enshrined in the words Laetare Mater, invites each of us to renew our Christian discipleship, not apart from trial, but precisely through it.

The joy of a suffering Mother
The Church, our Mother, is rejoicing today—not because she is free from sorrow, but because she sees the resurrection beyond the Passion. Laetare Mater is her cry of hope, her encouragement to us, her children, to persevere in faith, even amid affliction. As Isaiah prophesied, “As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem” (Is 66:13).

And who needs this comfort more than the faithful children of the Church today?

We live in an hour of profound trial—when scandal has wounded the Bride of Christ, when confusion has entered the sanctuary, and when many shepherds, forgetting their duty, have become hirelings. Our society, too, sinks deeper into the madness of self-destruction: the family is dismantled, truth is mocked, and sin is publicly celebrated. The world has forgotten not only God, but even nature itself.

Yet it is precisely in this hour that the Church, like a mother surrounded by the ruins of her home, stands and sings: Laetare. Rejoice, because Christ is not absent. He is hidden in the tabernacle, veiled in mystery, mocked by the world—but He remains. The joy of Laetare Sunday is not a naive optimism; it is a supernatural certainty rooted in the Cross, which leads unfailingly to Easter.

Children of a free Mother
Saint Paul, in today’s epistle, reminds us that we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free (Gal 4:31). We do not belong to the world, which enslaves the heart to passing pleasures and false promises. We belong to the Church, the Jerusalem from above, “our mother,” as Paul calls her. This is not merely a pious metaphor. The Church truly nourishes, teaches, protects, and sanctifies us—not through slogans, but through the sacraments, the sacred liturgy, and the unchanging doctrine of the Faith.

To live as children of this free Mother is to embrace discipleship in a world that will hate it. But Laetare Sunday reminds us: the freedom of the children of God is joyful, not grim. The saints were not merely brave—they were radiant. They fasted and prayed, but they also sang. They suffered, but they rejoiced in the suffering that united them to Christ.

Your calling amid crisis
What, then, are we to do in these times? First, remain faithful. The Lord does not ask success from us, but fidelity. Go to Mass. Go to confession. Teach your children. Pray the Rosary. Read Scripture. Adore the Blessed Sacrament. Defend the truth with charity and courage. Do not be discouraged when others—perhaps even within the Church—mock or contradict what the Church has always taught. The truth has never needed permission to endure.

Second, reclaim joy. Too often, traditional Catholics are tempted to wear their fidelity like a badge of bitterness. But if we truly believe in the Resurrection, our very demeanor should reflect hope. The joy of Laetare is a witness the world desperately needs. Not frivolous, worldly cheerfulness—but that serene gladness born of knowing that Christ reigns, even now.

Third, love the Church—not an idealized abstraction, but the wounded, glorious, divinely-instituted reality we live in. Love her by loving her traditions. Love her by praying for her renewal. Love her even when her members fail you. She is your Mother. And a mother, even when afflicted, even when humiliated, still feeds her children and still points to heaven.

Toward Easter, through the Cross
As we continue our Lenten pilgrimage, let today be a moment of renewal. Let the rose vestments, the returning organ, the blossoms on the altar not soften our resolve, but deepen our motivation. If the Church rejoices even in Lent, then so must we. For this is the joy that no world crisis, no internal corruption, no personal sorrow can take away: the joy of belonging to Christ, in His Church, on the way to glory.

Rejoice, O Mother—and may we, your children, rejoice with you.

With every blessing as we press on toward the Paschal Feast,

Semper in Christo. 🔝

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

Laetare Sunday in the Tridentine Rite

Overview
The Fourth Sunday of Lent is traditionally called Laetare Sunday, from the first word of the Introit: Laetare, Jerusalem – “Rejoice, O Jerusalem.” It marks the halfway point of the Lenten season and provides a moment of lightness and joy in the otherwise penitential character of Lent. In the Tridentine Rite, this Sunday is distinct in both liturgical rubrics and external signs.

Changes and Variations in Rubrics
1. Use of Rose Vestments
The most visible change is the optional use of rose-colored vestments instead of the penitential violet (purple). This symbolizes a relaxation of Lenten austerity and anticipates the joy of Easter. The only other day rose vestments are permitted is Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent).
2. Altar Decorations and Organ Use

• Floral Decorations are permitted on the altar, a practice otherwise forbidden on Sundays of Lent.
• The organ may be played, even solo (i.e., not just to accompany singing), though still in moderation. This is a departure from the usual restriction on instrumental music during Lent, meant to emphasize the solemnity of the season.

3. Deacon and Subdeacon Vesture (Solemn High Mass)
At a Solemn High Mass, the deacon and subdeacon may wear dalmatic and tunicle in rose, instead of violet folded chasubles or the broad stole that would be used during more solemn penitential days. These are signs of festivity.

Historical Background and Development
Laetare Sunday’s unique character dates back to at least the Middle Ages, with the Gregorian Sacramentary including the Laetare Introit. The softening of Lenten discipline on this day was codified in Roman custom and then in Tridentine rubrics, most notably after the reforms of St. Pius V (1570 Missal). Its purpose is pastoral and theological: a pause to refresh the faithful and sustain their spiritual momentum through the rest of Lent.

The tradition of rose vestments is rooted in Roman custom, and the papal blessing of the Golden Rose, given to Catholic monarchs or cities, was also traditionally conferred on this Sunday.

Conclusion
Laetare Sunday in the Tridentine Rite offers a liturgical reprieve that highlights the Church’s wisdom in balancing penance with joy. The change in rubrics—from vestments to music—signals the nearness of Easter, encourages the faithful to persevere, and reflects the deeper joy that undergirds the Christian life even in seasons of penance. 🔝

---

The Fourth Sunday of Lent: Laetare Sunday

Laetare Sunday: The Joy of Anticipated Victory in the Midst of Lenten Combat
“Laetare, Jerusalem: et conventum facite, omnes qui diligitis eam.” “Rejoice, O Jerusalem: and come together all you that love her.” Thus begins the introit of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, interrupting the somber cadence of Lent with a sudden burst of jubilation. For this reason, the day is known as Laetare Sunday, named from the first word of the introit, taken from Isaiah 66:10–11. It is a moment of liturgical refreshment—an oasis in the desert of penance. Yet it is not a suspension of the Lenten ethos; rather, it is a foretaste of the Easter victory promised to those who persevere. The traditional Roman liturgy, in her sobriety and mystical realism, understands the human soul’s need for encouragement in the midst of battle.

As Dom Prosper Guéranger remarks in his Liturgical Year, “The Church tempers the sadness of the penitential season with the joys of the approaching Easter, as a mother would comfort her children.”¹ This is no psychological trick, but a spiritual wisdom. The Church is both Mater and Magistra—Mother and Teacher—guiding her children not only through doctrinal instruction, but through the rhythm of the sacred calendar.

The Church, the New Jerusalem
The introit’s call to joy is not merely sentimental. The Jerusalem of the text is no earthly city, but the image of the Church herself, the new and heavenly Jerusalem. Fr. Leonard Goffine, in his Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, sees this as a direct exhortation to the faithful “to rejoice that they belong to the Church, the Spouse of Christ, and to long for her consolations.”² The faithful are pilgrims en route to the heavenly city; even as they fast and do penance, they are already united to her liturgically and sacramentally.

The Church, even in her militant state, bears within her the glory of the Church Triumphant. Her solemn liturgy, veiled though it is by suffering, bears the marks of eschatological promise.

The Multiplication of Loaves: Eucharistic Prefiguration
The Gospel for Laetare Sunday (John 6:1–15) recounts the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, a miracle of divine compassion. Dom Benedict Baur, in his The Light of the World, sees in this miracle the Eucharist prefigured: “Christ does not send the hungry away, but feeds them in the desert. So too, He nourishes our souls during the Lenten fast with His own Body and Blood.”³ The crowd had followed Christ into the wilderness; the Church follows Him into the Lenten desert. He tests the faith of His disciples, just as He tests ours, before revealing His abundance.

Here we see a pattern: privation before provision, hunger before heavenly nourishment. The liturgy is catechetical in form. As Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen writes in Divine Intimacy, “Our Lord first allows suffering, in order that His gifts may be better received. The Eucharist is not for the well-fed, but for the poor in spirit, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness.”⁴

The Maternal Face of the Church
The epistle (Galatians 4:22–31) presents the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, the free woman and the slave. Fr. Pius Parsch, in his The Church’s Year of Grace, interprets this reading as an exhortation to understand our identity as children of the promise, not of the flesh but of the spirit: “We are no longer bound to the law of fear, but live by the freedom of grace… This is our cause for rejoicing, even amid Lenten severity.”⁵

It is not insignificant that the Church, the New Jerusalem, is compared to a mother. The liturgical vestments may be rose today rather than purple, symbolizing not a break in discipline but the gentle touch of the Mater Ecclesia, who sees her children wearied by the long road of penance. She offers them strength through sacramental nourishment and the reminder that Easter is near.

The Rose Vestments and the Golden Light
The use of rose-colored vestments, permitted only today and on Gaudete Sunday, speaks liturgically of a lightening in the Lenten load. Purple, the color of penance, is softened by the golden glow of hope. As Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has written, “The very use of rose vestments is an exquisite example of the Roman Rite’s power to teach by symbol: here joy pierces through austerity, as grace elevates nature and divine charity transforms human suffering.”⁶

Everything in the traditional liturgy is intentional. The presence of the organ—normally silenced during Lent—returns today. Flowers may adorn the altar again. These signs are not concessions to human weakness, but encouragements to perseverance. The Church does not despise human frailty; she elevates it.

A Note on Lenten Joy
There is a false dichotomy in modern liturgical sensibility that sees penance and joy as mutually exclusive. Yet the traditional Roman rite understands that joy is not the absence of suffering but its transfiguration. To rejoice during Lent is not to abandon the fast, but to deepen its purpose: we fast not to harm the body, but to awaken the soul.

As Guéranger puts it, “The joy of Laetare is not carnal joy, but the spiritual joy of those who await redemption.”⁷ In the mystery of the Cross, joy and sorrow are wed. The bridegroom has been taken away, but His promise remains. The Church, like Mary at Cana, intercedes on behalf of her hungry children, and Christ again multiplies the loaves—in the Mass.

Conclusion: Toward Easter, But Not Yet
Laetare Sunday teaches us to see beyond the fast, to the feast that is coming. But we are not there yet. The Lenten pilgrimage continues. Let the soul be encouraged today, not excused. As the collect of the Mass prays, “Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we, who are afflicted for our deeds, may be relieved by the comfort of Thy grace.”

We walk with Christ through the desert, yes—but it is the desert that blossoms, as Isaiah foretold (Is. 35:1). Even here, even now, the Eucharistic Christ feeds us. Let us rejoice, but let us press on toward the Cross—for it is only by the Cross that we may reach the empty tomb. 🔝

Footnotes
¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. V, Fourth Sunday of Lent.
² Fr. Leonard Goffine, Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, Fourth Sunday of Lent.
³ Dom Benedict Baur, The Light of the World, Vol. II, p. 178.
⁴ Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, Divine Intimacy, meditation for Laetare Sunday.
⁵ Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, Vol. II, p. 157.
⁶ Peter Kwasniewski, Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis, Angelico Press, 2014.
⁷ Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, ibid.

Missalettes (Quadragesima IV)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

---

“Laetare Mater” a Motto for the fourth week of Lent

Laetare Mater: Rejoice, O Mother

“Laetare, Jerusalem: et conventum facite, omnes qui diligitis eam…”
“Rejoice, O Jerusalem: and come together, all you that love her…”
— Isaiah 66:10 (Introit of the Mass)

Halfway through Lent, the Church gently turns to us with a mother’s voice: Rejoice, my child. Do not forget the joy that lies ahead. This Sunday is not a break from Lent—it is the breath the soul takes before pressing on more firmly.

Laetare Mater—Rejoice, O Mother—is not only about the Church’s joy; it is a summons to rediscover our joy in being her children. She calls us not to abandon the fast, but to remember why we fast: for the sake of love, for the hope of resurrection, for the joy that is already promised.

Scripture for personal reflection
“As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
— Isaiah 66:13
Let this verse speak to your heart today. The Church is not merely an institution—she is a mother who comforts, even in your struggle, even in your penance. Will you let yourself be comforted?

“You are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.”
— Galatians 4:7
Laetare Sunday’s epistle reminds us: we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Our penance is not servitude; it is the path of sons walking home to their Father.

“Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.”
— Matthew 11:28
The Lord does not remove the Cross—but He strengthens us with a deeper joy. Where is He giving you rest today? 🔝

A prayer
Laetare Mater, Rejoicing Mother—teach me to rejoice with you, even in the desert.
Let me not lose heart in the discipline of Lent.
Remind me of the joy that lies ahead, and let me live today in the light of Easter’s promise.
Mother Church, lead me by the hand to your risen Lord. Amen.

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Fourth Sunday in Lent

Laetare Sunday at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme

Today the Church sings, Laetare, Jerusalem—”Rejoice, O Jerusalem.” In the midst of Lent’s fast and penance, Holy Mother Church leads us into a moment of joy, a foretaste of Easter. The rose-colored vestments, the sound of the organ, and the first spring flowers on the altar are not liturgical distractions, but symbols of something profound: that joy is already present within suffering when Christ is near.

Fittingly, the stational church for this Sunday is Santa Croce in Gerusalemme—the Basilica of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem. This basilica, founded by Saint Helena and consecrated with relics of the Passion brought from Calvary, brings Jerusalem to Rome. It stands as a sacred threshold between penance and promise, between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

We begin today, then, by turning to the Epistle, in which Saint Paul contrasts the children of Hagar and Sarah, of the slave woman and the free. He declares that we are children not of slavery, but of promise—not bound under the law, but made heirs of the Kingdom through grace. And the “Jerusalem above,” he tells us, “is our mother” (Gal 4:26). In the midst of our Lenten discipline, this is a truth we must claim personally: we do not suffer as orphans, but as sons and daughters. Our fast is not punishment; it is purification. Our struggle is not exile; it is pilgrimage. We are being prepared not for more burdens, but for the freedom of Easter morning.

The Gospel completes this theme. Saint John recounts the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes—a prelude to the Holy Eucharist. Christ sees the hungry multitude and tests His disciples. The setting is a desert place. There is not enough. And yet, through divine compassion, not only is the hunger satisfied, but twelve baskets overflow. This is how God works: He permits lack so that we might learn to hunger for what only He can provide. He reveals His abundance not before the test, but within it.

In the desert of Lent, we often feel the same: that we lack the strength, the clarity, or the peace we desire. But Laetare Sunday teaches us to trust that God provides most fully in the wilderness. It is there that He feeds us—not only with bread, but with the Bread of Life, His Eucharistic Body.

We are reminded of the Holy Cross, the relic of which rests within the stational church today. From the wood of that Cross came not death alone, but eternal life. It is no coincidence that the Church chooses this basilica as the place from which to proclaim: Laetare. The Cross and the Resurrection are never separate in the liturgical life of the Church. Joy is born not from ease, but from the knowledge that the Cross leads to glory.

As pilgrims once gathered in Rome to venerate the Cross in this holy basilica, so we are called to gather in heart and mind around the Church, our Mother, who leads us onward with both tears and triumph. The mystery of Laetare Sunday is this: to rejoice not because the struggle is over, but because Christ is in our midst, multiplying grace in the very place we feel most empty.

Let us then rise with renewed faith. We are children of the free woman. We are fed by the Word and the Eucharist. We are carried by the prayers of the Church and upheld by the Cross. Rejoice, O Jerusalem. Rejoice, O soul. Easter is not far. 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

by the Revd Dr Robert Wilson PhD (Cantab), Old Roman Apostolate UK

Fourth Sunday in Lent

But that Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother

Today is the Fourth Sunday in Lent, and it is a day that has more different names than any other Sunday. It is called Laetare Sunday from the Introit for the Mass. It is known as Rose Sunday from the rose vestments that are traditionally worn for this Sunday. It is also called Refreshment Sunday, for it is a day of relaxation from the austerity of the rest of this season and the Gospel is from the Feeding of the Five Thousand. But the most common name given for this Sunday is Mothering Sunday. Today this usually understood to refer to our earthly mothers and it is set aside as a day when we give thanks for them. However, this is not what this Sunday was traditionally understood to be about. The mother was our holy Mother the Church and it is this that is referred to by St. Paul in today’s epistle when he reminds the Galatians that “the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother.” The epistle was chosen for this Sunday because today’s station is from the Church of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem and the propers for the Mass reflect the theme of Jerusalem, not only the city of David, but also the Jerusalem that is above, the heavenly Jerusalem.

But what was the context in which St. Paul wrote these words? St. Paul wrote to the Galatians in order to combat the first great error or heresy that arose in the history of the Church. This was the belief that a Gentile (that is, a non-Jew) needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses (in other words become a Jew) in order to be within the Church, the Israel of God. By contrast, St. Paul teaches that it is not necessary for a Gentile to become a Jew before becoming a Christian. The Church, the true Israel of God, and heir of the promises of the Old Testament, was now defined, not by race, but by faith. St. Paul’s opponents had pointed out that Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, had received the covenant of circumcision, thereby defining for future generations the membership of the covenant people. St. Paul replied that Abraham had been counted righteous before God not because he was circumcised, but because he believed in the promises of God that in his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed. Abraham was therefore the father of all that believed, whether they were Jews or Gentiles.

The Book of Genesis describes how Abraham had two sons. The first was Ishmael from Hagar, a slave woman. The second was Isaac, from Sarah his wife, a free woman. It was Isaac and not Ishmael who was the heir of the promise of God that in the seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed. St. Paul interpreted this as an allegory of the two covenants. Hagar, the slave woman and her descendants stood for the covenant on Mount Sinai (the Law of Moses). “For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” By contrast, Sarah, the free woman and her descendants stood for the people of the new covenant, the true heirs of the promises of God to Abraham. “But that Jerusalem which is above is free, which is our mother.” “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise…. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.” We became members of the Church, the Body of Christ, at our baptism and are therefore the heirs of the promises of God to Abraham. It is not circumcision, but baptism that makes us members of the people of God, our Holy Mother the Church, the Jerusalem that is above. As St. Paul put it in another passage to the Galatians, “For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

It is especially important to emphasise this point today because the contemporary obsession with keeping this day as a celebration of our earthly mothers, rather than of our Holy Mother the Church, fundamentally distorts the true meaning of this Sunday. There is nothing wrong with setting aside a day in the year to give thanks for our earthly mothers, but it is not right to remove the focus of this Sunday from our Holy Mother the Church to our earthly mothers. This is in effect to substitute the worship of the old creation for that of the new. We were conceived in the womb of our earthly mother and from her we receive the gift of life, but we must then be reborn in the regenerating waters of baptism to become part of the new creation in Christ. Our true identity therefore comes not from our diverse circumstances in this world, but from our new life in Christ, through whom we become citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, the world to come. That is the whole point of why St. Paul expressed himself so strongly to the Galatians, for they were in danger of ceasing to define themselves by their identity in Christ and seeking to erect other barriers by which to identify themselves.

If we are to follow the teaching of St. Paul today we must say that we too, like the Galatians, have been led astray by turning this Sunday from a day which should be about our true identity in Christ, to one about our own identity in this world derived from our earthly mothers. There is something truly demonic about the way the advertising industry has corrupted this day into one in which people are encouraged to buy things they do not need with money that they do not have in order to impress people. Let us pray that we will take heed to St. Paul’s warning and seek to find our identity not from our earthly parentage but from Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female. This does not mean the abolition of our earthly identity, but rather our common need for redemption. For all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace, bestowed on us in the waters of baptism whereby we become members of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Saviour, since of Zion’s city
I, through grace, a member am,
Let the world deride or pity,
I will glory in thy name,
Fading is the world’s best pleasure,
All its boasted pomps and show;
Solid joys and lasting treasure
None but Zion’s children know. 🔝

---

Feasts this week March 30 – April 5

March 30 – Feria of Lent / Optional Commemoration of St. John Climacus
March 30 is normally a Lenten feria, observed with the proper Mass and Office of the day in Lent. St. John Climacus, Abbot of Sinai, is found in some local calendars on this date, but not on the universal Roman calendar. His commemoration may be found in Eastern or monastic usage but was not observed universally in the Roman rite.

March 31 – Feria of Lent / Optional Commemoration of St. Benjamin, Martyr
Another Lenten feria, though older missals sometimes provide a commemoration of St. Benjamin, Deacon and Martyr, who was tortured and martyred in Persia around 422. He is listed in the Roman Martyrology.

April 1 – Feria of Lent
This day is a feria of Lent, with no assigned saint’s feast on the universal calendar. The liturgy continues the Lenten observances with Mass and Office proper to the day.

April 2 – St. Francis of Paola, Confessor – Double
St. Francis of Paola (1416–1507), founder of the Order of Minims, is honored for his extreme austerity and life of solitude. He was famed for his humility and miracles, and he advised kings while refusing ecclesiastical honors.

April 3 – Feria of Lent
Although the Feast of the Finding of the Body of St. Richard of Chichester is found in some local calendars (e.g., Sarum), it was not on the 1910 universal Roman calendar.

April 4 – St. Isidore of Seville, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor – Double
St. Isidore (c. 560–636), Archbishop of Seville, was one of the last great Fathers of the Latin Church and compiled the Etymologiae, an early medieval encyclopedia. He defended orthodoxy and promoted learning throughout Visigothic Spain.

April 5 – St. Vincent Ferrer, Confessor – Double
St. Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419), Dominican preacher and missionary, was known for his apocalyptic preaching and missionary journeys across Europe during the Western Schism. He labored to reconcile warring factions in the Church and brought countless souls to repentance. 🔝

---

How to Make a Good Confession
A Primer for Traditional Catholics

The Sacrament of Penance, also known as Confession, is a vital part of the Christian life, instituted by Christ and upheld throughout the centuries by the Church as the ordinary means for the forgiveness of post-baptismal sin¹. For traditional Catholics, this sacrament is not merely therapeutic but juridical and sacramental—a tribunal of mercy where Christ Himself acts through the priest.

To make a good confession, one must follow the traditional steps carefully, with due reverence, sincerity, and resolve.

1. Examination of Conscience
Before entering the confessional, a thorough examination of conscience must be made. This is a spiritual inventory of one’s sins, performed with the help of a good manual or catechism. The Baltimore Catechism and St. Alphonsus Liguori’s writings remain excellent sources². Reflect especially on the Ten Commandments, the Precepts of the Church, the Seven Deadly Sins, and one’s state in life.

2. Contrition for Sin
Contrition is “a sorrow of soul and a detestation for the sin committed, with a resolution not to sin again”³. It may be:

• Perfect contrition, which arises from the love of God above all else, or
• Imperfect contrition, which arises from fear of Hell or loss of Heaven.

Perfect contrition suffices for forgiveness even before confession, provided there is the firm intention to confess as soon as possible⁴.

3. Firm Purpose of Amendment
A good confession requires more than regret—it requires a firm purpose of amendment. The penitent must resolve to avoid sin and the near occasions of sin. As the Council of Trent taught, this resolution is a necessary condition for absolution⁵.

4. Confession of Sins
Kneeling, begin with:
“Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been [state the time] since my last confession.”

Confess all mortal sins in kind and number. If unsure whether a sin was mortal, confess it and let the priest judge. Venial sins may also be confessed and are encouraged, as they help form the conscience and open the soul to grace⁶. Nothing should be deliberately concealed. Wilful concealment renders the confession invalid and sacrilegious.

5. Act of Contrition
After confession, the priest will ask you to say an Act of Contrition. A traditional form is:
“O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee,
and I detest all my sins because I dread the loss of Heaven and the pains of Hell;
but most of all because they offend Thee, my God,
Who art all good and deserving of all my love.
I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins,
to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.”

6. Absolution
The priest, acting in persona Christi, will then say the words of absolution. As taught by the Church, this is the moment when sins are truly forgiven. Listen attentively and respond: “Amen.”

7. Performing the Penance
The penance assigned—often prayers or acts of reparation—must be fulfilled promptly and devoutly. It is part of the satisfaction owed to God and a sign of sincere repentance.

Conclusion
Frequent confession, ideally weekly or biweekly, is encouraged by the saints and doctors of the Church. It purifies the soul, strengthens the will, and opens the heart to sanctifying grace.

As Pope St. Pius X taught: “Confession is the soul’s bath. Even a clean and unoccupied room gathers dust; return after a week and you will see that it needs dusting again!”⁷ 🔝

¹ Council of Trent, Session XIV, “On the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance.”
² Baltimore Catechism No. 3; St. Alphonsus Liguori, Instructions for the People.
³ Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Ch. 5.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter IV.
⁶ Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943.
⁷ Pope St. Pius X, quoted in Catechetical Instructions, 1910.

Guidance For Examination and Confession

A guide to examining your conscience: recognising venial sin and repenting of it
A guide to examining your conscience: recognising mortal sin and returning to God
A Primer on Venial and Mortal Sins
The Sacrament of Confession Admonitions from the Saints and Theologians
The Healing Power of Confession a Remedy for the Soul Mind and Heart 🔝

---

Welcoming the Stranger: Guidance for the Faithful on Receiving Newcomers and Visitors

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” — Matthew 25:35

The Church is not only the Ark of Salvation, but also a home for all who seek the truth. As members of the Old Roman Apostolate, we are custodians of the perennial Catholic Faith and of the traditional liturgy, but we are also stewards of hospitality. Every time a soul walks into our chapel, God gives us an opportunity—to be His hands, His smile, His welcome.

In a world marked by alienation, confusion, and spiritual hunger, our chapels must be places of light and warmth. Many who come through our doors may be unfamiliar with tradition, unsure of their place in the Church, or even burdened by past hurts. Our calling is to receive them with the same compassion Christ shows to each of us.

Here is how we, the faithful, can embody that welcome.

1. Be Watchful and Open-Hearted
Don’t wait for newcomers to approach you. Take the initiative. A simple smile, eye contact, or a friendly “Hello, welcome to our chapel” can ease tension. Many visitors are anxious: Am I dressed correctly? Will I stand out? Will anyone speak to me? You can dispel those fears with a moment of sincere, human kindness. Pay special attention to those who linger in the vestibule or at the back of the church—those are often the ones who are unsure whether they truly belong.

2. Offer Gentle and Discreet Help
Navigating the traditional Latin Mass can be daunting for those unfamiliar with it. Offer help respectfully:
“Would you like to borrow a missal?”
“I’m happy to sit near you and help you follow along.”
“The readings today are on page ___ in the missal.”
If they decline, don’t press. Let your presence be available but not imposing.

You may also want to point out where the holy water fonts are, which doors are used for entering and exiting, where confessions are heard, or where to find chapel booklets or handouts.

3. Cultivate Sacred Silence and Reverent Spaces
Our chapels are houses of prayer. While this reverence must be preserved, we must never use silence as a barrier to kindness. Be quiet during the sacred rites, but before and after Mass, extend a welcome in appropriate places—like the vestibule, chapel garden, or parish hall. A brief greeting after Mass, such as “It was good to see you here today—please come again,” can leave a lasting impression.

4. Create Points of Connection
Learn people’s names. Ask where they’re from, how they found the chapel, or what drew them to visit. These small moments of curiosity communicate care. You might say:
“Have you been to a traditional Mass before?”
“We have coffee afterward if you’d like to join us.”
“Would you like to meet Father?”
If your chapel has pamphlets, a website, or a social media presence, offer the details warmly and without pressure.

5. Practice Hospitality Beyond the Chapel
If your community gathers for refreshments or a meal after Mass, invite newcomers personally. Don’t assume they know they’re welcome. Even if they decline, your invitation will be remembered. Hospitality is not merely about offering information—it is about offering yourself. Sit with them. Introduce them to others. If they seem shy, stay close and help bridge the social gap. Remember: in the early Church, it was not only doctrine that converted pagans, but the love they saw among the Christians.

6. Don’t Assume or Correct Prematurely
Visitors may not know to veil, genuflect, or dress in a certain way. They may arrive late or leave early. They may cross themselves at the wrong times—or not at all. This is not the moment for correction. Souls are not drawn to Christ through criticism, but through beauty and grace. If a question is asked, respond truthfully and kindly:
“Many women here choose to wear a veil, following ancient custom, but no one will judge you.”
“This chapel follows the traditional Roman Rite—some things are a little different from what you might find elsewhere.”
Let Father or catechists handle formal instruction. Your task is to remove unnecessary obstacles and offer a bridge, not a barrier.

7. Support Converts and Returning Catholics
Some visitors may be exploring the Faith anew. Others may be disillusioned with the state of the Church elsewhere. Others still may be carrying deep wounds—abuse, family breakdown, spiritual confusion. You may be the first Traditional Catholic they’ve ever spoken to. Be a good ambassador. Let them see in you the joy, seriousness, and integrity of someone truly rooted in Christ. Avoid gossip, criticism of other groups, or negative conversations around visitors. Let our chapels be havens of peace.

8. Pray for the People You See
Intercede quietly for newcomers you meet, even if they never return. Ask Our Lady to wrap them in her mantle. Offer a Rosary or a novena for the intentions of those who are seeking. Many conversions are won not by argument but by prayer.

9. Know Your Chapel’s Resources
Every chapel should have clear, printed or posted materials about Mass times and confession schedules, contact information for the priest or chapel coordinator, basic info about the Old Roman Apostolate, and how to get involved in prayer groups, catechesis, or events. Be familiar with these materials so you can point newcomers in the right direction. If your chapel lacks these, speak with Father or the stewards—this is a practical and powerful way to evangelize.

10. Reflect the Face of Christ
At the Last Judgment, we will be asked: Did you welcome the stranger? (cf. Matthew 25). The traditional liturgy is a great treasure, but it must never become a museum piece or a private comfort zone. It is the living worship of the Church—and through it, souls are brought into communion with God. Each time someone walks through the chapel door, ask yourself: How can I help this person meet Christ today?

Let our chapels be known not only for their beauty and reverence, but for their warmth and generosity. Let every visitor say, as St. Peter once said on Mount Tabor, “Lord, it is good that we are here.” 🔝

Guidance for attending and facilitating Mass

Hosting Mass at home
Guidance on attire 🔝

---

Mid-Lent Reflection: Steady the Course…

By now, the ashes have long since faded from our foreheads, and the first fervor of Lent may have given way to fatigue, forgetfulness, or even failure. The desert we willingly entered might now feel dry in a different way—less like a place of spiritual testing and more like a slog. But take heart: this halfway mark is not a moment for discouragement, but for renewal.

Like Simon of Cyrene, summoned from the crowd to help Christ carry His Cross, we too are invited at this midpoint to shoulder the weight again—not alone, but with Christ. The Church, in her wisdom, gives us Laetare Sunday right around this time—a pause, a breath, a glimpse of Easter joy ahead. The purple vestments lighten to rose, not because the struggle is over, but to remind us that joy and hope are not reserved only for the end. They accompany us even now.

If you’ve stumbled in your Lenten resolutions, begin again. God is not keeping score; He is waiting for your heart. If your penance feels dry, remember that dryness, too, can be offered. If you feel no progress, know that faithfulness is sometimes quiet and hidden, like the seed in the soil just before it sprouts.

Let this midpoint be a turning point. Fast with renewed purpose. Pray with deeper honesty. Give with more joyful generosity. Not to prove your holiness, but to draw nearer to the One who walks this road with you—the One who went before you into the wilderness, who fell three times, who rose again.

Halfway to Calvary. Halfway to glory. Keep going. Easter is coming. 🔝

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

The Selsey Podcast launched

The Titular Archbishop of Selsey has recently launched “The Selsey Podcast,” a new audio series dedicated to providing listeners with spiritual reflections, sermons, homilies, theological discussions, and thoughtful commentary rooted firmly in a traditional Catholic perspective. Recognizing a growing desire among the faithful for authentic teaching and spiritual nourishment, this initiative serves as a valuable resource aimed at deepening listeners’ faith, enriching their theological understanding, and fostering personal spiritual growth. Each episode engages with core Catholic teachings, Scripture, sacred tradition, and the wisdom of the Church Fathers, offering guidance and encouragement for those seeking to live faithfully amidst the challenges of contemporary society. By combining clarity of thought, pastoral sensitivity, and doctrinal fidelity, “The Selsey Podcast” seeks to inspire, educate, and support Catholics who wish to strengthen their relationship with Christ and His Church through an informed and reflective practice of their faith.

The Selsey Podcast is available to listen on Apple Podcasts, Apple Music (iTunes), YouTube, Podbean, Spotify, iHeartRadio, PlayerFM, and PodChaser… just click on the image below and find all available options! 🔝

---

A Quiet Victory: UN Political Declaration Fails to Enshrine Abortion as a Universal Right

No Consensus on Abortion Rights
In a landmark moment during the 69th session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), pro-life observers around the globe quietly celebrated a significant, if underreported, development: the final Political Declaration did not include any reference to abortion or the broader framework of “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR). What may seem a technical omission is, in fact, a diplomatic victory with far-reaching implications — particularly for countries resisting pressure to liberalize abortion laws under the guise of international consensus¹.

UN declarations are not legally binding, but they serve as powerful tools for shaping global norms. Language used in such documents is often referenced by governments, NGOs, and international institutions to justify policy changes or to apply pressure on dissenting nations. Had the declaration affirmed “universal access to abortion,” it would have marked a historic first: the UN effectively declaring abortion a universal human right. That language was carefully avoided, despite intense lobbying from Western nations and international NGOs².

Backlash from Activists
Predictably, abortion rights advocates have responded with alarm. According to The Guardian, some have called the declaration a “betrayal” of women’s rights, with UN Women accused of “capitulating to anti-rights actors.”³ Critics lament that the final declaration did not explicitly mention SRHR, despite years of previous documents containing such language. For them, the omission represents not just a missed opportunity, but a potential retreat in the ongoing campaign to establish global norms around abortion and gender ideology.

A Victory for Sovereignty and Conscience
From another perspective — one shared by many in the pro-life movement — this was a clear and strategic victory. It affirms a crucial principle: there is no international consensus on abortion, and therefore, no state can be coerced into accepting it as a human right⁴. The decision to exclude abortion from the declaration reflects an increasing resistance to what has been termed “ideological neocolonialism” — the imposition of Western moral and social values on developing countries in exchange for aid or diplomatic favor⁵.

This position is consistent with the stance taken in the Geneva Consensus Declaration of 2020, in which 35 countries (including the U.S. under the Trump administration, Brazil, Poland, and Uganda) committed to defending life, supporting women’s health without abortion, and affirming the sovereign right of nations to legislate on these matters⁶.

Implications for the Future
The failure to enshrine abortion as a universal right in the 2025 CSW Political Declaration will have ripple effects. It protects pro-life countries from being pressured into alignment with progressive abortion policies. It also underscores a widening divide at the UN between Western-led gender policy initiatives and a robust bloc of nations defending traditional views on life, family, and human dignity⁷.

For Catholics and others who uphold the sanctity of human life, this development is both encouraging and sobering. It reveals that faithful resistance at the international level remains possible, but only through vigilance, organization, and continued advocacy.

As secular ideologies increasingly frame abortion not only as healthcare, but as a moral right, Catholics are called to respond not only with clarity of teaching, but also with compassion, support for mothers, and constructive engagement in public policy.

In Conclusion
The exclusion of abortion from the UN’s most high-profile declaration on women’s rights this year is a quiet, but important, sign that the battle over life is far from over — and that the global pro-life cause is far from defeated.

Let it be a reminder: even in the world’s most powerful institutions, the truth still has defenders. 🔝

¹ Final Political Declaration of the 69th Commission on the Status of Women, adopted March 2025.
² UN press release, “General Assembly Adopts Resolution Affirming No International Right to Abortion,” 2019.
³ The Guardian, “UN accused of betraying women as ‘poison of patriarchy’ returns,” March 22, 2025.
⁴ Statement of the Holy See at the United Nations, CSW, March 2025.
⁵ Obianuju Ekeocha, Target Africa: Ideological Neocolonialism of the Twenty-First Century, 2018.
⁶ Geneva Consensus Declaration on Promoting Women’s Health and Strengthening the Family, October 22, 2020.
⁷ C-FAM, “UN Declaration on Women Omits Abortion Language Amid Growing Global Pushback,” March 2025.

---

Created Male and Female: Why Gender Ideology Is Incompatible with Catholic Doctrine

In our time, confusion over identity has become a hallmark of the cultural crisis. At the center of this crisis stands gender ideology: the claim that one’s gender is self-defined, independent of biological sex, and rooted in subjective feeling rather than objective nature. This ideology, increasingly normalized in law, education, and public discourse, now seeks entry into ecclesial life—demanding pastoral accommodation, sacramental recognition, and doctrinal revision.

But gender ideology is not a marginal novelty. It is a comprehensive anthropological error, rooted in the modernist heresy and incompatible with the perennial Catholic doctrine of man created in the image of God, male and female.

Body and soul: one human nature, two sexes
The Catholic Church teaches that man is a body-soul composite, not a soul trapped in flesh. The soul is spiritual, rational, and immortal, created immediately by God, and is the form of the body¹. Though the soul is not “gendered” in itself—since gender pertains to biological and grammatical expression—it is always the soul of a sexed person, either male or female.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the distinction of sex pertains to the person as a whole, because “form and matter together constitute the individual”². Therefore, when God creates a male, He creates a person who is male in body and soul—not by duplicating sexual traits in the soul, but because the soul is created to inform and complete a specifically male human nature.

St. Gregory of Nyssa writes:
“God created the nature of man consisting of both soul and body, and He made the soul such that it would not exist without the body, nor the body without the soul.”³

The idea that a “female soul” could be trapped in a male body is not Christian anthropology. It is Gnosticism—a dualistic heresy condemned by the Church since antiquity.

Male and female in the resurrection
The reality of sexual identity is further affirmed by the Church’s doctrine on the resurrection of the body. The glorified body is not a new or different body, but the same body transformed. It will retain the essential characteristics that belong to personal identity—including sex.

St. Augustine teaches:
“The body will rise in that sex which it had here, male or female.”⁴

Pope Leo the Great affirms this continuity:
“It is this flesh that rises again, this flesh that falls to death, this flesh that is raised to glory—no other.”⁵

Sexual difference is not a defect of fallen nature. It is part of the order willed by God from the beginning.

The image of God and the binary of creation
Genesis affirms: “Male and female He created them” (Gen 1:27). This binary is not a social construct—it is a divine ordinance. The Church has always understood the image of God in man to include the complementarity of the sexes, a reflection of God’s relational and life-giving nature.

St. John Chrysostom declares:
“The difference of sexes was not for corruption or shame, but for the increase of the race and the manifestation of God’s wisdom.”⁶

To deny the binary of male and female is to reject the created order, and thereby to obscure the very image of God in man.

Gender ideology as dogmatic modernism
Gender ideology rests on the modernist claim that truth evolves with human consciousness. The Church condemned this principle definitively in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), where Pope St. Pius X described modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies.”

Modernists, he wrote, “lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change… dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.”⁷

Gender ideology applies this principle to human nature itself. It insists that sexual identity is no longer given, but constructed. The result is a deconstruction of nature, a denial of the body, and a redefinition of the person according to inner experience.

Pope Pius XII, in Humani Generis (1950), warned against precisely this attitude:
“Some reduce everything to an evolutionary process, even doctrines on the origin of man, his nature, and his destiny.”⁸

Gender ideology is not simply mistaken—it is a modernist system cloaked in therapeutic language, incompatible with the truths of faith and reason.

Pastoral clarity, not compromise
Some voices within the Church now call for pastoral accommodation—suggesting that Catholic teaching must be softened or reframed to avoid offending those who experience gender dysphoria. But truth is not uncharitable, and pastoral charity cannot be divorced from doctrinal clarity.

Pope Paul VI warned:
“The Church has the duty… of proclaiming the moral law, even in its most demanding requirements, because this is the path of salvation.”⁹

To affirm the truth of sexual identity is not to ignore suffering. It is to ground our compassion in reality and to call every person to live according to the truth of their created nature.

Conclusion: Catholic anthropology or cultural apostasy
The Catholic Church must speak clearly: gender ideology is incompatible with the faith. It cannot be reconciled with Scripture, with the Fathers, with the magisterium, or with the natural law. It denies the integrity of the person, rejects the givenness of the body, and imposes a Gnostic anthropology wholly alien to Christian revelation.

The Church cannot remain silent without betraying her mission. In the face of confusion and rebellion, she must proclaim anew: we are not self-created. We are not self-defined. We are made by God—male and female—and it is in this truth that our dignity, vocation, and redemption are revealed. 🔝

¹ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §366.
² St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 99, a. 2, ad 1.
³ St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, ch. 8.
⁴ St. Augustine, City of God, Book XXII, ch. 17.
⁵ Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 28, On the Nativity.
⁶ St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Homily 15.
⁷ Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), §26.
⁸ Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950), §5.
⁹ Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968), §18.

---

What Adolescence Gets Right—and Wrong—About the Incel Crisis

William Costello’s research reveals a deeper crisis of fatherhood, formation, and faith

The Netflix series Adolescence has captured popular attention with its portrayal of a teenage boy’s descent into violence. Beneath the surface drama, it takes on one of today’s most taboo topics: the online incel subculture. In a wide-ranging interview, evolutionary psychologist William Costello—a leading researcher on incels—praised the show’s sophistication, while also warning where it misleads. His insights reveal a generational crisis that runs far deeper than sexual frustration. This is not merely a political or social pathology. It is, at heart, a failure of formation.

Not a Cartoon Villain, but a Wounded Boy
Unlike many media portrayals that reduce incels to caricature or punchline, Adolescence dares to dramatize a teenager’s descent into misogyny from the inside. Through Costello’s lens, the character of Jamie—age 13, lonely, humiliated, and digitally indoctrinated—is strikingly authentic. The boy’s fluctuating moods, from insecurity to rage to performative confidence, reflect a typical pattern of adolescent male behavior when confronted by shame and emasculation. In one pivotal scene, Jamie recounts his act of violence to a prison psychiatrist, not with remorse, but with a twisted attempt at moral justification: “I could have done anything to her, but I didn’t.”

This moment, Costello notes, is a disturbingly accurate mirror of the “nice guy” rhetoric common among incels, who simultaneously resent and idealize women, blaming rejection on perceived female superficiality¹.

When Misogyny Becomes Strategy
Perhaps most disturbingly, Costello points out that incel misogyny may function not merely as ideology, but as a form of group behavior. In some circles, boys conspire online to degrade and mock girls, especially those perceived as attractive or empowered. The aim? To lower their “mate value” and increase the boys’ own romantic chances. This dynamic mimics what psychologists call cost-inflicting mate retention strategies—used by insecure men to trap partners through emotional degradation².

This collective contempt isn’t born of pure cruelty. It’s born of fear, envy, and a desperation for belonging. But it breeds nihilism, not intimacy.

The Profile the Show Misses
Despite its strengths, Adolescence misrepresents the typical incel profile. Jamie is socially capable, academically competent, and surrounded by peers. But real-world data tell a different story. Costello’s studies reveal that incels are overwhelmingly isolated, often depressed, and disproportionately likely to fall on the autism spectrum. Approximately 30% of incels surveyed met the clinical threshold for autism, compared to just 1% of the general male population³. Nearly one in five reported daily suicidal thoughts.

If anything, the incel is not a swaggering misogynist, but a neglected son, locked in a room, drowning in pornography and self-hatred. What he needs is not punishment, but rescue.

A Culture with No Fathers
Costello also emphasizes what the series merely hints at: the absence of competent adult formation. Schools are portrayed as helpless and moral authority as absent. Male role models are ineffective, absent, or angry. This reflects what Costello describes as a “generational vacuum.” In past centuries, young men were formed through faith, family, apprenticeship, and community. Now, digital influencers fill the void—and they know what they’re selling.

Enter Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, pickup artists, or even AI “girlfriends.” Boys, stripped of spiritual formation and social rites of passage, seek male initiation through algorithmic catechesis. The Church’s silence here is devastating.

The Monogamy Mechanism—and Its Collapse
Costello argues that history has long understood this problem. Monogamous marriage, far from being a mere moral ideal, functioned as a cultural solution to excess male aggression and status anxiety. It provided every man, regardless of rank, a legitimate path to love, fatherhood, and social value⁴. Polygamous or libertine societies, by contrast, concentrated mates among a narrow elite and provoked unrest among those left behind. Sound familiar?

Today, elite men dominate the dating marketplace; women, empowered and educated, delay or forgo marriage; and lower-status men—unformed, aimless, and unloved—fall into despair or rage. It is a polygamy-shaped wound, reopened in a digital age.

The Soulmate Mirage
Modern culture, Costello notes, has shifted from role-mate to soulmate expectations. Women no longer need a man for provision or protection. They want someone who “completes” them. But this raises the bar. Costello’s research shows that 45% of college-educated single women cite the lack of “suitable men” as the reason they remain single⁵. And yet, many of those men could become suitable—if anyone were teaching them how.

Faith, Formation, and the Future
What’s the answer? Not state censorship, nor school workshops, nor sterile “consent” classes. The answer is rediscovering formation—of the heart, not just the hormones. Boys must be taught to love not for pleasure or validation, but for sacrifice and fatherhood. They must hear from men—real men, not digital alphas—that dignity is found not in domination, but in responsibility.

Costello offers one glimmer of hope: the possibility that AI and online platforms could become training grounds for positive masculinity, if shaped by mentors and mission. But without a compelling moral and spiritual vision of manhood, such tools will only deepen the crisis.

In the end, Adolescence is not just a portrait of one boy’s fall—it’s a cultural mirror. A generation is crying out not merely for sex, but for meaning. The Church, of all institutions, must be ready to answer. 🔝

1. Costello, W. (2022). Psychological Profile of Incels. International Sex Research Conference.
2. Miner, E.J., Starratt, V.G. & Shackelford, T.K. (2009). Mate Retention Tactics. Personality and Individual Differences.
3. Costello, W. (2024). Autism and the Incel Subculture. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology.
4. Henrich, J. (2020). The WEIRDest People in the World. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
5. Pew Research Center (2023). Modern Dating and Relationship Trends Among Educated Singles.

---

Safeguarding Children: When Ideology Overrides Accountability

The conviction of Stephen Ireland, a prominent UK LGBT activist and founder of Pride in Surrey, for the rape of a 12-year-old boy and multiple other sexual offences,¹ demands more than outrage; it demands scrutiny. Ireland’s position as a celebrated activist and his extensive involvement with schools and children’s charities were not incidental to his crimes—they facilitated them. This is a harsh truth many institutions remain reluctant to face: ideological commitments have overridden basic safeguarding obligations, placing children at profound risk.

Activist Credentials as a Shield
Stephen Ireland was not merely an opportunistic predator; he strategically leveraged his standing within the LGBT activist community to access children directly through schools, youth programmes, and community events. As patron of the controversial Educate & Celebrate charity, which provided LGBT training and workshops in schools, Ireland established himself as a trusted authority figure. This position of trust provided him cover; even as whistleblowers raised alarms about his inappropriate interactions with children, institutional gatekeepers dismissed or suppressed their concerns.²

Institutional Capture and Failed Accountability
This safeguarding catastrophe was enabled by institutional capture—when public bodies and educational authorities uncritically embrace ideological programmes, losing sight of their fundamental duty to protect the vulnerable. Local councils awarded nearly £100,000 to Pride in Surrey, and the BBC repeatedly platformed Ireland without due diligence. Even after his arrest, Runnymede Borough Council awarded the group “Cultural Organisation of the Year,” astonishingly disregarding ongoing investigations.³

Equally troubling is the ongoing presence of individuals closely associated with Ireland still occupying influential positions. Despite the convictions, Charlie Watts and Sam Powell, who ran Pride in Surrey alongside Ireland, remain at its helm. Meanwhile, former trustees report having raised serious safeguarding concerns as far back as 2021, only to be ignored or actively discouraged from speaking further.⁴ Such dismissal of legitimate warnings represents more than negligence; it constitutes institutional complicity.

Educational Ideology at the Expense of Safety
Educate & Celebrate exemplifies how ideological motives can actively erode safeguarding norms. Under the guise of combating discrimination, the charity promoted contested gender theories directly to children as young as three, explicitly aiming to “smash heteronormativity.”⁵ Its patrons, alongside Ireland, included highly controversial figures whose suitability for interacting with minors was deeply questionable. After repeated scandals, including inappropriate materials, false claims of Ofsted endorsement, and the disturbing case of Reverend Bernard Randall—who was reported to the anti-terrorism programme Prevent merely for objecting to ideological slogans—the charity quietly dissolved in 2024 without facing genuine accountability.⁶

Media Silence and Political Complicity
Perhaps most alarming is the muted reaction from prominent media and political institutions. The BBC, Surrey Live, and The Guardian—all previously eager promoters of Ireland’s activist credentials—have offered minimal and evasive coverage of his conviction. Even local politicians from the Liberal Democrats maintained close connections, continuing to support Pride in Surrey despite credible safeguarding concerns.⁷

Conclusion: Reckoning or Repeat?
Ireland’s case must prompt an urgent and comprehensive reckoning. It highlights an uncomfortable but essential truth: activism, particularly concerning gender and sexuality, can no longer be permitted to override basic child safeguarding standards. Imprisoning Stephen Ireland addresses only an immediate symptom, not the underlying crisis. Unless schools, councils, charities, and media institutions commit to genuine accountability—free from ideological partiality—this scandal will not be an isolated event. Without urgent reform, more children remain at risk, and more predators may remain hidden in plain sight. 🔝

1. Graham Linehan, “Nutmeg’s Week: A Scandal Still Hiding in Plain Sight,” Substack, March 22, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Educate & Celebrate Training Materials, Transgender Trend Investigation (2024).
6. Reverend Bernard Randall Case, reported widely in UK media (2022-23).
7. Linehan, op. cit.

---

University of Sussex Fined £585,000 Over Free Speech Failures

Landmark ruling signals new pressure on universities to defend academic freedom
The University of Sussex has been fined £585,000 by the Office for Students (OfS), marking the largest financial penalty ever issued by the higher education regulator. The fine relates to failures in upholding lawful free speech and academic freedom, particularly in connection with the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, who resigned in 2021 amid student protests over her views on gender and biological sex.

The OfS concluded that university policy contributed to a “chilling effect” on free expression, creating an environment in which staff and students feared professional or disciplinary consequences for expressing lawful views. Among the policies under scrutiny was a requirement for course materials to “positively represent trans people and trans lives” and an assertion that “transphobic propaganda will not be tolerated.”⁽¹⁾

Professor Arif Ahmed, the OfS’s Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom, noted that Professor Stock had altered her teaching approach as a result of the policy and that others likely self-censored. The fine, he said, was based on a thorough investigation into both the policy framework and the university’s failure to protect lawful expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.

University responds with legal challenge
The University of Sussex has announced plans to legally challenge the ruling, claiming that the OfS has adopted an “unreasonably absolutist definition of free speech” and left institutions “powerless to prevent abusive, bullying, and harassing speech.” In a strongly worded statement, the university accused the regulator of a “vindictive and unreasonable campaign” designed to entrench an “extreme libertarian” conception of free speech.

Support for students facing censorship
The case has renewed public attention on the silencing of dissenting views in British higher education. Among those who have worked to support affected students is the Archbishop of Selsey. A member of Academics for Academic Freedom, the Archbishop has been a consistent voice for viewpoint diversity in education and theology. In 2023, he hosted a private lunch for student leaders of Liberate the Debate, Sussex’s independent debating society, following reports that they had been barred from discussing certain topics due to Student Union policies and a prevailing culture of fear.

Students described being discouraged from raising motions on gender, abortion, and religious belief—not only by institutional rules but by the threat of reputational damage and social ostracism. One student had recently presented at a Free Speech Union event highlighting these challenges, and the Archbishop reflected on this in an Advent meditation, writing:

“These are not impressionable adolescents in need of safeguarding, but thoughtful adults whose intellectual formation is being stunted by a culture of fear.”⁽²⁾

A political reversal: the hollow rhetoric of free speech
The legal basis for the OfS action would have been far stronger under the provisions of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which received Royal Assent but was not implemented following the change of government. Shadow Education Secretary at the time, Bridget Phillipson, dismissed the bill as “a solution in search of a problem” and consistently opposed its enactment.⁽³⁾

Now, in the wake of the OfS fine and growing public concern over academic censorship, Phillipson has reversed course, declaring that “free speech and academic freedom are non-negotiables” and insisting that students must expect to face “uncomfortable truths.”⁽⁴⁾

Observers have noted the contradiction. Despite her rhetoric, it was under Phillipson’s direction that the government failed to enact the legislation it now appears to support in principle, leaving the OfS to operate within narrower legal parameters and without the statutory teeth the Act would have provided.

A moral imperative for the Church
For the Archbishop of Selsey, the defence of free speech is not merely legal or political, but spiritual and pastoral. In remarks given last year, he warned:

“We cannot allow the next generation of thinkers and leaders to be formed in silence or fear. Their minds must be trained for truth—and that begins with the courage to speak and to listen.”⁽⁵⁾

The Sussex ruling may mark a turning point in how free speech is defended in British academic life. But for those already silenced or marginalised by ideological orthodoxy, the road to restoration will require courage, clarity, and the support of institutions—secular and sacred alike—that are willing to defend the dignity of intellectual inquiry. 🔝

⁽¹⁾ Office for Students, Report on Freedom of Speech and the University of Sussex, March 2025.
⁽²⁾ Miserere Nobis VII: Omnis Mundus Est Scaena, Archbishop of Selsey, 17 December 2023. https://selsey.org/2023/12/17/miserere-nobis-vii-omnis-mundus-est-scaena
⁽³⁾ The Guardian, “Labour criticises Tory free speech bill as ‘a solution in search of a problem’,” 12 May 2021; see also Parliamentary record of opposition speeches during second reading debates.
⁽⁴⁾ Department for Education, Statement by Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, March 2025.
⁽⁵⁾ Miserere Nobis VII, ibid.

---

---

Cancel Culture and the Cult of Inclusion
Norwood Primary School and the Quiet Abolition of Christianity

A Quiet Revolution in the Classroom
At Norwood Primary School in Eastleigh, Hampshire, the traditional Easter Bonnet Parade and school Easter Service have been cancelled. The reason, according to Headteacher Stephanie Mander, is to ensure that “all pupils and families feel respected in school.”¹ Such euphemisms are now routine in educational settings—but their practical meaning is unmistakable: Christian practices are no longer welcome in Christian-majority nations.

The decision has sparked a modest backlash among parents, with some expressing concern that the removal of Easter festivities in the name of “inclusion” constitutes an act of cultural erasure. But the deeper scandal is this: Norwood Primary is not merely betraying tradition—it is defying the law of the land.

The Legal and Cultural Mandate
Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, every state-funded school in England and Wales is required to hold a daily act of collective worship that is “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.”² This statutory requirement remains in force, though it is widely ignored. By cancelling the most visible Christian celebration in the spring term, Norwood joins a growing list of schools effectively engaged in civil disobedience against the Christian cultural settlement of the United Kingdom.

The scale of this quiet apostasy is not negligible. A 2004 Ofsted report found that 76% of secondary schools were failing to meet the daily worship requirement.³ A BBC survey in 2011 revealed that 64% of parents said their children did not participate in collective worship at school.⁴ Yet few in government or inspection services are willing to address this collapse. What was once Christian Britain is now post-Christian by policy, but not yet by law.

A New Orthodoxy Replaces the Old
What fills the void left by Easter? Norwood will participate in Refugee Week in June and is applying to become a School of Sanctuary.⁵ These initiatives reflect a new orthodoxy in British education: moral formation no longer centres on Christ and the Church, but on the imperatives of humanitarian activism and multicultural pluralism.

This new creed retains the structures of liturgical life—seasons, symbols, celebrations—but repurposes them for ideological ends. Christmas and Easter are cautiously rebranded as “winter holidays” and “spring breaks.” Saints’ names are replaced by social causes. The rhythm of the liturgical year is eclipsed by a secular liturgy of diversity, awareness, and apology.

Norwood’s official website still claims that the school celebrates major religious festivals, including Easter.⁶ But in cancelling the only Easter-related public activity on the school calendar, the administration has revealed its real priorities. Lip service remains; liturgical practice is purged.

A Crisis of Cultural Confidence
This shift is not happening in a vacuum. The Church in Britain is weakened; the state is ambivalent; the educational system is now functionally agnostic. The idea that a Christian-majority country should uphold its own traditions in public institutions has become controversial. Pluralism, once understood as peaceful coexistence, is now weaponised to demand the removal of Christianity from the public square—not to make room for others, but to deny the legitimacy of what came before.

This is not inclusion. It is an act of historical and spiritual self-abnegation.
The effects on children are profound. Denied the symbols and stories that shaped their civilisation, young Britons are left adrift in a sea of bureaucratic slogans and hollow festivities. They are taught to revere every culture but their own, to remember every tradition but the one that built the nation in which they live.

The Path Forward
Christians must speak plainly: a school that cancels Easter in the name of diversity is not being inclusive—it is being dishonest. True inclusion is additive, not subtractive. It means honouring the religious festivals of all children while safeguarding the cultural foundations of the society that hosts them.

If the law still affirms the place of Christian worship in schools, then that law must be enforced. And if the Church still believes in evangelising the culture, then now is the time to act—not with apology, but with confidence.

As Pope Benedict XVI warned, “a society without reference to God loses its soul and ultimately its freedom.”⁷ Norwood Primary School’s decision is a small symptom of a much larger disease: a loss of civilisational memory—and with it, the willingness to believe that our children have a right to know who they are. 🔝

¹ Letter to parents from Headteacher Stephanie Mander, March 2025.
² School Standards and Framework Act 1998, Section 70.
³ Ofsted Report on Collective Worship, 2004.
⁴ BBC Survey on Collective Worship, 2011.
⁵ Evening Standard, “Hampshire primary school faces backlash after scrapping Easter celebrations,” March 2025.
⁶ Norwood Primary School website, Curriculum section, accessed March 2025.
⁷ Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Bundestag, Berlin, 22 September 2011.

---

The Captivity of Theology: A Critique of Catholic Universities

Massimo Faggioli’s Theology and Catholic Higher Education offers a valuable entry point into the growing crisis facing Catholic universities. While he diagnoses the marginalization of theology departments with clarity and urgency, his treatment ultimately reveals a broader problem: Catholic higher education is in danger of losing its soul.

Theology Without Discipleship
Faggioli’s central insight is that theology has become peripheral within Catholic universities, often seen as a non-essential luxury. Theologians, he argues, have been pulled in two directions: either toward a secular left that reduces theology to cultural anthropology, or toward a reactionary right that retreats into off-campus culture war initiatives. But his analysis stops short of acknowledging the spiritual root of this intellectual fragmentation: the loss of theology as a practice of discipleship.

As Fr. John Cavadini of Notre Dame has often emphasized, theology in the Catholic tradition is not merely an academic discipline—it is a mode of faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum), integrally tied to the Church’s worship, mission, and communion. Cavadini writes, “Theologians are not free-floating intellectuals; they are members of the Body of Christ, serving the Church by seeking understanding in fidelity to revelation.”¹

But many Catholic universities now house theology departments where faculty and students have no ecclesial life whatsoever. As Cardinal Newman once warned, detaching theology from the life of prayer and sacramental practice renders it abstract, prone to distortion.² In such environments, theology becomes a language game, a political tool, or a cultural studies elective—not a deepening of Christian life.

Mission Drift and the Pro-Life Witness
This detachment from ecclesial discipleship has had grave consequences in moral formation. One of the most striking signs of institutional drift is the ambiguous or muted stance many Catholic universities take on pro-life issues. As Erika Bachiochi and others have noted, some Catholic schools, even those with historic pro-life commitments, now host speakers or programs that directly contradict Church teaching on abortion, euthanasia, or marriage.³

Such institutions seem unwilling to risk the discomfort of countercultural witness. The desire to maintain secular prestige, grant funding, and campus harmony often takes precedence over fidelity to the Gospel. And where theology has been sidelined or secularized, the university lacks the internal grammar to understand why the pro-life cause is not just a political opinion, but a consequence of Catholic anthropology—the belief that each human life is made in the image of God and worthy of protection from conception to natural death.

As Bishop Robert Barron has argued, this crisis is fundamentally Christological. “If Jesus is merely a spiritual teacher among many, or a social activist avant la lettre, then Christian ethics becomes optional. But if he is the incarnate Logos, then the moral teaching of the Church is a participation in divine reason itself.”⁴ Theology departments that cannot or will not teach this are not neutral; they are deformative.

Institutional Cowardice and the Failure to Form
Patrick Deneen, in his critique of elite Catholic universities, argues that many have become functionally indistinct from their secular counterparts, apart from a few legacy symbols. He writes: “The old elite once had character formation as a goal, however imperfectly pursued. The new elite is technocratic, transactional, and deeply conformist.”⁵

This is evident in the way many Catholic universities treat residential life, student programming, and even athletics—areas where culture is formed. Rarely are these infused with an intentional Catholic vision. Instead, campus life becomes a mirror of secular student culture, with spirituality outsourced to an optional campus ministry and theology left as a gen-ed requirement. The unity of truth—between faith and reason, intellect and character—is lost.

Renewal: More Than Accreditation
Faggioli is right to insist that theology must remain Catholic—rooted in the Church’s tradition and mission. He is also right to call for stronger ties to Vatican II, which envisioned a renewal of theology in service to the world through the life of the Church. But his proposals are too modest for the crisis at hand.

We need more than bureaucratic realignment or accreditation adjustments. Catholic universities must re-imagine themselves not as academic brands with a vaguely spiritual mission, but as communities of intellectual and moral formation oriented toward truth and sanctity. That requires a bold recommitment to:

• Eucharistic centrality and liturgical life on campus
• Doctrinal clarity in theology departments
• Courageous pro-life witness in word and deed
• Character formation across every facet of student life
• Hiring practices that privilege ecclesial fidelity as well as academic competence

In short, Catholic universities must recover the conviction that truth is a person—Jesus Christ—and that all knowledge is ordered toward him.

The Path Forward
There are signs of hope. Schools like the University of Dallas, Benedictine College, and Franciscan University of Steubenville model a more integrated vision of Catholic identity—where theology, worship, moral formation, and student life are part of a coherent whole. Others, like Ave Maria or Christendom, seek independence from federal entanglements to preserve their mission. Even within larger institutions, figures like Fr. Cavadini, Mary Healy, and Sr. Prudence Allen carry forward the vision of theology as ecclesial and evangelical.

But these efforts remain too rare. Until Catholic universities regain the courage to form students as disciples—not just professionals—theology will remain in captivity, and the university itself will drift into irrelevance.

Faggioli has reminded us of the problem. Now we must go further. We must ask more. 🔝

1. John C. Cavadini, “The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,” America Magazine, 2012.
2. John Henry Newman, The Idea of a University (1852), esp. Discourse II, “Theology a Branch of Knowledge.”
3. Erika Bachiochi, “The Moral Crisis of Our Universities,” First Things, Feb. 2023.
4. Robert Barron, Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith, Image Books, 2011.
5. Patrick J. Deneen, “Why Liberalism Failed,” Yale University Press, 2018.

---

The Disappearing Seminarian: A Global Crisis in Vocations

A Twelve-Year Decline
The Catholic Church is facing a deepening vocational crisis. The number of major seminarians worldwide has dropped significantly over the past decade—and the decline is accelerating. In 2020, there were 111,855 seminarians globally. By 2021, that number had fallen to 109,895, then to 108,481 in 2022, and an estimated 106,495 by the end of 2023. This represents a nearly 5% decline in just three years, continuing a twelve-year downward trend that Church leadership has yet to confront with sufficient urgency.

Regional Breakdown
Europe remains the epicenter of the crisis. Seminaries are closing, and vocations are in free fall. In Catalonia, Spain, the total number of priests, monks, and nuns fell by 35% between 2017 and 2023¹. Germany, France, and Ireland likewise face crippling shortfalls, with many seminaries functioning at minimal capacity or shuttering altogether.

North and South America show continued declines, though some dioceses and traditionalist communities are notable exceptions. Vocations in Brazil and Colombia remain moderately strong, but even there, the long-term trend is downward.

Africa is the global bright spot. In 2022, seminaries on the continent reported an increase of 726 seminarians². Many African dioceses are now sending clergy to Europe and North America to sustain aging and dwindling parishes.

Asia presents a mixed picture. The Philippines and Vietnam remain vocations strongholds. However, in places like Japan and South Korea, where secularization has made deeper inroads, growth has stalled.

What’s Driving the Collapse?

Demographic Implosion
The collapse in birth rates across historically Catholic countries is the most obvious factor. Fewer children means fewer vocations, and in a culture that idolizes individual fulfillment and material security, even faithful parents hesitate to encourage a celibate vocation.

Secularization and the Erosion of Masculine Aspiration
Western culture is not only post-Christian; it is anti-heroic. It dismantles the ideals of sacrifice, fatherhood, and self-offering that underpin the priesthood. The Church, instead of resisting this trend, has often accommodated it—presenting the priesthood as therapeutic, managerial, or socially engaged, but not as spiritual warfare. The result is predictable: the kind of man who would once have left everything for Christ now sees nothing worth leaving it for.

The Aftershocks of Abuse and Cover-Up
The damage caused by decades of clergy abuse and episcopal silence cannot be overstated. In many countries, the priesthood is no longer seen as trustworthy. Even where vocations do arise, some are lost due to family fears or social suspicion. The lack of public penance and structural reform continues to alienate potential candidates.

Theological Ambiguity and Doctrinal Drift
Young men discerning a vocation want to give their lives to something eternal. But too often they encounter ambiguity. Doctrinal clarity is undermined by contradictory episcopal statements, moral teaching is presented as changeable, and the formation environment is saturated with relativism. Where eternal truths are no longer proclaimed with conviction, no one feels called to defend them.

Loss of Liturgical Identity
Lex orandi, lex credendi: the way we worship shapes what we believe. Vocations thrive where the sacred liturgy is reverent, beautiful, and deeply rooted in tradition. The traditional Roman Rite, celebrated with precision and awe, is a proven seedbed for vocations. In contrast, banal liturgy—marked by casualness, improvisation, or ideological novelty—generates confusion, not commitment.

Vacuum of Zeal and Witness
Vocations are not born in strategy sessions—they emerge in the presence of holiness. Where there is no fire, there will be no disciples. Young men need to see priests who are visibly in love with Christ, who preach with conviction, and who live lives of visible sacrifice and joy. Sadly, in too many parishes today, what they see is administration, burnout, or cautious silence.

A Different Path: The Old Roman Apostolate
In this landscape of collapse, the Old Roman Apostolate (ORA) offers a clear and faithful alternative. Rooted in the perennial magisterium, formed in the Roman Rite, and grounded in apostolic succession, ORA presents young men with what the modern Church too often hides: the full demands and full dignity of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

ORA’s formation is rigorous, traditional, and international. Candidates study doctrine without compromise, celebrate the liturgy with reverence, and are trained in ascetic discipline and missionary zeal. From rural missions in Africa to urban apostolates in Europe and North America, seminarians are sent where the need is urgent and the harvest great.

The Apostolate does not wait for diocesan renewal—it is building it. While others retreat, the Old Roman Apostolate advances: one vocation, one priest, one soul at a time. 🔝

¹ Cataluña se queda sin sacerdotes, monjas y monjes, Huffington Post España, 2023
² Catholic Culture: Vatican Vocations Data, 2022

---

Survivors Group Challenges Cardinals Over Clergy Abuse Accountability

ROME (Nuntiatoria)—In a notable effort aimed at transparency and accountability, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) recently unveiled a groundbreaking initiative titled “Conclave Watch,” a comprehensive database scrutinizing Catholic cardinals and their responses to clergy sexual abuse scandals. The launch occurred on March 25, 2025, in Rome, strategically timed as speculation grows about potential successors amid Pope Francis’s ongoing recovery from serious illness.¹

The database currently profiles six prominent cardinals, documenting in detail their histories concerning the handling—or mishandling—of sexual abuse allegations. SNAP plans to significantly expand the database, aiming ultimately to provide an extensive public record ahead of the next conclave.²

Prominent Cardinals Under Scrutiny
Included among the initial set are cardinals known to have significant influence in the College of Cardinals. SNAP’s evaluations focus specifically on documented instances where cardinals allegedly failed to act decisively against accused clergy, delayed justice for victims, or actively participated in cover-up operations.³ The group argues that past behavior in handling abuse cases should be a critical factor when cardinals are considered as potential successors to Pope Francis.

SNAP President Barbara Blaine emphasized the urgency of their mission at the Rome announcement: “If not now, when, and if not us, who? The church leadership must demonstrate unequivocally its commitment to justice and reform.”⁴

Demand for Global Zero-Tolerance Policy
In addition to launching Conclave Watch, SNAP has formally appealed to Pope Francis in an open letter requesting immediate implementation of a strict global zero-tolerance policy similar to measures already adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Such a policy would mandate automatic removal from active ministry of any clergy member credibly accused of abuse, alongside transparent accountability measures for bishops implicated in cover-ups.⁵

The letter specifically names Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean abuse survivor and vocal advocate appointed by Pope Francis himself, as the intermediary they hope will ensure their message reaches the Pope’s personal attention. SNAP suggests that Cruz’s respected advocacy makes him ideally suited to represent survivors’ concerns directly to Vatican authorities.⁶

Contextual and Institutional Responses
Historically, the Catholic Church’s response to sexual abuse allegations has varied significantly by region, with some national conferences adopting stringent guidelines while others lag behind. The Vatican itself has consistently faced criticism for perceived reluctance to enforce uniform global standards.⁷ SNAP’s latest move intensifies the pressure on the Church hierarchy to universally implement protections consistently and comprehensively.

Critics of SNAP’s approach, however, argue that placing too great an emphasis on retrospective scrutiny of cardinals might overshadow ongoing institutional reforms and distract from collaborative efforts toward future accountability. Church representatives, while cautious, have not officially responded to the SNAP database, reflecting a continuing complexity in balancing institutional reputation and genuine pastoral reform.⁸

Nonetheless, SNAP’s assertive strategy reflects a persistent demand among abuse survivors and advocacy groups for systemic and lasting change within the Catholic Church’s highest levels of authority. As Pope Francis’s health raises critical questions about the future direction of the papacy, SNAP’s initiative highlights the intensified scrutiny cardinals will face both within and outside the Church. 🔝

¹ SNAP’s Rome Announcement, March 25, 2025; see Associated Press reporting, “SNAP Launches Database to Track Cardinals on Abuse Accountability,” March 25, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Details of initial profiles available on SNAP’s Conclave Watch online database, launched March 2025.
⁴ Statement by Barbara Blaine, President of SNAP, at Rome press conference, March 25, 2025.
⁵ Open letter from SNAP to Pope Francis, delivered March 25, 2025, as reported by Associated Press.
⁶ SNAP’s explicit endorsement of Juan Carlos Cruz, as documented in the letter to Pope Francis (SNAP, March 2025).
⁷ Jason Berry, Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church (New York: Crown Publishing, 2011); also see reports by The Boston Globe Spotlight Team (2002), “Church Allowed Abuse by Priest for Years,” for context on varied Church responses.
⁸ Commentary from canon law experts and theologians collected by National Catholic Reporter (2024–2025 coverage); ongoing analysis of reform effectiveness remains a contested topic within ecclesial circles.

---

---

Trump Freezes Planned Parenthood Grants in Renewed Pro-Life Push

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 25, 2025 — In a decisive move that underscores his renewed pro-life commitments, President Donald J. Trump has announced the freezing of approximately $20 million in federal family-planning grants to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the United States¹. The action comes amid a broader administrative review of grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates, which the Trump administration views as ideologically driven and misaligned with public health priorities.

Planned Parenthood, which performs over 350,000 abortions annually according to its own reports², stands to lose a substantial portion of federal support as a result of the freeze. Pro-life advocates were quick to praise the decision as a long-overdue correction in the use of taxpayer funds.

“This is a victory for the unborn and for taxpayers who have been forced to fund an industry that ends innocent lives,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. “The Trump administration is taking a bold stand to ensure federal resources prioritize women’s health and family support, not abortion.”³

Reinstating a Pro-Life Foreign and Domestic Policy
The funding freeze follows a pattern set during Trump’s first term, when he reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy—a Reagan-era directive that prohibits U.S. funding to international groups that promote or perform abortions. Trump’s 2017 executive order broadened the policy to cover nearly all global health assistance, impacting major international abortion providers such as Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which alone reported a $100 million budget shortfall as a result⁴.

In tandem with that policy, the Trump administration also defunded the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) over concerns about its support for coercive population control measures and abortion advocacy in countries like China⁵.

Redirecting Resources to Life-Affirming Alternatives
According to pro-life policy groups, the newly frozen funds will be redirected to community health centers and pregnancy resource centers that provide prenatal care, STD testing, and maternal support without participating in abortion⁶. Critics of Planned Parenthood have long argued that such alternatives offer broader and more ethically aligned healthcare to underserved populations.

“This is about protecting life and respecting the conscience of Americans who don’t want their money supporting abortion,” Dannenfelser added. “We commend the administration for taking action and look forward to further policies that uphold the dignity of every human being.”⁷

International Implications: A Renewed Global Pro-Life Witness
The domestic freeze signals broader international consequences. By revisiting and reinforcing pro-life funding standards, the Trump administration reasserts the United States’ role as a counterweight to the global abortion lobby, particularly as institutions like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and Western NGOs increasingly treat abortion as a non-negotiable element of “sexual and reproductive health rights”⁸.

This renewed stance may embolden developing nations whose pro-life cultural or religious norms have clashed with the conditions often tied to Western aid. Under previous administrations, international health partnerships were frequently conditioned on the promotion of “comprehensive reproductive services”—a euphemism that many pro-life advocates argue includes abortion⁹.

Trump’s approach restores a sovereignty-respecting model of foreign aid, allowing recipient countries to pursue maternal and child health without capitulating to ideological pressures. The policy also challenges the growing trend within Western diplomacy of using gender and reproductive rights as a litmus test for international development cooperation¹⁰.

If the freeze is sustained and expanded, it could lay the groundwork for a post-liberal foreign policy grounded in the natural law tradition, where international aid supports the family, defends life, and respects cultural subsidiarity. 🔝

¹ The Wall Street Journal, “Trump Administration to Freeze Planned Parenthood Family Planning Grants,” March 25, 2025.
² Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2022–2023 Annual Report.
³ Statement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, March 25, 2025.
⁴ International Planned Parenthood Federation, Financial Report, 2018; see also U.S. Department of State, “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance,” January 2018.
⁵ U.S. Department of State, Press Release, “Ending U.S. Funding of UNFPA,” April 2017.
⁶ Charlotte Lozier Institute, “Community Health Centers vs. Planned Parenthood,” policy brief, 2023.
⁷ Dannenfelser, op. cit.
⁸ See World Health Organization, “Abortion care guideline,” 2022; and United Nations, “Women’s rights are human rights,” 2014.
⁹ Douglas A. Sylva, “Exporting the Culture War: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Global Abortion Debate,” Catholic Social Science Review, 2010.
¹⁰ David H. McIlroy, “Natural Law and the International Order,” Ethics & Medicine, 2022.

---

The Dutch Euthanasia Expansion: A Cautionary Tale for Britain

Support for euthanasia remains consistently high in the Netherlands, which in 2002 became the first country in the world to legalise the practice through the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act¹. Criticism of the law, particularly from anti-assisted suicide campaigners, is often perceived as an attack on Dutch cultural values. Yet, as Britain debates legalisation through Kim Leadbeater’s bill, the latest data from the Netherlands reveals a deeply troubling trajectory—especially the extension of euthanasia to those suffering from psychological distress and even to the young.

Startling Numbers, Disturbing Trends
In 2024, nearly 10,000 people were euthanised in the Netherlands—a 10% increase on the previous year². In a nation of 18 million, the figure is significant in itself. But of deeper moral concern is the 60% rise in cases of euthanasia for psychological suffering. There were 219 such cases in 2024, up from just two in 2010³. Of these, 30 involved individuals aged 18 to 30. An unspecified number of minors were also euthanised.

Young and Despairing
Some cases are particularly harrowing. One involved a teenage boy, aged between 16 and 18, who was autistic and had previously attempted suicide. Two years after that failed attempt, he applied for euthanasia, citing mental suffering. Although not all therapeutic avenues had been explored, psychiatrists concluded his condition was “untreatable” and warned he might try again if refused. A physician further claimed that the boy’s wish to die did not stem from his autism itself, but from the suffering caused by the consequences of autism⁴—a distinction many would consider irrelevant. The request was approved, and the oversight committee praised the doctor for exercising due caution.

It is true that the boy’s autism would never have disappeared. But at such a young age, it is difficult to argue that his ability to cope could not have improved. Psychological suffering is inherently unpredictable. To treat it as terminal is to disregard the resilience of the human spirit, particularly in youth.

From OCD to Euthanasia Without Psychiatric Review
Another case involved an elderly woman with severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. Her OCD had long manifested as a compulsive need to clean. Following a spinal fracture, she was unable to satisfy her compulsions. She requested euthanasia, and her request was granted—without any psychiatric consultation⁵. The oversight committee later acknowledged this was a breach of protocol but offered only a mild rebuke: “It expects a physician to exercise great caution when the euthanasia request arises from a mental disorder.”

Suicide Prevention vs. Suicide Provision
There has been little public reckoning with the contradiction at the heart of such cases: how can a society promote suicide prevention, while also offering suicide as a legal medical service? The logic is incoherent. Legalisation of euthanasia has not reduced suicide in the Netherlands. In fact, statistics show a modest increase in suicide rates excluding euthanasia since 2002⁶, alongside a troubling rise in suicides among young people.

The chair of the euthanasia review committee has himself expressed concern about the trend, particularly regarding young people with psychiatric conditions. But the Dutch political consensus is unlikely to shift. The former Rutte government even backed plans to extend euthanasia to terminally ill children between the ages of one and twelve⁷. This would expand a framework that already permits euthanasia for disabled newborns and for children aged 12 to 18.

An Expanding Regime
What we are witnessing is the progressive normalisation of death as a solution to suffering. This is not an expression of freedom or compassion, but a sign of ethical collapse. The vulnerable, once considered those most in need of protection, are now among the most readily included in an expanding euthanasia regime.

The Dutch model offers a bleak and cautionary example. Legislators in Britain—and indeed across the world—should take heed. Legal euthanasia is not a static safeguard for rare and tragic cases. It is a door that, once opened, rarely closes. 🔝

¹ Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act, passed by the Dutch parliament in April 2001 and effective from April 2002.
² Regional Euthanasia Review Committees (RTE), 2024 Annual Report.
³ Ibid. Comparison of psychological euthanasia cases from 2010 and 2024.
⁴ Case summary from RTE Annual Report, 2024.
⁵ Ibid. Elderly OCD patient case; psychiatric consultation was not sought prior to euthanasia approval.
⁶ Dutch National Statistics Office (CBS): Trends in suicide and euthanasia, 2002–2023.
⁷ Dutch Ministry of Health policy briefing, 2023: “Medical decisions around end of life in children aged 1–12.”

---

The United Kingdom’s Assisted Dying Debate: England, Scotland, and Jersey at a Crossroads

The legalisation of assisted suicide is once again on the agenda in the United Kingdom—but this time with unprecedented momentum. While England, Scotland, and the Crown Dependency of Jersey have long resisted formal legalisation, 2025 may prove a turning point. In each jurisdiction, legislation is advancing under different political conditions and with varying levels of public and medical support. But the most pressing questions remain the same: can any framework for assisted dying truly safeguard the vulnerable—and if not, who will speak for them?

England: A Bill in Crisis
In England, the Assisted Dying Bill—formally the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—is approaching a pivotal vote in the House of Commons on April 25, 2025¹. The bill, led by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, would legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill adults expected to die within six months, subject to consent and assessment safeguards. Initially, the bill required High Court approval for each case, a provision meant to reassure critics that vulnerable patients would be legally protected.

However, the latest amendments have significantly altered the bill’s trajectory. Judicial oversight has been removed, replaced by multidisciplinary “expert panels” consisting of a lawyer, psychiatrist, and social worker². Critics argue this substitution weakens the system’s ability to detect coercion or assess mental competence rigorously. Further controversy erupted when Leadbeater accepted an amendment delaying implementation by four years—postponing the rollout until 2029³. Some see this as a necessary period of preparation; others suspect it’s a strategic delay to push the issue past the next general election, effectively undermining the bill’s prospects.

A growing number of Labour MPs have broken ranks, describing the bill in its revised form as “flawed and dangerous.”⁴ Their concerns echo warnings from palliative care experts and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has highlighted the difficulty clinicians face in assessing true consent in the presence of depression, chronic pain, or despair⁵.

Scotland: A Parallel Path
North of the border, Scotland is debating its own Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. Like the English bill, it targets those diagnosed with terminal conditions and requires confirmation from two doctors. However, Scotland’s draft legislation retains stricter language around mental capacity and mandates that applicants must have lived in Scotland for at least 12 months prior to a request⁶.

Importantly, unlike England, the Scottish bill has retained judicial language and a formal appeals process, which proponents argue strengthens its procedural integrity. Yet opponents remain unconvinced. Catholic and disability rights groups in Scotland have voiced concerns that once any form of assisted suicide is legalised, expansion is inevitable—a pattern seen in Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands⁷. These warnings are not abstract: the Scottish Parliament already permits advance care directives and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, and critics argue that the assisted dying bill would cross an irreversible ethical line.

Jersey: Legal but Not Yet Enacted
Meanwhile, the tiny island of Jersey—a Crown Dependency with legislative autonomy—became the first jurisdiction in the British Isles to formally approve assisted dying in principle in 2022. Legislation is now being drafted and is expected to be debated in late 2025, with implementation likely in 2027⁸. The Jersey model proposes access for adults with either terminal illness or “unbearable suffering,” echoing the more expansive continental regimes.

Crucially, Jersey’s framework has drawn criticism for including non-terminal conditions and for its broad definition of suffering. This has led to accusations that the island is opening the door to “euthanasia on demand,” and experts have warned that Jersey lacks sufficient palliative infrastructure or independent oversight to administer such a regime safely⁹.

Lessons from Abroad: A Caution from the Netherlands
International experience offers ample reason for concern. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, the number of deaths under the law rose to nearly 10,000 in 2024¹⁰. Most notably, cases based on psychological suffering have increased dramatically—from two in 2010 to 219 in 2024, with a notable proportion of young adults aged 18–30, and even minors, among those euthanised¹¹.

One case involved a teenage autistic boy who had previously attempted suicide. Doctors, citing “untreatable suffering,” approved his euthanasia despite failing to exhaust alternative treatments. The oversight committee praised the physician’s conduct, but outside observers saw it as evidence of a system that rewards despair with death rather than hope¹².

Another Dutch case involved an elderly woman with severe OCD whose compulsion to clean became unbearable after a spinal injury. Her euthanasia was approved without psychiatric evaluation, prompting a rare rebuke from the Dutch review board—though no sanction followed¹³.

Far from reducing suicide, Dutch figures show that non-assisted suicide rates have increased since euthanasia was legalised, especially among the young. Suicide prevention and assisted suicide are not complementary policies—they are, in truth, mutually contradictory¹⁴.

The Slippery Slope is Real
In light of these realities, the idea that assisted suicide can be “safely contained” in law appears increasingly implausible. In every jurisdiction where it has been legalised, eligibility criteria tend to broaden over time—from terminal illness to chronic pain, from physical to psychological suffering, from adults to minors. Moreover, every regime risks sending the implicit message that some lives are not worth living.

Legalisation often begins with solemn vows of caution, restriction, and conscience protection. But once the principle is conceded—that death can be a form of treatment—the pressure to expand becomes inexorable. Conscientious objectors, religious institutions, and disability advocates quickly find themselves labelled as reactionaries or obstacles to “progress.”

A Nation Divided at the Threshold
Britain now stands at the same threshold as its continental neighbours once did. England’s amended bill faces political instability; Scotland’s version is legally tighter but politically fraught; and Jersey may soon leap ahead into broader territory. But the essential question remains untouched: can a society that authorises doctors to kill truly call itself compassionate?

Legalising assisted suicide is not simply a medical or legislative act. It is a moral redefinition of care, and once made, it will be difficult to undo. For lawmakers, bishops, and citizens alike, the time for clarity and courage is now. 🔝

¹ UK Parliament, Hansard Record, Assisted Dying Bill (March 2025).
² The Times, March 26, 2025: “The promised safeguards for assisted dying are being eroded.”
³ The Guardian, March 25, 2025: “Assisted dying rollout delayed to 2029.”
⁴ The Guardian, March 26, 2025: “Assisted dying bill is ‘flawed and dangerous’.”
⁵ Royal College of Psychiatrists: Statement on mental competence in assisted dying (2025).
⁶ Scottish Parliament, Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, 2024.
⁷ Care Not Killing (Scotland) submission to MSPs, February 2025.
⁸ States of Jersey, Policy Report on Assisted Dying, January 2025.
⁹ Jersey Hospice Care: Position paper on Assisted Dying Bill, March 2025.
¹⁰ RTE Netherlands: 2024 Annual Report on Euthanasia.
¹¹ Ibid. Psychological euthanasia cases, 2010–2024 comparison.
¹² Dutch case study reported in RTE 2024: Adolescent mental suffering and autism.
¹³ RTE 2024: OCD case lacking psychiatric consultation.
¹⁴ CBS Netherlands: National suicide statistics 2002–2024.

---

---

The UK’s Assisted Dying Bill: Political Fragility and Eroding Safeguards

The UK’s Assisted Dying Bill—formally titled the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—has reached a critical phase in Parliament, but recent developments have thrown its future into uncertainty. While the bill is championed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it has drawn fierce opposition from both inside and outside Westminster, with critics warning of weakened safeguards, vague criteria, and increasing risks to vulnerable individuals.

Implementation Delayed to 2029
In a significant shift, Leadbeater accepted an amendment to delay the rollout of the legislation from two to four years. This means the earliest the assisted dying service could become operational in the UK would be 2029¹. The rationale behind the delay is to allow time for the development of robust oversight mechanisms and professional training. However, many now see the delay as a political gambit to push the issue past the next general election—potentially dooming the bill if the incoming government is less favourable.

From Judicial Oversight to Expert Panels
One of the most controversial changes to the bill involves replacing the requirement for High Court approval of euthanasia requests with a new model involving multidisciplinary expert panels. These panels would consist of a senior lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a social worker². Supporters argue this reduces delays and removes barriers for those suffering. Critics counter that it removes a key safeguard: a formal legal judgment by an impartial court. Without judicial scrutiny, the bill risks greater susceptibility to coercion, undetected mental illness, or subtle family pressure.

Labour Dissent: “Flawed and Dangerous”
A faction of Labour MPs has publicly denounced the altered bill as “flawed and dangerous,” accusing its backers of watering down the very safeguards that had made the bill politically palatable³. They point to the shift from judicial oversight, the vagueness of what constitutes “sound mind” or “uncoerced choice,” and the increasingly broad interpretations of “suffering.”

Professional Skepticism from the Medical Field
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that many professionals lack confidence in their ability to assess mental capacity in these cases, especially when existential or psychological suffering is involved⁴. The concern is that doctors—many of whom are already under strain—will now be asked to make life-and-death decisions about mental competence and consent without consistent training, oversight, or legal support.

Public Debate and Media Spotlight
Public opinion remains sharply divided. Campaigners such as Care Not Killing and Not Dead Yet UK continue to warn that assisted suicide, once legalised, tends to expand beyond its original scope, citing international examples like Canada and the Netherlands⁵. The British Medical Association and many hospice groups have also expressed caution or outright opposition.

In the media, scrutiny of the bill’s evolution has increased. The Guardian reported that the legislative process has become “very fraught,” with over 150 amendments proposed⁶. Meanwhile, The Times noted that the original promise of robust protections for the vulnerable has “evaporated,” and what is emerging is a system where state-assisted suicide could become bureaucratic rather than judicially rigorous⁷.

Next Steps
The bill is due for a final debate and vote in the House of Commons on April 25, 2025. Should it pass, it will proceed to the House of Lords, where the outlook remains uncertain. The growing backlash from Labour MPs, medical professionals, and advocacy groups may well derail the bill—especially with a general election looming. 🔝

¹ The Guardian, March 25, 2025: “Assisted dying law thrown into doubt as plans for rollout delayed by two years.”
² The Times, March 26, 2025: “The promised safeguards for assisted dying are being eroded.”
³ The Guardian, March 26, 2025: “Assisted dying bill is ‘flawed and dangerous’, says group of Labour MPs.”
⁴ The Times, March 26, 2025: Psychiatric experts raise concerns over consent criteria.
⁵ Not Dead Yet UK and Care Not Killing statements to Parliament, March 2025.
⁶ The Guardian, March 26, 2025: “How the assisted dying bill has changed on its way back to Commons.”
⁷ The Times, Editorial, March 2025: “A system of mercy or quiet coercion?”

---

Scotland’s Assisted Dying Bill: A Legal Milestone or Ethical Precipice?

Overview of the Bill
On March 27, 2024, Liam McArthur MSP introduced the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament. Framed as a compassionate response to suffering, the bill would permit terminally ill adults—aged 16 or older, mentally competent, and resident in Scotland for at least a year—to seek medical assistance in ending their lives. Two independent doctors would be required to assess the patient’s eligibility, and a final declaration would trigger access to lethal medication.

The bill includes twelve so-called “robust safeguards,” including professional oversight, a time delay between request and provision, and checks for coercion. A Parliamentary vote on its general principles is expected in spring 2025.

Growing Support—And Growing Alarm
Public support for assisted dying in Scotland is significant: polling commissioned by Dignity in Dying suggests nearly 80% of Scots would back legal change. Proponents argue that the bill responds to the suffering of those with incurable illnesses and restores autonomy to dying individuals.

Yet, behind the bill’s appeal to compassion and autonomy lies a deep and increasingly contentious ethical debate. Critics, including ethicists, medical professionals, and disability advocates, have voiced grave concerns over what they see as the quiet erosion of promised safeguards—even before the law is passed.

Eroding Safeguards: From Judicial Review to Panel Approval
One of the starkest changes, highlighted by The Times⁽¹⁾, concerns the mechanism of final approval. Initially, the bill proposed that a High Court judge would authorize each case, ensuring a high threshold of legal scrutiny. That measure has now been abandoned. In its place, a panel composed of a senior lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a social worker would oversee approvals.

This shift has prompted alarm. Not only does it remove judicial independence, but it also leans heavily on professionals whose availability is already stretched. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reports that more than half of its members are unwilling to participate in assisted dying assessments, citing ethical concerns. If those few psychiatrists who do engage are overburdened, the quality and consistency of evaluations could deteriorate sharply.

The Question of Consent
Supporters of assisted dying frequently cite patient autonomy as their guiding principle. But autonomy presupposes consent that is fully informed, uncoerced, and psychologically sound. As Deena Iqbal notes in The Times, even trained professionals struggle to detect subtle coercion—particularly when it occurs in private family settings. A desire to die may be less about pain and more about perceived burden, familial pressure, or untreated depression.

This is not a hypothetical concern. In jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, including Canada and the Netherlands, documented cases reveal a troubling pattern: over time, the eligibility criteria tend to expand, and the moral barriers grow fainter. What begins as a narrowly defined medical option becomes a broader social norm, particularly among the elderly, the disabled, and the socially isolated.

Age Restrictions Under Scrutiny
Originally, the bill allowed for requests from individuals aged 16 and up. Facing criticism, MSPs are reportedly considering raising the minimum age to 18⁽²⁾. While this may seem a small concession, it raises larger questions: if a 16-year-old can be considered competent to request assisted suicide, where does the logic end? Opponents argue that the very discussion of adolescent eligibility reveals the moral confusion underlying the bill.

Hospices and Institutional Integrity
Recent reports suggest that hospices may be forced to accommodate assisted dying if the bill passes⁽³⁾. This presents a theological and pastoral dilemma. Institutions founded on the sanctity of life may be pressured to facilitate its intentional termination—undermining their mission, alienating staff and donors, and fracturing public trust in palliative care as a whole.

The Broader Cultural Drift
The proposed legislation reflects a broader civilizational drift: away from the sanctity of life and toward a utilitarian ethic in which suffering is to be eliminated not by accompaniment, but by elimination of the sufferer. This is not mere hyperbole. As traditional structures of meaning erode—religious belief, communal bonds, and reverence for the elderly—we risk normalizing despair.

For Catholics and other Christians, this moment calls for both clarity and charity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms: “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.” (CCC 2277)

Instead of acquiescing to this cultural momentum, believers must reassert a vision of suffering that is not meaningless, and of death that is not defeat. True accompaniment—palliative care, pastoral support, and presence—is the answer, not medicalized despair. 🔝

1. The Times, “The promised safeguards for assisted dying are being eroded,” 27 March 2025.
2. The Scottish Sun, “Plans to include under-18s in controversial assisted dying laws could be scrapped,” March 2025.
3. The Times, “Hospices ‘could give assisted dying help after change in law,’” March 2025.

---

Isle of Man Legalises Assisted Dying, Prompting Safeguarding and Ethical Concerns

The Isle of Man has become the first of the British Isles to pass legislation permitting assisted suicide for the terminally ill, following the final reading of its Assisted Dying Bill in the Manx Legislative Council on 25 March 2025. The bill, originally introduced as a private member’s bill by Dr Alex Allinson MHK in 2022, now proceeds to royal assent and could be implemented by 2027.

Dr Allinson has framed the legislation as a means of granting “autonomy and choice” to individuals at the end of life. Proponents argue that terminally ill individuals should have the legal right to end their suffering on their own terms. The bill restricts eligibility to those with a terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or fewer to live.

Christian and Pro-Life Response
Christian advocacy groups have condemned the move as a fundamental shift in the ethical foundation of the island’s laws. CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) labelled the bill “a deeply sad step” and warned of long-term societal consequences. James Mildred, CARE’s Director of Communications and Engagement, stated:

“Under this legislation, the equal value of every citizen living on the island will no longer be affirmed. Those overseeing the legislation have ignored very stark warnings about the prospect of vulnerable people being coerced into ending their lives, and people acting after a wrong prognosis.”¹

Mildred also noted that evidence from jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal reveals patterns of incremental expansion, including broadening eligibility criteria and increasing cases motivated by feelings of being a burden rather than unmanageable physical pain.²

The Question of Safeguards
Critics emphasise that the legislation lacks sufficient mechanisms to prevent abuse and coercion, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and mentally ill. Safeguards such as psychiatric evaluations, judicial oversight, and the affirmation of palliative alternatives have either been minimised or omitted altogether in comparable international models.³

The notion of a “right to die,” opponents argue, risks becoming a duty to die, especially in healthcare systems under economic strain.⁴ The cultural transformation that follows such legal changes, they warn, may erode the societal commitment to care for the most vulnerable.

A Precedent for the UK?
The decision on the Isle of Man may influence debates on the mainland. An assisted dying bill in England and Wales is currently at committee stage. A controversial amendment would replace proposed High Court scrutiny with an expert panel model, raising concerns about judicial independence and oversight.⁵ The bill is expected to return to the House of Commons later this spring.

In Scotland, a vote is imminent on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill. Meanwhile, Jersey’s parliament is expected to debate a draft bill later this year, with the earliest implementation projected for mid-2027.

The Isle of Man’s move thus appears to mark a watershed moment in the British Isles, placing pressure on other jurisdictions to follow suit while igniting grave moral questions about dignity, human worth, and the limits of individual autonomy. 🔝

1. James Mildred, CARE, quoted in Premier Christian News, 25 March 2025.
2. See studies on assisted dying in Canada and the Netherlands documenting expansion in eligibility and reasons cited for assisted suicide.
3. Evidence from Oregon, Belgium, and Canada highlights inconsistent application of safeguards and cases involving patients with depression or external pressure.
4. Cf. Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder, 2003.
5. Parliamentary records, Assisted Dying Bill [England and Wales], 2025 committee debates.

---

🔝

---

Bishop Markus Büchel Urges Discussion on Women’s Ordination

Swiss Bishop Markus Büchel has called for the Catholic Church to reopen the question of women’s ordination, describing the current prohibition as “difficult to justify today.” The remarks, published in 2022 in the diocesan magazine Kirche heute, reflect growing unrest in German-speaking Catholic circles and a widening gap between local ecclesial sentiment and universal magisterial teaching.

A Bishop’s Pastoral Concern
Büchel, the bishop of St. Gallen and former president of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, expressed concern over the pastoral consequences of excluding women from sacramental ministry. “Many women experience this exclusion as deeply hurtful and discouraging,” he wrote, adding that the Church must not “silence” such experiences but engage them with honesty and openness¹.

His comments reflect an increasing willingness among bishops in Western Europe to challenge or revisit settled doctrinal positions. While Büchel stopped short of formally contradicting Ordinatio Sacerdotalis—Pope John Paul II’s 1994 declaration that the Church has no authority to ordain women—he implied that the issue remains pastorally unresolved and warrants theological reexamination.

Alignment with the German Synodal Movement
Büchel’s intervention parallels the trajectory of the Synodaler Weg (Synodal Way) in neighboring Germany, where lay and episcopal voices have advocated for sweeping reforms, including same-sex blessings, the redefinition of priesthood, and the ordination of women. The German process has drawn repeated Vatican warnings for its doctrinal irregularities and its potential to fracture ecclesial unity².

Within this climate, Büchel’s call appears less isolated and more aligned with a broader agenda to recalibrate Catholic teaching in light of contemporary cultural expectations. His diocese, St. Gallen, has long been regarded as one of the most progressive in Switzerland, with a history of liturgical experimentation and theological dissent dating back to the post-conciliar era.

Doctrinal Status of the Question
Despite renewed local appeals, the universal Church has consistently reaffirmed the inadmissibility of female ordination. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II stated unequivocally:

“In order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance… I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”³

This teaching was subsequently clarified by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which confirmed that the doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith and is to be considered infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium⁴.

Pope Francis has echoed this position, stating that “the door is closed” on the priestly ordination of women⁵. Nevertheless, Francis has supported limited study of the female diaconate, although without definitive results. Büchel’s comments thus run parallel to the pope’s openness to expanded roles for women in ecclesial governance, while nonetheless pressing against a doctrinal boundary that Rome has repeatedly insisted cannot be crossed.

Implications and Criticism
Büchel’s remarks have generated both support and concern. Progressive Catholic groups have welcomed his honesty and pastoral sensitivity, while critics warn that such public questioning of settled doctrine risks undermining the Church’s credibility and unity.

No formal censure has been issued, though observers note that Rome has taken increasing interest in episcopal statements from Central Europe that contradict established teaching. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has, in recent years, adopted a more proactive approach to doctrinal oversight, particularly in response to developments in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Vatican interventions—such as the 2021 Responsum against the blessing of same-sex unions and the 2022 statement warning that the German Synodal Path has “no authority to compel bishops or the faithful to adopt new forms of governance or doctrine”²—indicate a heightened sensitivity to the risk of regional fragmentation.

While Büchel’s call for dialogue on women’s ordination was couched in pastoral language and did not openly reject magisterial teaching, such statements often serve as bellwethers for more explicit dissent. As such, Vatican officials have reportedly monitored these developments closely, even if public rebukes are strategically withheld to avoid escalation. This watchfulness reflects the Roman preference for maintaining lines of dialogue while quietly reaffirming doctrinal limits.

Ecclesiological Implications and Historical Context
The question of women’s ordination is not merely a disciplinary matter but touches upon the Church’s understanding of sacramentality, apostolic tradition, and the nature of the priesthood itself. The Magisterium has consistently taught that the Church does not possess the authority to ordain women—not as a sociological constraint, but as a divine limitation received from Christ and maintained through apostolic succession.

This teaching was first addressed explicitly in the modern era with the 1976 declaration Inter Insigniores⁶, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the approval of Pope Paul VI. That document affirmed that the exclusion of women from the ministerial priesthood is rooted in the example of Christ, who chose only men as His apostles, and in the Church’s unbroken tradition of male priestly ordination. It also addressed and dismissed claims that the restriction was culturally conditioned or discriminatory, emphasizing that “the Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”

Despite this clarification, theological dissent increased in the decades that followed, especially in Europe and North America. A common argument holds that the Church’s position reflects a patriarchal structure in need of reform. Feminist theologians such as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and ordained ministry advocates within ecclesial communities (such as the “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” movement) have claimed that historical precedent is not a valid theological barrier to change.

Pope John Paul II sought to bring doctrinal closure to the question with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994, which reiterated that the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women and declared this teaching to be “definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” In 1995, the CDF under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger confirmed that the teaching is to be held infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium⁴. These declarations are rooted in the understanding that the priest acts in persona Christi—as a sacramental sign of Christ the Bridegroom in relation to His Bride, the Church—a nuptial theology that cannot be reduced to functional or representational roles.

Nonetheless, the issue continues to be raised in synodal settings and episcopal conferences, often in the context of broader debates on democratization and inclusion within ecclesial structures. Bishop Büchel’s intervention follows a familiar pattern: pastoral appeal grounded in perceived lay disenfranchisement, coupled with theological ambiguity about settled doctrine. The risk, critics argue, is that such discourse erodes ecclesial confidence in magisterial teaching and promotes an ecclesiology wherein the sensus fidelium is mistakenly equated with public opinion.

Rome’s consistent response has been to reaffirm that doctrinal fidelity is not a matter of consensus, and that any reform of ecclesial structures must respect the sacramental constitution of the Church as received—not invented. As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Sacramentum Caritatis, “the priesthood, understood sacramentally, is not a position of power, but of service, and must always be viewed through the lens of Christ’s own kenosis.”⁷ 🔝

¹ Kirche heute, Diocese of St. Gallen, 2022.
² Vatican Statement on the German Synodal Path, July 2022.
³ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II, 1994, §4.
⁴ CDF Response, Responsum ad dubium, 1995.
⁵ Pope Francis, Interview with Reuters, July 2022.
⁶ Inter Insigniores, CDF, approved by Pope Paul VI, 1976.
⁷ Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, §23.

---

Viral Video of Rapping German Priest Sparks Global Debate on Modernity in the Church

A Catholic priest in Germany has gone viral after delivering a sermon in the form of a rap during Mass, igniting both praise and criticism across the internet. The short video, originally posted by the German news outlet Main-Post on February 21, 2023, and widely circulated through platforms like YouTube Shorts and X (formerly Twitter), shows the priest wearing traditional liturgical vestments—augmented with a baseball cap and gold chain—rapping from the pulpit in front of his congregation¹.

The unconventional performance appears to be part of an attempt to reach younger or more culturally disengaged members of the Church. In the video, the priest rhythmically proclaims Christian messages with exaggerated gestures and rhymes, effectively blending the aesthetics of hip-hop with the formal setting of the Mass. His choice of delivery and costume is clearly tongue-in-cheek, but his intention seems sincere: to evangelize through contemporary means.

The video quickly gained traction online, with reactions ranging from enthusiastic support to deep concern. Some praised the priest’s creativity and willingness to connect with the faithful in a way that resonates with younger generations. “This is what the Church needs to stay relevant,” one commenter wrote on X². Another added, “If it brings people back to Christ, does the method matter?”

However, others found the display irreverent or even sacrilegious. Critics argue that the sanctity of the Mass—considered the highest form of Catholic worship—should not be compromised by attempts to entertain. Traditionalist Catholics in particular have expressed dismay at what they see as a growing trend of liturgical abuse and cultural pandering. One popular reaction noted: “This isn’t evangelization; it’s the desacralization of the sacred.”

The debate surrounding the viral rapping priest touches on larger questions facing the Catholic Church today: How should the Church respond to the challenges of secularization? Can modern forms of communication be effectively integrated into sacred liturgy without undermining it? And where is the line between inculturation and irreverence?

Whether seen as a bold attempt at evangelization or a troubling sign of liturgical decay, the video has become a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle to reconcile tradition and modernity within the Catholic Church. 🔝

¹ Main-Post, “Rap beim Gottesdienst: Ein Pfarrer sorgt für Aufsehen”, YouTube, 21 February 2023. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zMhVWZvV1Ns
² Catholic Arena, “A German Catholic priest has gone viral for rapping during Mass,” X (formerly Twitter), 11 March 2023. Available at: https://x.com/CatholicArena/status/1634902390766813185

---

Historic Decline: German Catholics Fall Below 20 Million

For the first time in history, the Catholic Church in Germany has dropped below the 20-million-member mark, representing a significant acceleration in the broader decline of Christianity across the nation. Together with the Protestant Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), Germany’s two major Christian denominations lost more than one million members during 2024 alone.¹ This marks a new stage in Germany’s long-term trend of religious disaffiliation, secularization, and institutional crisis.

Factors Behind the Membership Crisis
Several converging factors have contributed to this rapid decline, highlighting both structural and cultural challenges faced by the Church.

1. Secularization and Generational Shifts
Germany continues to experience accelerated secularization, driven primarily by younger generations who increasingly identify as religiously unaffiliated, atheist, or agnostic. Recent sociological studies underscore that younger Germans are significantly less likely to attend church, receive sacraments, or maintain formal church membership.² This demographic shift is fundamentally altering Germany’s cultural landscape, undermining historical assumptions about the permanence of institutional Christianity in Europe.

2. Abuse Scandals and Institutional Trust
Ongoing revelations of clerical sexual abuse, financial scandals, and the inadequate institutional response by the hierarchy have severely undermined trust in the Catholic Church. High-profile investigations, notably those in Cologne and Munich, exposed widespread cover-ups, exacerbating public anger and contributing to accelerating rates of disaffiliation.³ Critics argue that the Church’s responses remain insufficient, further damaging credibility and trust.

3. Polarization around the Synodal Way
The German Catholic Church’s contentious reform initiative, known as the Synodaler Weg, continues to fuel internal division. Debates over doctrine, priestly celibacy, blessing same-sex unions, and the ordination of women have created a profound theological rift.⁴ Traditionalist voices, including Cardinal Gerhard Müller and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer, have argued that the Synodal Way undermines Catholic teaching and pushes many orthodox faithful away.⁵ Progressives, meanwhile, argue that slow institutional reform frustrates those seeking changes aligned with contemporary values, also contributing to departures.

4. Demographic Decline and Aging Population
Germany’s persistent demographic decline, marked by one of Europe’s lowest birthrates and a rapidly aging population, exacerbates the crisis facing Catholic and Protestant communities. Falling numbers of baptisms, marriages, confirmations, and religious vocations reflect broader demographic trends that are unlikely to reverse without significant societal shifts.⁶

Implications for the Church and German Society
The continuous decline in church membership carries significant ecclesiastical and social consequences.

Institutional Contraction and Parish Closures
Faced with shrinking congregations and declining church tax revenues, German dioceses have increasingly closed or consolidated parishes. Notably, hundreds of churches have been closed or repurposed as cultural spaces, museums, or even secular venues.⁷ This trend is expected to accelerate, drastically reshaping local religious landscapes.

Reduced Cultural and Political Influence
The diminishing numbers have significantly reduced the Church’s historical influence in German political discourse, social policy, education, healthcare, and charitable work. Institutions historically affiliated with the Church, such as Caritas and various Catholic schools and hospitals, face increasing pressures to secularize or lose relevance.⁸

Spiritual and Cultural Consequences
The retreat of institutional Christianity leaves a potential vacuum that might be filled by secular ideologies, consumerism, or alternative spiritualities. Sociologists caution that this cultural transformation may erode social cohesion, historically rooted in shared Christian values, opening Germany to further ideological fragmentation.⁹

Implications for Global Catholicism
Historically, Germany’s theological influence has significantly shaped global Catholic discourse. The current crisis, however, signals a possible shift in the Church’s center of theological gravity towards Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where Catholicism remains dynamic and vibrant.¹⁰

Pathways for Renewal and Future Direction
Addressing this unprecedented crisis requires urgent reflection on evangelization strategies and institutional reform. The German Church faces the challenging task of rebuilding trust, clearly reaffirming Catholic doctrinal identity, and promoting authentic spiritual renewal to reconnect with disillusioned believers.

Authentic institutional reform, increased transparency in addressing scandals, and a robust effort to articulate traditional Catholic teachings clearly and compellingly are urgently needed responses.¹¹ The future of Catholicism in Germany—and by extension in Europe—will depend significantly on the Church’s ability to reconnect meaningfully with a rapidly secularizing population. 🔝

¹ German Bishops’ Conference, Statistical Report 2024.
² Pew Research Center, Religion and Secularization in Germany, 2023.
³ Report commissioned by Archdiocese of Cologne, 2022; Munich abuse report, 2022.
⁴ Synodal Way official documents, German Bishops’ Conference, 2023-2024.
⁵ Cardinal Gerhard Müller, interview in Die Tagespost, April 2023; Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer, public statements on diocesan website, 2024.
⁶ Federal Statistical Office of Germany, Demographic Report, 2024.
⁷ “Closing Churches: Germany’s New Normal?” Deutsche Welle, 2023.
⁸ Caritas Germany Annual Report, 2023.
⁹ Hans Joas, Faith as an Option: Possible Futures for Christianity, 2022.
¹⁰ Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, Oxford, revised edition, 2023.
¹¹ Bishop Stefan Oster, public statements at German Bishops’ Conference Plenary Assembly, 2024.

---

Practical Guidance for Observing the Traditional Catholic Fast

The Purpose of Fasting
The discipline of fasting is not merely a historical curiosity or an obsolete practice from a bygone era. It is, rather, an essential element of the Christian life, a means of mastering the passions, atoning for sin, and disposing the soul to deeper prayer and contemplation. Our Lord Himself declared that certain evils can only be overcome through “prayer and fasting” (Matt. 17:20), and the saints throughout history have attested to its spiritual efficacy. The traditional Lenten fast, practiced for well over a thousand years, offers a concrete framework for bodily discipline that strengthens the soul in its pursuit of holiness.

For those who wish to restore this ancient practice in their own lives, careful preparation is essential. The transition from modern eating habits to the rigor of traditional fasting requires both a proper mindset and practical strategies. What follows is a detailed guide to implementing the traditional fast in daily life.

Gradual Preparation: The Gesima Transition
Because fasting is a discipline that affects both body and soul, it should not be undertaken in an abrupt or careless manner. The Church, in Her wisdom, historically provided a preparatory period—the Gesima Sundays—to ease the faithful into the rigors of Lent. One should begin by reducing food intake incrementally, avoiding excessive indulgence in the days leading up to Ash Wednesday. Practical steps include:

• Eliminating snacks and unnecessary meals. The traditional fast allows for only one full meal and two collations; therefore, reducing unnecessary eating before Lent will make the transition smoother.
• Adopting abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays. Since Lent requires full abstinence from meat (except in later mitigations), one can begin this practice in the Gesima period.
• Removing rich foods from the diet. Abstaining from desserts, alcohol, and processed foods before Lent helps lessen the shock of fasting.

This period of preparation ensures that Ash Wednesday does not arrive as an unbearable burden but as the natural intensification of a practice already underway.

The Structure of the Traditional Lenten Fast
The classical discipline of Lent consists of the following:

• One principal meal per day, traditionally taken after noon but later permitted at midday.
• Two smaller collations, which together may not equal the main meal in quantity.
• Complete abstinence from meat throughout Lent, with possible exceptions on Sundays in certain historical periods.
• No consumption of eggs, dairy, or animal fats in stricter observances, though later dispensations allowed for their use.
• Fish and shellfish permitted, along with olive oil and, in some traditions, wine in moderation.

Practical Implementation: Meal Planning and Diet Adjustments
Because the traditional fast imposes serious dietary restrictions, advance planning is necessary to ensure both sustenance and adherence to the discipline.

1. Meal Composition
The principal meal should be simple but nutritious, avoiding excessive seasoning or luxury. Traditional Lenten foods include:

• Legumes (lentils, beans, chickpeas) provide essential protein.
• Whole grains (rice, oats, barley, bread) offer sustenance.
• Vegetables (cabbage, carrots, onions, potatoes) supply necessary vitamins.
• Fish and seafood, when permitted, add variety without breaking the fast.
• Nuts and seeds (almonds, walnuts, flaxseed) are useful for maintaining energy levels.

For collations, small portions of bread, fruit, or broth are ideal, ensuring sustenance without violating the spirit of fasting.

2. Avoiding Accidental Violations
Modern food production has made it increasingly difficult to avoid animal products. Many processed foods contain hidden dairy or meat derivatives. One should carefully read labels and, where possible, opt for homemade meals using traditional ingredients. In households with children, ensuring that the pantry is stocked with fasting-friendly foods will reduce the temptation to break discipline.

3. Drinking and Hydration
Water should remain the primary beverage. Herbal teas and, in some traditions, a moderate amount of wine are permitted. Caffeinated drinks such as coffee should be taken in moderation, if at all, as they can stimulate appetite and interfere with the mortifying aspect of fasting.

Managing Fasting While Working or Studying
One of the most common objections to fasting is the difficulty of maintaining energy levels while engaged in work or study. It is true that physical and mental exertion require sustenance, but experience shows that the body adjusts over time. A few considerations can make the practice more manageable:

• Consuming high-protein foods (such as lentils or nuts) during the principal meal will sustain energy levels.
• Drinking plenty of water prevents fatigue caused by dehydration.
• Avoiding overindulgence in carbohydrates reduces the risk of energy crashes.
• Getting sufficient sleep aids in maintaining stamina during fasting.

For those engaged in manual labor, the Church has always permitted dispensations. In such cases, fasting should be adapted according to necessity, maintaining a spirit of penance even if the full observance is impractical.

Spiritual Accompaniment: Fasting with Prayer and Almsgiving
Fasting is never a merely external practice. It must be accompanied by increased prayer and works of charity, lest it become an empty ritual. The saints consistently warn against a legalistic approach to fasting, urging instead a focus on spiritual renewal. St. John Chrysostom teaches that true fasting is not merely abstinence from food but the mortification of the will, the subjugation of sinful tendencies, and the cultivation of virtue¹.

During Lent, one should:

• Increase prayer, particularly meditation on the Passion. The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, and the Imitation of Christ provide fruitful meditations.
• Practice silence and recollection. Avoiding unnecessary distractions, reducing time spent on entertainment, and fostering an atmosphere of prayer at home contribute to the penitential spirit.
• Give alms. The money saved from fasting should be used to help the poor or support worthy causes. Almsgiving is the natural fruit of fasting, turning personal sacrifice into concrete charity.

Restoring the Traditional Fast in the Modern World
The near-total abandonment of traditional fasting disciplines in the postconciliar Church has resulted in a weakening of Catholic identity and asceticism. In previous centuries, fasting was understood as an act of communal obedience to divine law, binding the entire Church together in a common effort of penance. Today, it has become a personal option, often neglected or reduced to trivial acts of self-denial.

Those who wish to reclaim the traditional fast must do so intentionally, understanding that they are participating in a venerable practice that sanctified generations of Catholics before them. This will require discipline, perseverance, and a willingness to embrace the discomforts that fasting entails. Yet the fruits of this effort are abundant: greater interior peace, mastery over the passions, and a deeper union with Christ Crucified.

Let the faithful, then, take up again the ancient observance, not as a mere historical curiosity, but as a living discipline that strengthens the soul, purifies the heart, and prepares us for the glory of Easter. 🔝

1. St. Basil the Great, On Fasting, Homily I: “Do you fast? Give me proof of it by your works. If you see a poor man, have mercy on him. If you see an enemy, be reconciled with him. If you see a friend receiving honors, do not envy him. Let not only the mouth fast, but also the eye, the ear, the feet, and the hands, and all the members of our bodies.”
2. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 4, Septuagesima: “The Church, with maternal solicitude, prepares her children for the rigors of Lent by a gradual ascent. She strips away the alleluia, clothes herself in violet, and marks the passage from the joy of Epiphany to the penance of Ash Wednesday.”
3. Code of Canon Law 1917, Can. 1252 §2: “The law of fasting prescribes that only one full meal a day be taken, but it does not forbid a small amount of food in the morning and in the evening, observing the approved customs of the place.”
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 147, a. 8: “Abstinence from flesh meat and from all things that come from flesh is part of the Church’s fast, as being more conducive to the suppression of lust.”
5. Dom Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 5, Lent: “The relaxation of the ancient fast to include a morning and evening collation was granted out of necessity for those who could not endure the full rigor of the old discipline.”
6. Rouen Cathedral archives, La Tour de Beurre: “The indulgences granted for the use of butter during Lent funded the construction of the famous ‘Butter Tower,’ a monument to both devotion and the pragmatic concessions of ecclesiastical discipline.”
7. Pope Paul VI, Paenitemini (1966), III.III: “The obligation of fasting is reduced to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The faithful are encouraged to undertake voluntary acts of penance beyond these prescribed days.”
8. Code of Canon Law 1917, Can. 1254: “All the faithful who have completed their twenty-first year are bound to observe fasting days, unless excused by illness or other grave cause.”
9. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 57: “What good is it if we abstain from eating birds and fish, but devour our brothers?”

---

Archbishop Mathew’s Prayer for Catholic Unity
Almighty and everlasting God, Whose only begotten Son, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd, has said, “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”; let Thy rich and abundant blessing rest upon the Old Roman Apostolate, to the end that it may serve Thy purpose by gathering in the lost and straying sheep. Enlighten, sanctify, and quicken it by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, that suspicions and prejudices may be disarmed, and the other sheep being brought to hear and to know the voice of their true Shepherd thereby, all may be brought into full and perfect unity in the one fold of Thy Holy Catholic Church, under the wise and loving keeping of Thy Vicar, through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth God, world without end. Amen.

🔝

---

Old Roman TV

OLD ROMAN TV Daily Schedule Lent 2025: GMT 0600 Angelus 0605 Morning Prayers 0800 Daily Mass 1200 Angelus 1205 Bishop Challoner’s Daily Meditation 1700 Latin Rosary (live, 15 decades) 1800 Angelus 2100 Evening Prayers & Examen 🔝

🔝

---