w/c 18/05/25

ORDO

Dies	18 SUN	19 MON	20 TUE	21 WED	22 THU	23 FRI	24 SAT	25 SUN
Officium	Dominica IV Post Pascha	S. Petri Celestini Papæ et Confessoris	S. Bernardini Senensis Confessoris	Feria IV infra Hebdomadam IV post Octavam Paschæ	Feria V infra Hebdomadam IV post Octavam Paschæ	Feria VI infra Hebdomadam IV post Octavam Paschæ	Beata Maria Virgo Auxilium Christianorum	Dominica V Post Pascha
CLASSIS	Semiduplex Dominica minor	Duplex	Semiduplex	Feria	Feria	Feria	Duplex Maius	Semiduplex Dominica minor
Color*	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus
MISSA	Cantáte Dómino	Státuit ei	Os justi	In Cantáte Dómino	In Cantáte Dómino	In Cantáte Dómino	Gaudeámus	Vocem jucunditátis
Orationes	2a. S. Venantii Martyris 3a. de S. Maria	2a. S. Pudentiana Virginis	2a. de S. Maria 3a. Pro papa (vel ad libitum)	2a. de S. Maria 3a. Pro papa (vel ad libitum)	2a. de S. Maria 3a. Pro papa (vel ad libitum)	2a. de S. Maria 3a. Pro papa (vel ad libitum)	NA	2a. S. Gregorii VII Papæ et Confessoris 3a. S. Urbano I, Papæ et Martyre
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de S. Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Pref. de Paschalis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de BMV	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Paschalis
Nota Bene/Votiva		UK: S. Dunstani Cantuariensis Missa “Sacerdotes tui” 2a. S. Petri Celestini 3a. S. Pudentianæ, Virginis		Missa pro Defunctis aut Votiva permittitur	Missa pro Defunctis aut Votiva permittitur	Missa pro Defunctis aut Votiva permittitur	Sanctæ Mariæ Sabbato Missa “Salve, sancta” 2a. Ad Spiritum Sanctum 3a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiæ

Revertere et Ædifica

Revertere et Ædifica—Return and Rebuild— is both a summons and a strategy. In an age of rupture and confusion, the path forward for the Church is not innovation, but fidelity: a return to the sources of truth and a rebuilding of the Faith in hearts, homes, and altars. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

Much has been made of what is called a “new springtime” in the Church, and with the election of Pope Leo XIV, many feel the frost of confusion may at last be melting. Yet it is no secret among those who love the traditional Faith that the garden of the Church has been long neglected, and its roots—doctrinal, liturgical, moral—choked by weeds of novelty, ambiguity, and compromise. The air smells not of spring but of ruin. Our response must not be passive optimism, but resolute action.

A Time to Rebuild
Ours is not an age of renewal; it is an age of reclamation. Like Nehemiah surveying Jerusalem’s broken walls by night, we must reckon with the collapse before daring to rebuild. The collapse is not merely structural—fewer vocations, empty churches, doctrinal confusion—but spiritual: a profound loss of supernatural faith, of reverence for God, of the very sense of sin. This, too, is why we founded the Old Roman Apostolate—not to “preserve” tradition like a relic in a museum, but to live it again, to prove that it is the only viable path for personal and ecclesial renewal.

As Leo XIV begins his pontificate, we will watch and pray. There are signs of hope. His gestures toward reverence, his deference to tradition in tone and attire, his refusal to denounce his predecessor while quietly steering the barque of Peter back to deeper waters—these are significant. Yet such surface signs must yield to deeper reforms. Will he reaffirm the natural law against the tide of gender ideology? Will he reclaim episcopal appointments from politicized processes? Will he restore the sacred liturgy to its rightful dignity and centrality? Time will tell. But our task cannot wait.

The Call to Fathers and Families
If the Church is wounded, it is because her domestic cells—the family, the parish, the conscience of the individual—have been poisoned. We are living through a crisis of fatherhood, which is, in truth, a crisis of manhood. Devotion to St Joseph, which we are promoting across our chapels this year, is not nostalgic piety. It is a clarion call. Men must rise to lead in humility and holiness, to protect, to provide, and to sacrifice. Boys must be formed to reverence the sacred, control themselves, and aspire to virtue, not applause.

That is why we are investing in projects such as PSHE Brighton, formed to give parents and allies the courage to resist ideological capture in schools. It is why we have called for greater clarity in liturgical rubrics and pious customs, restoring the reverent bow at the Holy Name and reviving visible tokens of hierarchy and belief. It is why we preach, even if from humble altars and makeshift chapels, a faith that binds because it liberates—a faith that commands because it leads to life.

A Faith That Confronts the Age
Some wish to make peace with modernity. But Christ did not come to make peace with the age. He came to redeem it—and that means confrontation. When schools cancel Easter for “inclusion,” when toddlers are led into gender clinics, when Parliament prepares to enshrine abortion as a human right, when Requiem Masses are said for popes during the Octave of Easter—it is not time to dialogue, but to declare the truth in love and without fear.

We reject both modernism in Rome and the false refuge of nostalgia. We reject both synodal confusion and sedevacantist despair. We will build again—not a museum, but a monastery; not a fortress, but a family; not a faction, but the Faith.

The Path Ahead
To all who are weary, to all who have wandered, to all who seek Christ not in slogans but in Sacrifice, we say: Come home. The Old Roman Apostolate exists not as a protest, but as a proclamation. We do not ask to be left alone—we ask to be faithful. We are not separatists—we are sons, seeking to reclaim the inheritance squandered by unfaithful stewards. In this, we will not falter.

Behold the Man, mocked and crowned and crucified—and risen. Behold the Faith, unbroken, unbowed, still radiant with glory. And behold your task: to return to the sources, to rebuild the walls, and to reclaim what is yours as a Catholic, as a son or daughter of God.

May Our Lady of Sorrows accompany us. May St Joseph protect us. May the Sacred Heart enflame us. 🔝

A Word of Thanks

We extend our sincere and prayerful gratitude to the generous benefactor who, in an act of quiet charity, has covered the subscription costs for the Selsey website for the coming year.

Your anonymous gift is a real encouragement, not only materially but spiritually, reminding us that the Apostolate is sustained by the unseen hands and hidden prayers of the faithful. May God reward you abundantly, and may St Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church and protector of all hidden works of grace, intercede for you and your intentions.

With thanks and blessings,
The Selsey Apostolate Team 🔝

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

1. Liturgical Duration and Character
Paschaltide encompasses the fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost. It is marked by exuberant joy, expressed liturgically through frequent Alleluias, the recitation of the Regina Caeli, and specific liturgical prayers emphasizing Christ’s victory over sin and death.

2. Liturgical Colors
White vestments—symbolizing purity, joy, and victory—are used throughout Paschaltide, underscoring the joyful character of Christ’s Resurrection. Gold may also be appropriately incorporated to highlight the festivity.

3. Alleluia and Suppression of Penitential Elements
Throughout Paschaltide, the Alleluia, omitted during Lent, returns and is abundantly employed, notably at Mass, Vespers, and Lauds. Similarly, penitential prayers (such as the Psalm 42 at Mass and certain petitions within the Divine Office) are omitted or adjusted during this period.

4. Paschal Candle
The Paschal Candle, solemnly blessed and lit at the Easter Vigil, remains prominently displayed near the altar throughout the season, symbolizing the presence of Christ, the risen Light of the World. It is lit for all solemn liturgies until Ascension Thursday, after which it is ceremonially extinguished following the Gospel.

5. Regina Caeli
From Easter Sunday to Trinity Sunday, the antiphon Regina Caeli replaces the Angelus prayer, highlighting Mary’s joyous participation in the Resurrection. It is recited or chanted thrice daily, traditionally accompanied by the ringing of church bells.

6. Asperges Me Replaced by Vidi Aquam
The penitential sprinkling rite (Asperges Me) is replaced by the joyful sprinkling rite (Vidi Aquam), recalling the life-giving water flowing from the risen Christ. This ritual emphasizes baptismal renewal and the abundant grace poured forth by the Resurrection.

7. Low Sunday and Mystagogical Focus
The Sunday following Easter (Dominica in Albis or Low Sunday) particularly emphasizes the renewal of baptismal grace, as catechumens historically wore their white baptismal garments until this day. Liturgical texts reflect these baptismal themes prominently.

8. Rogation Days and Minor Litanies
The Rogation Days—Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before Ascension Thursday—introduce penitential processions and special litanies, subtly moderating the season’s joy with petitions for God’s blessing on crops, harvest, and community welfare.

9. Ascension Thursday
On Ascension Thursday, the Paschal Candle is ceremonially extinguished after the Gospel, symbolizing Christ’s visible withdrawal from the disciples. The extinguishing emphasizes the shift from Christ’s physical presence to awaiting the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost.

10. Pentecost Vigil
The liturgy of the Vigil of Pentecost closely resembles the Easter Vigil, featuring extended readings, prophecies, and prayers invoking the Holy Ghost. The baptismal font is again blessed, emphasizing the continuity between the Resurrection, baptism, and Pentecost.

11. Octave of Pentecost
Paschaltide concludes with Pentecost, celebrated with a full octave that reinforces the importance of the Holy Ghost’s role in the life of the Church. Liturgical red vestments signify the Holy Ghost’s fire and zeal.

Conclusion
Throughout Paschaltide, the liturgy intentionally emphasizes joyous solemnity, baptismal renewal, and the presence of the risen Christ. These distinct liturgical practices unite the faithful more intimately with the mysteries celebrated, deepening both spiritual joy and doctrinal understanding. 🔝

---

Dominica IV post Pascha: “I go to Him that sent Me”

INTROIT (Ps. 97:1–2)
“Sing ye to the Lord a new canticle, alleluia: for the Lord hath done wonderful things, alleluia.”
The Church continues her Paschal jubilation with a call to praise, not merely for past mercies, but for the ongoing mystery of redemption. The “new song” is the Resurrection—an eternal novelty, the pledge of man’s rebirth and final glorification.

THEME: The Departure of the Word and the Coming of the Spirit
The central mystery presented this Sunday is the Holy Ghost’s promised descent, and the departure of Christ from visible presence. As the Gospel (John 16:5–14) unfolds, Our Lord prepares the Apostles for His Ascension, a seeming loss that will be their true gain. “It is expedient for you that I go.” This divine paradox—loss as gain, absence as presence—marks the deep mystical character of this Sunday.

Dom Guéranger calls this “a transition Sunday,” wherein the Church weans her children from the physical presence of the Risen Christ and opens their hearts to the interior coming of the Paraclete. The tone shifts from jubilant triumph to spiritual maturation. The Church begins to look upward, toward the Ascension, and inward, toward the sanctifying action of the Holy Ghost.

EPISTLE (James 1:17–21): The Gift from Above
St. James reminds us that “every best gift… is from above.” The Holy Ghost is that perfect gift, sent by the Father and the Son, not to replace Christ, but to interiorize His presence. The Apostle’s exhortation to meekness and detachment from sensuality is no generic moralism—it is preparation for receiving the implanted word: the Logos not just preached, but infused.

Fr. Parsch notes that this Epistle subtly connects us to the Sacrament of Baptism, in which the soul is begotten by “the word of truth” (v. 18). Just as the Holy Ghost hovered over the waters of the first creation, so now He brings to perfection the new creation in Christ.

GOSPEL (John 16:5–14): Christ’s Going, the Spirit’s Coming
The Gospel this Sunday is unusually profound and interior. The tone is intimate, and the content mystical. Our Lord speaks of His imminent Ascension: “Now I go to Him that sent Me.” The Apostles are sorrowful, yet Christ assures them that His absence will bring a new kind of closeness—through the Paraclete, who will “convince the world of sin, of justice, and of judgment.”

Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen explains that the work of the Spirit is to reveal Christ as Judge and Saviour, to bring men to the conviction of conscience, and to glorify Christ in the depths of the soul. This is not mere intellectual assent, but the luminous inner knowing born of grace.

Christ must go that the Church may live in faith, and not by sight. He must ascend so that her children may long for heaven. He must withdraw His visible presence so that He might indwell His Mystical Body in a more intimate way.

OFFERTORY (Ps. 65:1–2, 16)
“Shout with joy to God, all the earth, sing ye a psalm to His name. Come and hear, all ye that fear God, what great things the Lord hath done for my soul.”
Here the Psalmist gives voice to personal thanksgiving in the context of cosmic praise. The mysteries of Christ are not merely doctrinal—they are experiential. This is the language of one who has been transformed.

COMMUNION (John 14:18)
“I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you, alleluia.”
Christ’s assurance here is deeply Eucharistic. Though He ascends, He is not absent. Though invisible, He is present. This Communion verse anticipates both the sacramental consolation of the Blessed Eucharist and the spiritual consolation of the Paraclete. In the Host, we are never orphans.

CONCLUSION: The Preparation for Pentecost Begins
From this Sunday onward, the Church subtly begins her spiritual novena to the Holy Ghost, leading to Pentecost. The liturgy prepares the faithful not only to celebrate the past events of salvation, but to receive the same Spirit in our own time and hearts.

This Sunday, as Guéranger says, is a school of divine pedagogy: Christ prepares His Church not with dramatic signs but with a slow interiorisation of grace. He lifts her gaze from the tomb to the throne, from the earth to the heavens.

The faithful soul, if it would follow the liturgy well, must now begin to detach from earthly consolations, and ready itself for the indwelling of the Spirit, who will lead it through the tribulations of the world to the fullness of truth in Christ. 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Paschal Time, Vol. 2.
² Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year.
³ Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, Vol. 3.
⁴ Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., Divine Intimacy, meditation no. 160.

---

Missalettes (Dominica IV Post Pascha)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Spiritual Reflection: “I Go to the Father”

Christ’s Loving Withdrawal, the Spirit’s Fiery Descent, and the Witness of Saint Venantius

The liturgy of this Fourth Sunday after Easter quietly draws us toward the high mystery of Pentecost. Though Easter Alleluias still ring in the Church’s chant, the voice of Our Lord now grows more inward, more contemplative. He no longer speaks of Resurrection alone, but of departure, of returning to the Father, and of the mysterious coming of the Holy Ghost. It is a tender moment in the Sacred Heart’s pedagogy, when joy gives way to longing, and visible glory yields to the hidden action of grace.

In today’s Gospel (John 16:5–14), Our Lord says something at once strange and profound: “It is expedient for you that I go.” These are not words we expect from the Risen Christ, whom we would wish always to remain visibly present with His friends. Yet He assures us: “If I do not go, the Paraclete will not come to you.” There is a divine logic at work, one that does not coddle the soul but calls it upward. It is the logic of maturity, the path of the saints.

The Withdrawal of Christ, the Coming of the Spirit
Dom Guéranger reminds us that the Church, like a mother, begins now to “wean her children from the visible and sensible consolations of the Resurrection,” that they may be made ready for the greater interior gift of the Spirit. The departure of Christ in the flesh is not a bereavement, but a gracious hiddenness—a preparation for His more enduring presence within us.

St. Augustine and the mystics speak of this as a necessary “dark night,” when the soul, having rejoiced in the Bridegroom’s embrace, must now seek Him with a deeper love, by faith and not by sight. The joy of Easter must give way to the interior Pentecost—the moment when grace becomes fire, and comfort gives way to strength.

Saint Venantius: The Fruit of the Spirit in the Youthful Martyr
In this light, how fitting is the commemoration today of Saint Venantius, a fifteen-year-old martyr of Camerino in central Italy. Born into privilege, Venantius was captured during the persecution under Decius in A.D. 250. The tortures inflicted on him are staggering: beaten, burned with torches, scourged until flesh tore from bone, cast from a cliff, dragged by ropes, imprisoned without food or water, and finally beheaded.

But what transformed this noble boy into an unflinching witness? Not human courage. Not youthful bravado. It was the indwelling of the Holy Ghost—the same Spirit promised by Christ in today’s Gospel: “He shall convince the world of sin, of justice, and of judgment.” This conviction is not a mere intellectual persuasion, but a burning certitude of the truth of God and the worthlessness of the world. Venantius saw clearly: Christ was everything, and to possess Him was worth every pain.

The saint’s youth, far from diminishing his witness, magnifies it. Venantius is proof that the Spirit is not reserved for seasoned mystics or aged confessors. The fire of Pentecost descends upon all who are open—whether aged Simeon or youthful Venantius, whether fishermen or philosophers. The strength he received was not of this world. It was the very Breath of God, the Comforter promised by Christ, who makes martyrs of the meek and heroes of the weak.

Interior Maturity and the Hidden Presence
This Sunday’s Gospel is not merely a lesson in theology—it is a call to interior transformation. Christ’s words reveal the law of spiritual growth: the visible must give way to the invisible, the familiar must give way to the higher gift. His physical departure was the door through which the Paraclete could come and dwell not just with the Apostles, but in them.

The same must happen in us. The spiritual life cannot remain forever at the level of devotions that comfort or liturgies that please the senses. Sooner or later, Christ will draw the soul into darkness—not to abandon it, but to form it. To make space for the Holy Ghost, He often withdraws the sweetness of prayer, the consolations of grace, and the sense of His nearness. He does so not to punish, but to prepare. It is when we feel orphaned that we must recall His words: “I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.” He comes in the Spirit, whom we do not see, but who speaks in the depths of the soul with sighs unutterable.

Paschaltide’s Secret Grace: The Novena of the Heart
From this Sunday, the Church begins—silently, subtly—a novena of preparation for Pentecost. Not yet in formal prayer, but in spirit and posture. The liturgy begins to orient the soul upward, away from the tomb and toward the Upper Room, away from the visible signs of resurrection and toward the invisible fire of the Spirit.

As we journey through this sacred time, let us open ourselves anew to the interior schooling of grace. Let us welcome not only the joy of Easter, but the purifying fire of Pentecost. Let us ask for the courage of Saint Venantius—not only to suffer, but to prefer God above all things, to cling to truth in a lying age, and to be inflamed with the charity that alone can make us living tabernacles of the Spirit.

Let the words of today’s Epistle be fulfilled in us: “Receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save your souls.” And as we wait for the Paraclete, let us pray with the whole Church: Come, Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faithful, and enkindle in them the fire of Thy love.tirely to thee, that thou mayest always be my father, my protector, and my guide in the way of salvation. Obtain for me a great purity of heart, and a fervent love of the interior hfe. Following thy example, may I do all my actions for the greater glory of God, in union with the Divine Heart of Jesus, with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and with thee. And finally, do thou pray for me, that I may share in the peace and joy of thy holy death. R. Amen.
Indulgence of five hundred days. 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Fourth Sunday after Easter

Let every man be swift to hear, but slow to speak and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the judgement of God.

Today is the Fourth Sunday after Easter, and we hear from the epistle of St. James about the virtue of patience. Every good and perfect gift comes from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of alteration. One of the greatest gifts is that of patience, the willingness to be swift to hear, but slow to speak and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the judgement of God. St. James exhorts the faithful to receive with meekness the ingrafted word, which is able to save their souls.

The Epistle of St. James is all about faith being shown by our actions, as a tree is known by the fruits that it produces. Actions speak louder than words. Belief cannot be simply an intellectual assent, but must be lived out by the practice of charity (James 2). Yet, though actions speak more powerfully than words, St. James is also clear that the words that we use are also very important. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The great gift of patience is all about being ready to listen to others and not to be easily provoked to anger ourselves (James 1). Though there is such a thing as righteous indignation in the face of evil, we can easily deceive ourselves about the true motivation of our anger. It is better to be slow to speak and slow to anger in order to break the cycle of anger and violence that so easily follow each other. There are also powerful warnings about the damage that people can cause each other by their words (James 3). Every creature has been tamed by man, but man cannot so easily tame his own tongue. It is a deadly flame that can easily start a fire. Out of the same mouth proceed both blessings and cursings. The careless use of words can so easily cause immense damage. A fire can rage that then becomes very difficult to control. It is from this that wars and conflicts so often arise. They spring from the unbridled passions within the human heart. If we are to be doers of the word and not hearers only then we must learn to be more patient, to more ready to listen to others, and slow to speak and slow to anger ourselves.

St. Cyprian, a third century bishop and martyr, wrote a great treatise on patience that forms an apt commentary on today’s epistle. He said that to obey the commandments of God we should set our chief guard upon the great gift of patience. “Patience is one of his own virtues whereof God hath made us partakers with him: our Great Head is the captain of the patient, and it is through patience that he has crowned himself with glory and honour. Yea, God is himself, the source, the fountain and the greatness of patience, and it behoveth man to love what is beloved of God. That good thing which he loveth is commended unto him of God’s majesty. If God be our Lord and Father, let us follow after the example of our Lord and Father’s patience, since it is the duty of servants to be obedient, and of sons to be home minded. By our patience God draweth us towards himself, and keepeth us his own. Patience doth soothe anger, bridle the tongue, govern the mind, keep peace, set rules of self control, break the onset of lust, still the swelling of temper, put out the fire begotten of hatred, make the rich meek, and relieve the need of the poor; patience doth guard in virgins their blessed wholeness; in widows their careful purity; in such as be married their single hearted love one towards another. Patience doth teach such as be successful to be lowly minded; such as be unfortunate to be brave; and all to be gentle when they are wronged and insulted. Patience maketh a man soon to forgive them that trespass against him, and if he have trespassed against any, long and humbly to ask his pardon. Patience doth fight down temptations, bear persecution and endure unto the end in suffering, and in uplifting of our testimony. Patience is the moat that guardeth the stout foundations of the castle of our faith.”

There is much to learn from these words today. Patience has never been an easy virtue to acquire, but it is especially inimical in the culture of the present day. People are taught to cultivate their own self-worth and self-esteem at every available opportunity and are actively encouraged to take offence at the slightest insult. A war of words can often rage and, as St. James saw so clearly, a deadly fire can break out. Despite all the advances of science and technology in the past two thousand years, man still cannot tame his own tongue. Indeed, the speed of communication can often enable situations to spiral out of control even more easily than before. G. K. Chesterton aptly observed that in truth the human race is the true wild animal and it is other creatures who are tame by comparison. We can still more easily tame other creatures than we can ourselves. We are all easily governed by our own unruly wills and affections, however seemingly rational or cerebral we may see ourselves as being. We must pray for the gift of patience, to be swift to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger. For the anger of man worketh not the judgement of God.

Let us make our own the words of today’s Collect:

O God, who maketh the minds of the faithful to be of one will, grant to thy people to love that which thou commandest and desire that which thou dost promise; that so, among the changing things of this world, our hearts may be set, where true joys are to be found. 🔝

---

St. Venantius/Fourth Sunday after Easter

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Venantius, as well as commemorating the Fourth Sunday after Easter. The Breviary recounts the story of St. Venantius, a young man aged fifteen, who refused to renounce Christ and sacrifice to idols in the persecution under the Emperor Decius in 250. Some of the martyrs whom we commemorate in our liturgical calender were the most prominent leaders of the Church in the early ages. There are others, such as St. Venantius, about whom little is known. But they were all witnesses (and the word martyr means witness) of the faith of the early Church. What they all have in common is that, when challenged to sacrifice to idols, they stood firm and were prepared to die as martyrs rather than renounce their faith. The fact that this is the stuff of which legends were made shows how important their witness was to the life of the Church. For legend is the product of the life of the community, and the material it preserves in legend testifies to what it values the most. The fact that the earliest Christian legends focus on the martyrs, that their relics were carefully preserved, and that (in subsequent ages of faith) great churches were often built in their honour on the site of their relics, shows how important their witness was in the life of the Church. That is why it is good to remember the names not only of the most well known and best attested martyrs, but also the names about whom virtually nothing is known, save that they died as martyrs for the faith.

But why was the persecution of Christians under the pagan Roman empire so severe? We so often celebrate the feasts of the martyrs from the early centuries of the Church that we do not stop to ask ourselves the question as to why the early Christians were persecuted. The ancient Roman civilisation prided itself on being broad minded and tolerant of many different religious opinions. The proviso was that the religion was not seen as a danger to the civil peace. In proclaiming that there was only one God who had created and redeemed the world in Jesus Christ Christians were seen to be undermining the authority of the Emperor. They proclaimed that there was another king, one called Jesus. They could therefore have no part in the cult of the Emperor, for to do so would be to repudiate their faith. This meant that they were in constant danger of being put in a position in which they were told either to participate in the cult of the Emperor, or face death. Those who faced death were those who we now venerate as martyrs. They bore witness to the strength of their own faith with their own blood. Initially, the empire did not pursue a systematic policy of persecution, but Christians were always suspect as lacking loyalty to the State and liable to suffer persecution and death. In the middle of the third century, as the Church continued to grow, the Emperor Decius made it an official policy for all to participate in the cult of the Emperor as a badge of civil loyalty. However, as the century progressed there was a period of relative peace for the Church, before what is called the great persecution under Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century in which an attempt was made to obliterate Christianity altogether. Despite the severity of the persecution, the faith was now strong enough to withstand it. Soon after the empire admitted defeat and toleration was finally officially given to Christianity under the Emperor Constantine.

Jesus himself said that as he met with repudiation, reversal, suffering and death in the world, so his followers would also experience persecution. He warned his disciples to take heed that they are not seduced by false Christs and false prophets. They will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but they must not be troubled for the end will not be yet. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be pestilences, famines and earthquakes. They will be delivered up to be afflicted and put to death. But those who persevered to the end would be saved.

These words speak powerfully to us at the present time. In our own time there are wars and pestilences. Many are scandalised by the Christian faith and have been seduced by false prophets. In many ways the situation in the western world is now reverting back to the paganism that Christianity eventually displaced. As in ancient Rome people were taught to worship the civil power in the person of the Emperor, so now they are taught to see the increasing power of the State as the solution to every problem. The uncertainty caused by contemporary wars and rumours of wars as well as pestilences has been used by governments to create a climate of constant fear. This is then used by governments to give themselves even more power, since all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This used to be called totalitarianism, but now it is gradually emerging in a more subtle and therefore more dangerous way than before. There may not be anything as explicit as the cult of the pagan emperor, but there is certainly today a cult of the strong leader and a belief that the power of the State is the solution to every problem. Those who question this are seen as lacking in patriotism towards the State and as a danger to society. Iniquity is certainly abounding, and the love of many growing cold in our own time.

Despite the severity of the present situation we should not despair. We must remember the words of the Gospel that “he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved”. These are indeed times of great trial and uncertainty, but they should embolden us to persevere. Let us pray for grace to persevere in our own time and place. 🔝

---

Feasts this week

May 18 – Fourth Sunday after Easter
Title: The Comforter Will Come
Established by: Apostolic tradition, retained in Tridentine reform
Why this date: Fourth in the series of Sundays after Easter, progressing toward Ascension
Description: Christ foretells the coming of the Holy Ghost, consoling the disciples before His departure. The faithful are reminded of the promised Paraclete and the grace of perseverance in trial.
Mass: Cantáte Dómino cánticum novum… (Introit)
Rank: Double of the Second Class
Virtues: Hope, fortitude, docility to the Holy Spirit

Commemoration:
St Venantius, Martyr
Title: Youthful Witness of the Faith
Established by: Ancient martyrology; included in the Roman calendar by the 11th century
Why this date: Anniversary of his martyrdom in Camerino around A.D. 250
Description: A 15-year-old boy who endured brutal tortures and death under Decius for refusing to deny Christ. His heroic witness inspired conversions even among his persecutors.
Mass Commemoration: Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion from Pro Martyre
Virtues: Fortitude, purity, youthful courage, fidelity unto death

May 19 – St Peter Celestine, Pope & Confessor
Title: The Humble Pope
Established by: Inserted into the universal calendar by Pope Clement V in 1313
Why this date: Anniversary of his death in 1296
Description: A monk and hermit who reluctantly accepted the papacy in 1294, then resigned after a few months. Renowned for humility and penitence.
Mass: Sacerdótes tui, Dómine, índuant iustítiam… (from the Common of Confessor Popes)
Rank: Double
Virtues: Humility, detachment, obedience, contemplative spirit

In the UK May 20 – St Dunstan, Bishop of Canterbury and Confessor
Title: Restorer of Monastic Life in England
Established by: Long-standing in English calendars; restored after Trent for local observance
Why this date: Anniversary of his holy death in 988
Description: Monk, abbot, reformer, archbishop, and statesman, Dunstan led the monastic revival of 10th-century England under the Rule of St Benedict. A counsellor to kings and a fearless defender of the Church’s liberty.
Mass: Statuit ei Dominus testamentum pacis… (from the Common of a Confessor Bishop)
Rank: Double (in England)
Virtues: Wisdom, courage, discipline, ecclesiastical reform

Commemoration:
St Pudentiana, Virgin
Title: Roman Virgin of Charity
Description: A Roman maiden of noble lineage who assisted persecuted Christians and gave her wealth to the poor.
Virtues: Chastity, charity, courage in persecution

May 20 – St Bernardine of Siena, Confessor
Title: Apostle of the Holy Name
Established by: Canonised in 1450; feast extended to universal calendar by Pope Clement X in 1670
Why this date: Date of death in 1444
Description: A Franciscan preacher famed for spreading devotion to the Holy Name of Jesus and reforming public morals across Italy
Mass: Os iusti meditabitur sapiéntiam… (Common of Confessor not a Bishop)
Rank: Double
Virtues: Zeal, purity, devotion to the Holy Name, apostolic boldness

May 21 – Feria (Wednesday of the Fourth Week after Easter)
Title: Expectation of the Paraclete
Why this date: Part of the Paschal season leading up to Ascension
Description: Continuation of Easter joy with focus on interior renewal through grace; Matins readings from the Epistle of St James and commentary by St Augustine on John
Mass: Of the preceding Sunday (Cantáte Dómino…) or optional votive
Rank: Feria
Virtues: Patience, charity, longing for God

May 22 – Feria (Thursday of the Fourth Week after Easter)
Title: The Meekness of Wisdom
Description: Scripture at Matins from St James 3; the faithful are exhorted to cultivate peace and purity of heart, in anticipation of the Spirit of Truth
Mass: Of the preceding Sunday or votive Mass permitted
Rank: Feria
Virtues: Meekness, peace, prudence

Note: Though St Rita of Cascia is commemorated in some local calendars, she is not on the 1910 universal calendar.

May 23 – Feria (Friday of the Fourth Week after Easter)
Title: The Fruits of Justification
Description: St James 4–5 at Matins; Christian perseverance and warning against presumption; reminder of the nearness of judgment
Mass: From preceding Sunday or votive
Rank: Feria
Virtues: Temperance, fear of the Lord, humility

May 24 – Our Lady Help of Christians
Title: Auxilium Christianorum — Help of Christians
Established by: Pope Pius VII in 1815
Why this date: In thanksgiving for the Pope’s safe return to Rome from exile following the downfall of Napoleon
Description: This feast honours the power and mercy of the Blessed Virgin Mary invoked under the title “Help of Christians,” particularly in times of persecution and need. It was especially cherished by Catholics under threat, from post-Revolutionary France to Communist regimes and mission territories.
Mass: Gaudeámus omnes in Dómino…
Rank: Greater Double (or Double Major)
Virtues: Trust in divine aid, devotion to Mary, perseverance in trial

Note:
In regions or communities without the indult or local observance of this feast, May 24 remains a Feria of Paschaltide and may be observed with the Saturday Votive Mass of Our Lady. In such cases:

Alternative:
Saturday of Our Lady (Votive Mass)
Mass: Salve sancta parens… or Vultum tuum deprecabúntur…
Rank: Simple Votive
Virtues: Faith, Marian intercession, fidelity

May 25 – Fifth Sunday after Easter
Title: Ask, and You Shall Receive
Established by: Apostolic tradition, preserved in Tridentine usage
Why this date: Final Sunday before Ascension
Description: Our Lord exhorts His disciples to confidence in prayer, with clear reference to the coming of the Holy Spirit and union with the Father through Him
Mass: Vocem iucunditátis annuntiáte…
Rank: Double of the Second Class
Virtues: Confidence, joy, communion with the Trinity

Commemoration:
St Gregory VII, Pope and Confessor
Title: The Hildebrandine Reformer
Established by: Cultus confirmed in 1584; inserted into Roman calendar by Leo XIII in 1881
Why this date: Anniversary of his death in exile, A.D. 1085
Description: One of the greatest Church reformers, Hildebrand (Gregory VII) opposed simony and lay investiture, defended clerical celibacy, and asserted the primacy of the Roman See. Died in exile, having said, “I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.”
Mass Commemoration: From the Common of a Confessor Pope, with proper Collect
Virtues: Justice, fortitude, zeal for the Church’s liberty

Commemoration (in some local calendars):
St Urban I, Pope and Martyr
Title: Witness of Peace in a Persecuted Church
Why this date: Traditional day of martyrdom under Emperor Alexander Severus (c. A.D. 230)
Description: Early pope who governed the Church in a time of outward peace but growing internal heresies. Martyred for the faith, though little is known historically.
Mass Commemoration: From the Common of a Pope Martyr
Virtues: Fidelity, peace, pastoral care, martyrdom 🔝

---

Beata Maria Virgo Auxilium Christianorum: A Feast of Victory and Intercession

On May 24, the Church celebrates the glorious title of Our Lady Help of Christians—a feast steeped in the memory of deliverance, forged in the fires of persecution, and crowned by papal devotion. Though absent from the 1910 universal calendar, this feast holds a venerable place in the hearts of many faithful, particularly in those nations that have turned to Our Lady in times of trial and danger.

A Title Born of Triumph
The invocation Auxilium Christianorum (“Help of Christians”) entered Marian litanies and Catholic consciousness long before it became a liturgical feast. It was Pope Pius V who first popularised the title in 1571, after attributing the miraculous victory of Christian forces at the Battle of Lepanto to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose Rosary had been invoked throughout Christendom. The title reflected a reality that Catholics had long known: when earthly powers fail, Our Lady stands beside the faithful as their sure protector.

Yet it was Pope Pius VII who formally established the feast on May 24, in thanksgiving for his miraculous deliverance from imprisonment under Napoleon. Captured and humiliated, the pope had been exiled from Rome by the French emperor, who attempted to break the independence of the Holy See. After five years of suffering, Pius VII was unexpectedly freed in 1814 and made his solemn return to Rome. As an act of gratitude to the Blessed Virgin, he inscribed this feast on the Roman calendar, entrusting the future of the Church to her powerful aid.

Theological Meaning
To call Mary the Help of Christians is to recognise her unique participation in the economy of salvation. Just as she cooperated freely in the Incarnation, so she continues, in heaven, to intercede for her children on earth. This maternal mediation is not a rival to Christ’s; rather, it flows from her union with Him. “Mary’s role as mother,” wrote Pope Leo XIII, “leads her to place herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings.”¹

The Church has always believed that God grants special graces through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, and that she exercises a maternal care not only over individuals, but over the whole Church. In this capacity, Mary is the Church’s defender in times of crisis: from her apparitions at Guadalupe and Lourdes, to the deliverance of Vienna in 1683, to the preservation of the faith in persecuted nations. Wherever the Church is threatened—by heresy, tyranny, or apostasy—Our Lady stands as an unshakable refuge.

Devotion Across the Ages
Though of Roman origin, this feast spread rapidly across Europe and beyond. In Austria, it was celebrated as a national solemnity. In Australia, it became the official Marian patronal feast. St John Bosco built his entire Salesian apostolate under her title, dedicating his principal church in Turin to “Maria Auxilium Christianorum.” He trusted Our Lady not only to guard his youth from error but to preserve the entire Church from modern assaults against faith and morals.

In times of doctrinal confusion or persecution, Catholics have returned again and again to this feast to renew their confidence. The Mass readings—taken from Ecclesiasticus and St John’s Gospel—link Our Lady’s wisdom and maternal suffering to her role in standing beside Christ at the Cross, and now beside His Church.

A Title for Today
In an age marked by confusion, moral collapse, and apostasy even within sacred walls, the title Help of Christians resounds anew. Pope Pius X, great Marian devotee and restorer of Catholic integrity, once wrote: “It is not possible to go to Jesus except through Mary; and he who turns away from the Mother will most certainly fall from the Son.”²

This feast invites us to do more than admire Mary’s power. It calls us to entrust the Church—especially her persecuted members, her struggling pastors, and her faithful laity—to the Queen of Heaven, and to invoke her help with unshakable faith.

In the words of the Collect:
“O God, who willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be Help of Christians: grant, we beseech Thee, that we who keep her commemoration may be strengthened by the power of her protection.”

Let us therefore, amid trials public and private, ecclesial and personal, cry out with confidence:
Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us! 🔝

Footnotes
¹ Leo XIII, Adjutricem Populi (1895), §2.
² Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum (1904), §5.

---

Forgotten Rubrics: The Inclination of Reverence

Much has been made of Pope Leo XIV’s visible bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name of Jesus—an action praised by many as a sign of reverent restoration. Yet this gesture, far from being a novelty or innovation, has always been preserved by Traditional Catholics and remains, in fact, part of the binding liturgical law of the Roman Rite. The following article explains the origin, significance, and enduring force of this sacred rubric.

Among the silent catechisms of the Roman Rite are its gestures—those unspoken signs that form the grammar of reverence. Bowing the head, inclining the shoulders, removing the biretta: these were once second nature to clergy and faithful alike. Today, however, they are largely forgotten. Yet these rubrics were never abolished; they await only remembrance and restoration.

The Inclined Bow at the Holy Name of Jesus
The most profound of these gestures is the inclination of the head and shoulders (inclinatio capitis et corporis) at the mention of the Most Holy Name of Jesus. The traditional Missal and breviary prescribe this moderate bow whenever the Holy Name is spoken or read:

“When the Name of Jesus is mentioned, the priest bows his head and shoulders.”¹

This is not a mere pious custom but an act of latria—worship proper to God alone—rooted in Scripture: “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10). It is an embodied confession of Christ’s divinity.

The Simple Bow of the Head at Other Sacred Names
For other names, the Church prescribes a simple bow of the head (inclinatio capitis), not involving the shoulders. This is an act of dulia or hyperdulia, according to the dignity of the person named:

• The Blessed Virgin Mary – whose name is honoured with hyperdulia, uniquely exalted among creatures.²
• The Saint of the Day – venerated in the Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion, or named in commemorations and litanies.³
• The Titular Saint of the Church – when mentioned explicitly, particularly in solemn celebrations or patronal feasts.³
• The Reigning Pontiff – when named in the Canon or in public prayer, signifying unity with Peter’s successor.⁴
• The Lawful Temporal Sovereign – traditionally named in the prayer Domine, salvum fac…, a bow of the head signified loyal respect and acknowledgment of divinely ordained authority.⁵

The Doffing of the Biretta
Clergy in choir or processions were also expected to observe reverence by removing the biretta at the mention of holy names. This action is regulated by traditional ceremonial custom, including:

• At the Holy Name of Jesus – the biretta is removed and not replaced until after the sacred Name is no longer being spoken or sung.⁶
• At the Name of Mary or the Saint of the Day – a simple lifting or tipping of the biretta suffices, according to the degree of reverence required.⁶
• During the Gloria and Creed – at the words “Jesus Christ,” “He was incarnate,” “He was crucified,” and at other key phrases, the biretta is removed in acknowledgment of the mystery professed.⁷
• When Passing the Altar or Blessed Sacrament – the biretta is always removed or tipped in reverence to the Real Presence.⁸

These gestures were regulated by the Caeremoniale Episcoporum and Memoriale Rituum, and taught in seminary training as part of the bodily discipline of the sacred liturgy.

Why These Rubrics Matter
These actions are not aesthetic flourishes but outward signs of invisible truths. They teach the soul to worship through the body, to honour what is holy, and to distinguish between varying degrees of sanctity. The Church has always insisted that such gestures are not distractions but instruments of devotion. When the clergy bow or doff the biretta, they remind all the faithful—wordlessly—that heaven is near.

Restoring What Was Never Revoked
These rubrics were never abolished by the Church. Rather, they were set aside by forgetfulness, neglect, or the impoverished liturgical minimalism of recent decades. But they remain a lawful and beautiful part of the Roman Rite, especially in the traditional Latin Mass and Divine Office.

To restore them is to restore a grammar of love—signs that point to the majesty of Christ, the intercession of Our Lady and the Saints, and the unity of the Church on earth and in heaven. In a world increasingly casual and desacralised, such small gestures carry immense weight. Let us recover them, teach them, and live them.

For Christ is still King. His Name is still holy. And holy things still deserve holy reverence. 🔝

¹ Ritus servandus in celebratione Missae, V.2; Sacred Congregation of Rites, decree 1625 (23 July 1871): Collectanea Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, vol. II, no. 4042.
² Caeremoniale Episcoporum, lib. II, cap. VIII, no. 9; see also Memoriale Rituum, Tit. I, cap. ii, no. 3.
³ Ritus servandus, V.2 and Rubricae generales Missalis, no. 129.
⁴ Caeremoniale Episcoporum, lib. I, cap. IX, no. 4; see also the General Rubrics of the Roman Missal (pre-1962), no. 412.
⁵ Memoriale Rituum, Tit. I, cap. ii, no. 6; English Catholic tradition also preserved this in royal Masses under the Stuarts and post-Recusancy.
⁶ Caeremoniale Episcoporum, lib. II, cap. VIII, nos. 13–15.
⁷ Ibid., lib. II, cap. VIII, no. 18.
⁸ Caeremoniale Episcoporum, lib. II, cap. VIII, no. 11; Memoriale Rituum, Tit. I, cap. ii, no. 7.

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

Tradition or Camouflage? Pope Leo XIV and the Perils of the Middle Way

Traditional Catholics must be discerning, even as the early signs from Pope Leo XIV appear encouraging. His evident reverence for traditional vestments, his dignified liturgical celebrations, and his continuity with the style of Benedict XVI and John Paul II offer a welcome contrast to the desacralised improvisations that often characterised the pontificate of Francis. Yet we must recall that aesthetics, while important, are not the same as doctrinal restoration.

There is a subtle but critical danger in the current moment: the reintegration or “enrichment” of the Novus Ordo with external elements of the traditional Roman Rite—be it Latin, chant, ad orientem posture, or antique vestments—can serve to obscure the underlying rupture rather than to heal it. This was the strategy of the so-called Reform of the Reform, which sought not a return to tradition but a hybridised synthesis that left the anthropocentric structure of the modern liturgy intact while adorning it with borrowed solemnities. Such a synthesis is not a solution but a camouflage. It conceals the theological revolution that undergirds the new rite: a shift from God-centred worship and propitiatory sacrifice to man-centred assembly and participatory meal¹. Pope Benedict XVI himself acknowledged that the post-conciliar liturgy had been fabricated by committees². The recovery of sacred beauty must not serve to domesticate or disguise modernism. Modernism clothed in lace remains modernism still.

A Pontificate of Peacemaking
Pope Leo XIV is shaping up to be a man of balance—deliberately, almost temperamentally so. He will not confront the legacy of Pope Francis directly, nor will he overturn his terminology. Words like synodality will remain in use, but will begin to mean what Leo wants them to mean. He will reinterpret the language of Francis without repudiating it, gently shifting its emphasis through personal preaching and official gestures. In time, he may even give us encyclicals or exhortations that, without fanfare, reassert the clarity of Veritatis Splendor and Familiaris Consortio—texts eclipsed in recent years but never refuted.

This strategy reflects not only ecclesial prudence but a distinctly phenomenological instinct—one characteristic of John Paul II, whose formation in the realist school of phenomenology profoundly shaped his theological and pastoral method. In this tradition, meaning is not static, but is constituted through intentionality: how the human subject directs consciousness toward a given reality. Words like synodality are not defined once and for all; they acquire meaning through the lived experience, context, and interpretive acts of the ecclesial community.

Leo XIV, whether by deliberate method or pastoral instinct, seems to be engaging in such a process. He retains the external phenomena—the language and forms of the post-conciliar Church—but redirects the Church’s noesis—its theological intentionality—toward perennial Catholic truth. In phenomenological terms, he suspends the inherited noema (received meaning) and reconstitutes it through new intentional acts: traditional gestures, doctrinally faithful preaching, and episcopal appointments grounded in orthodoxy. In this way, synodality may come to signify not decentralisation or relativism, but collegial fidelity to Christ.

Such a phenomenological reorientation is not rupture, but hermeneutic reclamation—a quiet recovery of Catholic identity from within modern structures rather than by direct repudiation. It is, in many respects, the method once exemplified by John Paul II: the reordering of ecclesial consciousness without breaking outward continuity.

The Spirit of 1978
This ecclesial temperament reflects the world in which Leo XIV was formed. He entered the novitiate in 1977, the year before John Paul II’s election, and was ordained in 1982. He did not imbibe the raw radicalism of the postconciliar 1960s, but came of age in the mediated, evangelising charisma of the Polish pope. JPII’s theology of the body, Marian devotion, and dignified global witness likely impressed upon the young friar a hopeful Catholicism that sought to uplift rather than confront. Leo’s formation was not “the Council,” but the Council interpreted through media, shaped more by papal example than conciliar texts.

That may explain why he will offer privileges to the FSSP as John Paul II once did, and be warm toward the SSPX as Benedict XVI was, yet simultaneously permit diocesan bishops to curtail the traditional Mass at will. He will be gentle, but he will not govern forcefully. His is not a restorationist papacy, but a papacy of slow realignment.

Bishop Schneider’s Warning
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in a recent interview with A Catholic Take, cautiously welcomed the symbolism of Pope Leo’s chosen name—recalling Leo the Great and Leo XIII as defenders of Catholic truth and Marian devotion—but warned that this must now be translated into action³. Schneider reiterated that the Church’s greatest crisis remains doctrinal confusion and episcopal faithlessness, much of which preceded even Pope Francis. He stressed that many bishops were appointed over the last several pontificates who were “worldly… even heretical… careless in prayer, in liturgy,” and that this has led to “spiritual ruin” in many dioceses⁴.

What is needed, he insists, is not mere rhetoric or balancing acts, but clarity and courage. A true holy pope must not propose his own opinions, but must present with authority the unchanging teaching of the Church handed down from the apostles⁵. The credibility of the pope’s witness depends on this doctrinal fidelity. As a model, Schneider pointed to Paul VI’s 1968 Credo of the People of God, issued amid postconciliar confusion—a profession of faith that reaffirmed core dogmas. He suggests Pope Leo XIV should do likewise: publicly and unambiguously restating the fundamentals of the faith and requiring assent from all bishops as a condition for communion with the apostolic See⁶.

Clarifying Synodality and Vatican II
On the much-discussed topic of synodality, Schneider was pointed: the term itself is a “new invention” foreign to the Church’s tradition and dangerously vague⁷. However, he acknowledged Pope Leo’s early use of the word might be reinterpreted in a genuinely Catholic way—a Church walking together not aimlessly, but towards Christ. If synodality is to have meaning, it must be defined by doctrinal destination, not democratic process.

Similarly, Schneider called for clarity on Vatican II. The true aim of the Council, he reminded listeners, was to renew the universal call to holiness. If the pope would highlight this above other more ambiguous postconciliar emphases—especially efforts to accommodate “the spirit of the age”—he could recover what is good in the Council without continuing the confusion that has followed it⁸.

How Tradition May Return
Thus the Church’s course correction may not come through rupture, but through re-absorption. Future popes may not feel the need to formally repudiate Vatican II. They may simply bypass it. Its centrality will fade. The slogans of the postconciliar decades will lose their rhetorical power. And in their place, the tradition of the Church—her unbroken worship, moral teaching, and doctrine of man—will quietly return.

In this, Leo XIV may be the necessary transitional figure: not the hammer of heresy, but the pontiff who slowly renders heresy irrelevant. The battle is not won, and vigilance is still demanded. But for the first time in many years, the See of Peter no longer scorns the things of tradition. And that, for now, is a beginning.

It is also here that the Old Roman Apostolate (ORA) has a vital role to play. While the Holy See may correct its course gradually, the ORA, already free from the entanglements of postconciliar compromise, provides a visible, sacramental, and doctrinal continuity with the Church of the ages. The Apostolate does not claim the institutional legacy of Utrecht, which Rome now engages in ecumenical dialogue despite its doctrinal disintegration. Rather, the ORA represents a restoration of what was lost: valid apostolic succession, full Catholic sacramental life, and fidelity to the magisterium of all time. In this way, it stands in the gap, not in rebellion, but in filial realism—resisting error while holding out the hope of reconciliation in truth.

The ORA’s stance—like that of the SSPX—is not schismatic, but principled: it demands that any genuine reconciliation with Rome be built on the rock of the perennial magisterium. This includes reaffirmation of the true Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, the social Kingship of Christ, the objective reality of natural and divine law, and the traditional disciplines of clerical formation and liturgical life. The Apostolate has also demonstrated in practice what a faithful, transparent, and penitential response to the abuse crisis must look like: no compromise with clerical impunity, no trading institutional image for justice.

As diocesan structures falter and confusion persists in Rome, it falls to apostolates like the ORA to preserve the living memory of the Church—not only in doctrine and liturgy, but in pastoral integrity, moral clarity, and the rebuilding of true Catholic community. The ORA is not an alternative Church. It is the living echo of what the Church was, and the seed of what, God willing, she shall fully be again.

Tradition will return. But not through slogans. Not through policy adjustments. It will return through sacrifice, witness, and fidelity—especially in those corners of the vineyard that have kept the flame alive when the rest of the house lay in shadow. The light is rising again. And for now, we tend it—quietly, steadily, and with hope. 🔝

¹ Joseph Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, 2000, ch. 1: “Liturgy and Life.”
² Joseph Ratzinger, preface to Klaus Gamber, La Réforme Liturgique en question, Éditions Sainte-Madeleine, 1992.
³ Bishop Athanasius Schneider, interview with Joe McClane, A Catholic Take, May 2025.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid. Schneider proposed a new “Profession of Faith” echoing Paul VI’s 1968 Credo of the People of God as a binding requirement for episcopal communion.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ibid. Schneider emphasized Vatican II’s true goal was the universal call to holiness, not adaptation to modernity.

---

The War on God, Truth, and Nature: How Protestantism Opened the Door to the Modern Crisis

In the cascading collapse of Western civilisation — from the family to reason, from worship to sanity — a coherent diagnosis remains elusive to most. Politicians tinker with symptoms. Pastors preach personal therapy. Intellectuals argue abstractions. But the soul of the crisis is not political, psychological, or economic. It is spiritual — theological. And the origin is as decisive as it is neglected: the Protestant revolt against the Church.

For centuries, Christian Europe was animated by a unified supernatural worldview — a hierarchy of truth grounded in God’s Revelation and taught infallibly by His Church. But the 16th-century Reformation shattered this unity. Once the authority of the Church was denied and spiritual truths were left to private interpretation, the foundation of objective truth began to erode. Protestantism, by placing religious authority in the individual conscience, undermined the principle of truth itself. From this, all subsequent social, cultural, and intellectual revolutions flow.

Spiritual Relativism Begets Intellectual Chaos
The first blow of Protestantism was against dogma — those unchanging truths divinely revealed and authoritatively interpreted by the Church. But once dogma became negotiable, so too did everything else. Religion, once regarded as the queen of the sciences, was reduced to opinion. And once religion is optional, all truth becomes suspect.

What followed was the slow but steady demolition of reason itself. When contradictory beliefs are tolerated within the same religious framework — or worse, between Christian sects — the world receives the message: no truth can claim universality. This relativism spread, first to theology, then to philosophy, and finally to culture and language. It is no coincidence that in our own day, even 2 + 2 = 4 is considered a matter of perspective in elite academic institutions¹.

This collapse of reason is not a side effect of Protestantism — it is its logical end. Pope St. Pius X observed that the Modernist heresy, which regards dogma as evolving according to the consciousness of the believer, is rooted in the Protestant exaltation of individual conscience². When belief is severed from authority, and truth from tradition, thinking becomes emoting, and dogma becomes autobiography. From there, all becomes subjective — and soon, incoherent.

The Rebellion Against Nature
Just as Protestantism undermined theological truth, so its philosophical offspring, liberalism, undermined natural truth. When God is no longer acknowledged as Creator and Lawgiver, nature too becomes arbitrary. The final fruit of this rebellion is now before us: gender ideology, sexual mutilation of children, and the state-sponsored inversion of biological reality.

These are not isolated outrages. They are the consummation of modern man’s war against the created order. In the same way that Protestantism said, “I will not serve” to the Church, modern man now says, “I will not be made” to his nature. Common sense — the natural light of reason — is dismissed as oppressive, patriarchal, even fascist. And yet, as the laws of aerodynamics do not bend to ideology, neither does human nature. Those who violate it — individuals and nations alike — do so at their peril³.

The mutilation of children under the banner of “gender affirmation” is not an unfortunate side effect of freedom. It is the cruelest fruit of a philosophy that denies essence, order, and meaning. No society that permits such crimes can endure.

The War on God: Liberalism, Freemasonry, and the New Babel
But what is the root of this rebellion? Not just error, but prideful hatred of God. The Enlightenment project — whether through Rousseau’s naturalism, Jefferson’s deism, or Marx’s materialism — has been to dethrone God and install man as his own authority. This is the essence of liberalism: not liberty rightly ordered toward the good, but liberty as self-assertion against the divine.

Pope Leo XIII’s great encyclical Libertas distinguishes between legitimate freedom and the liberty of perdition: the unrestrained right to do wrong, to speak blasphemy, and to deny truth. This latter kind of “freedom” is the basis of modern democracy — and it is a lie⁴.

Freemasonry, the hidden hand of revolution, was created precisely to promote this lie. As Leo XIII warned in Humanum Genus, Freemasonry was not simply a fraternity but “a dark force” opposed to the supernatural order, working to destroy both Church and monarchy, God’s two pillars in society⁵. It played a decisive role in both the American and French Revolutions — movements that rejected not only kings but altars.

And what comes after this destruction? A vacuum. As the old adage goes, nature abhors a vacuum — and when true religion is expelled, false gods rush in. The modern world fills its spiritual void with consumption, spectacle, addiction, and self-worship. The idols have changed, but the paganism is the same.

The West’s Implicit Communism
The so-called “free world” believes itself immune to communism, but in truth it has already embraced its principles. Atheism, materialism, and statism are now the dogmas of the secular West. The factories may not bear red flags, but the minds of the youth are already formed by Marxist anthropology and class dialectics, hidden under the banners of equity, inclusion, and social justice.

This progression is logical. Liberalism, in destroying transcendent order, opens the door to socialism, which seeks to reorganise man without God. Socialism, in turn, evolves into communism, the total abolition of all private and sacred claims in favour of the collective. Pope Pius XI, in Quadragesimo Anno, condemned socialism in all its forms as “a theory of society that is intrinsically perverse”⁶. The West, long liberal, is now soft socialist. The hard version is not far behind.

Only One Escape: Return to Truth
There is, in the end, only one solution. The world must return to objective, revealed, and authoritative truth — to the Catholic Faith. For it is not only the natural law that affirms man’s dignity and end, but the supernatural truth of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ that redeems him. This truth is not subject to negotiation. It is not democratic. It does not evolve.

It is Catholic.

And every soul will face that truth — not in a blog post, not in a university seminar, but at the judgment seat of Christ. For as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, “Death is the separation of the soul from the body; and immediately thereafter the soul is judged by God”⁷. His judgment is neither harsh nor soft, but the perfect balance of justice and mercy.

The world prays, “O God, intervene!” But when He does, His justice will be more terrible than any tyrant. The chastisement will come. And when it does, those who long for divine correction may well plead for delay.

Until then, we can only prepare by doing what the modern world refuses to do: repent, submit, and believe the Gospel. If not, the ruins of the West will stand as a monument — not to failed policy, but to man’s rebellion against God.

“Men are made by God. They come from God, whether they like it or not. And they will return to God, to be judged.” 🔝

¹ Cf. examples in contemporary critical pedagogy and “decolonial mathematics”; also the absurdities found in woke reinterpretations of STEM education.
² Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), §§6–8.
³ Cf. Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the International Society of Hematology, September 12, 1958: “Nature, the handmaid of God, is not mocked with impunity.”
⁴ Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum (1888), §§18–20.
⁵ Leo XIII, Humanum Genus (1884), §§10–13.
⁶ Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931), §117.
⁷ Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article 1: “He shall come to judge the living and the dead.”
⁸ Augustine, Confessions, I.1.

Anglicanism and the Illusion of Catholic Continuity: A Failed Experiment in Ecclesial Substitution

Anglicanism, born of schism and sustained by state patronage, is often presented in two guises. One, overtly Protestant and politically progressive, now ordains women bishops and blesses same-sex unions. The other, known as Anglo-Catholicism, preserves many of the externals of Catholic worship—chanted liturgy, vestments, incense, even Marian devotion. But beneath the surface, both are fruits of the same poisoned root: a Church separated from Peter, cut off from sacramental validity, and increasingly estranged from the truths of the Catholic faith. From a Catholic standpoint, Anglicanism is not a legitimate alternative, but a failed and tragic imitation—one which, in the case of Anglo-Catholicism, poses a unique danger by dressing schism in the garments of tradition.

The Birth of Anglicanism: Schism by Royal Command
The genesis of the Church of England in the 1530s was not a movement of doctrinal protest but a calculated political maneuver. Henry VIII’s break with Rome came after Pope Clement VII refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. The king’s response was the Act of Supremacy (1534), which made the monarch “the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England.” It was not Christ, but the Crown, that was enthroned over the Church—a precedent that would mark Anglicanism’s enduring submission to secular authority.

The pretext for the break—defending the “liberties” of the English Church—masks the reality that Henry dissolved monasteries, pillaged religious houses, and presided over the judicial murder of Catholic martyrs. Thomas More, John Fisher, the Carthusian fathers, and many others gave their lives in defense of the visible unity of the Church and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Anglicanism was born not of fidelity to Christ, but of rebellion against His Vicar.

Sacramental Invalidity and Apostolic Discontinuity
Despite Anglo-Catholic claims to the contrary, Anglicanism does not possess valid holy orders. Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896) examined the Edwardine Ordinal—the rite used in Anglican ordinations after the Reformation—and declared such orders “absolutely null and utterly void.” The new form excised all references to sacrifice, the very heart of the Catholic priesthood. Intention, form, and sacramental theology were all defective. As Leo XIII observed, the Anglican reformers “had no intention of transmitting the Catholic priesthood” and, consequently, failed to do so.¹

In response to this judgment, some have proposed that the involvement of Old Catholic bishops in Anglican consecrations—commonly known as the “Dutch Touch”—has restored validity. Yet this theory misunderstands the underlying theological issue. As the Archbishop of Selsey has observed, “The notion that Anglican orders can be ‘corrected’ through the participation of Old Catholic bishops using the Tridentine formula within an Anglican ordination rite is both theologically incoherent and historically naive.” He continues: “Such attempts utterly miss the essential point of Apostolicae Curae: that the defect lies not merely in the gesture or even the words, but in the intention and ecclesial context of the Anglican rite itself. It is not a matter of sprinkling validity into a fundamentally Protestant rite. The rupture lies at the level of meaning and mission.”²

No Catholic may licitly or prudently receive sacraments from Anglican clergy under any pretense of sacramental economy. The break in continuity—doctrinal, sacramental, and hierarchical—remains profound.

Anglo-Catholicism: A Dangerous Theatricality
The particular danger of Anglo-Catholicism lies in its capacity to simulate Catholic tradition while lacking its substance. The Oxford Movement of the 19th century, led by figures such as John Henry Newman and Edward Pusey, sought to reassert the Catholic heritage of Anglicanism. But while Newman followed his convictions into the Catholic Church, many others remained, giving rise to a hybrid form of Anglicanism that preserved the externals of Catholic devotion—liturgy, sacraments, ritual—without restoring Catholic obedience, jurisdiction, or doctrine.

As Catholic writer James Likoudis observed, Anglo-Catholicism is “a liturgical façade which cloaks doctrinal relativism and ecclesial disobedience.” It confers the impression of unity with the universal Church while rejecting the visible authority of the papacy, the binding character of magisterial teaching, and the sacramental realism affirmed by Trent and Vatican I.³

Dr Gavin Ashenden, a former Anglican bishop and Queen’s Chaplain who converted to Catholicism, has similarly warned that Anglicanism increasingly offers “a shallow, politicised and de-energised centre, incapable of either spiritual renewal, repentance or conversion.”⁴ His critique was not merely external; it reflected a journey of conscience. “You cannot keep the structure and dismiss the spiritual essence,” Ashenden writes. “That is why Anglicanism will never be able to carry the weight of Catholic faith.”⁵

Internal Collapse and Doctrinal Chaos
The Anglican Communion today is in a state of accelerating disintegration. The Church of England has seen a catastrophic decline in attendance, baptisms, and vocations. In 2024, the Archbishop of Canterbury openly admitted that his denomination is “no longer the default moral compass of the nation.” Meanwhile, divisions over female ordination, same-sex marriage, and the authority of Scripture continue to fracture the global communion. Whole provinces—such as Nigeria and Uganda—have broken communion with others over these issues.

This doctrinal incoherence is not a modern aberration but the logical fruit of Anglicanism’s founding premise: that the Church can exist without a universal Magisterium. The Thirty-Nine Articles, still technically normative in the Church of England, deny transubstantiation, assert that “the sacrifices of Masses” are “blasphemous fables,” and reject the authority of General Councils to command obedience in matters of faith. Anglo-Catholics who privately affirm Catholic doctrine do so in contradiction to their own church’s foundational texts.

The Call to Return: Unity in Truth
The Catholic Church does not regard Anglo-Catholics as enemies. Indeed, their longing for reverence, order, and beauty in worship is not misplaced. But these noble instincts must be ordered to truth. Pope Benedict XVI’s Anglicanorum Coetibus (2009) created a unique structure—the Personal Ordinariates—for Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of their patrimony. This was not an ecumenical compromise, but a missionary act of charity: the Church reaching out to gather in her separated children.

It is therefore no insult but a work of mercy to state plainly: Anglicanism is not Catholic. It is a failed attempt to replicate Catholic identity without Catholic unity, Catholic authority, or Catholic sacraments. Anglo-Catholicism, in particular, is a beautiful but deceptive illusion—one that risks leading souls into complacency rather than conversion.

Conclusion: The Danger of Half-Truths
Anglicanism, and particularly its Anglo-Catholic variant, seduces by imitation. It borrows the aesthetic and language of Catholicism while repudiating its foundations—juridical, dogmatic, and sacramental. It clings to the image of the Church while rejecting her reality. As such, it is not merely a theological error but a spiritual trap: a simulacrum of tradition that delays conversion and dulls conscience by satisfying the senses.

But the remedy is not found in simply “going to Rome,” as many imagine. For modern Rome itself, even under Pope Leo XIV, is no longer an unqualified haven for the Catholic mind and heart. While Leo’s early signs suggest a desire to restore clarity and reverence, he inherits a post-conciliar structure riddled with contradiction, ambiguity, and heteropraxis. The same apparatus that once turned a blind eye to liturgical abuse and doctrinal dissent remains largely intact. Synodality, ecumenical confusion, and the cult of personality still hang over the Church like a cloud. A Catholic convert from Anglicanism today may indeed find himself exchanging one crisis for another—unless he is careful.

It is for this reason that the Traditionalist apostolates—those that hold fast to the Latin Mass, the perennial magisterium, and the true interpretation of Vatican II in continuity with tradition—stand out as the only obvious and reliable refuge for any Anglican who genuinely seeks the Catholic Church in her fullness. Whether in the Ordinariate properly lived, or in apostolates such as the Institute of Christ the King, the Fraternity of St Peter, or the Old Roman Apostolate, here alone is the faith taught sicut semper, ubique, et ab omnibus—“always, everywhere, and by all.”

The crisis of Anglicanism is not unique. It is a symptom of a wider ecclesial sickness: the loss of supernatural faith. But only by renouncing half-truths and embracing the full, unchanging deposit of the Faith can one enter the Ark and weather the present storm. Anglicanism has failed not merely because it broke with Rome, but because it refused to return. Let those who seek truth do better. Let them come home—fully, faithfully, and without compromise. 🔝

¹ Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII, 1896.
² Statement of the Archbishop of Selsey, internal ORA correspondence (2025).
³ James Likoudis, The Anglican Illusion: Resolving the Crisis in Anglican-Catholic Relations, 1997.
⁴ Gavin Ashenden, “Stripped of Both Wings,” Inside the Vatican Magazine, June 2022.
⁵ Gavin Ashenden, “From Canterbury to Rome: Why the Queen’s Former Chaplain Became Catholic,” ashenden.org, March 2020.
⁶ Pope Benedict XVI, Anglicanorum Coetibus, 2009.
⁷ The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, Church of England, 1571, esp. Articles XXII, XXVIII, XXXI.
⁸ Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 815–822.
⁹ “Justin Welby admits Church of England is no longer moral authority,” The Times, 2024.

Anglicanism’s Glass Ceiling? The Calvin Robinson Affair and the REC Reversal

In a development watched closely by Nuntiatoria and its readers, the short-lived licensing of Rev. Calvin Robinson by Bishop Ray Sutton of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) has ignited what may prove a watershed controversy within the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and its affiliated bodies. A full account of this affair, especially in light of Robinson’s previous treatment by the Church of England, the Free Church of England, the Nordic Catholic Church, and the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), exposes not only the institutional fragility of ecclesial conservatism, but also an increasingly visible fracture over identity, authority, and witness in the public square.

A Man without a Bishop
As reported in a previous Nuntiatoria bulletin, Calvin Robinson—a high-profile British commentator, Deacon-turned-Priest, and outspoken defender of traditional Christian teaching on gender and authority—has experienced a series of ecclesiastical expulsions. His rejection by the Church of England (where he was refused priestly ordination by Bishop Sarah Mullally) was followed by brief and fraught stints in the Free Church of England (under Bishop John Fenwick), the Nordic Catholic Church (in association with the Union of Scranton), and the ACC (where he was dismissed following a viral video clip many interpreted as mimicking a Nazi salute).

The episode at the U.S. March for Life in early 2025, during which Robinson playfully mirrored what was falsely alleged to be a Nazi gesture by Elon Musk, gave the ACC its pretext to cut ties. Further justification was given in the form of concerns about antisemitism—based not on anything Robinson himself said, but on remarks made by a podcast guest that Robinson immediately repudiated.

Yet it is Robinson’s character—outspoken, articulate, culturally combative—that remains the real issue. As Kevin Kallsen and George Conger noted in a recent Anglican Unscripted broadcast (Ep. 873), “he has never had a good and faithful bishop to serve under.” Many would agree. But the REC episode was meant to change that.

A Short-Lived Opportunity
On 12 May 2025, Bishop Ray Sutton issued a temporary one-year licence for Robinson to continue ministering to the faithful of St. Paul’s Anglican Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan—a parish that had left the ACC with its property intact. It seemed a rare case of pastoral courage: Sutton, a respected REC leader and theologian, offered Episcopal oversight while the parish discerned its future.

Robinson confirmed the licence publicly, adding that it was a temporary arrangement under REC canons, not a formal incardination. Within 24 hours, however, trouble was brewing.

Archbishop Steve Wood of the ACNA—of which the REC is a constituent jurisdiction—issued a public letter stating his opposition. “I am concerned,” Wood wrote, “to have the Anglican Church in North America affiliated with a leader whose public comments and persona consistently fail to exhibit the love and grace of Jesus Christ.” He added doubts about Robinson’s capacity to model “Christlike virtues of peace, patience, gentleness, and goodness.”

This public rebuke shocked many observers, including Anglican Unscripted co-hosts, who lambasted the unprecedented nature of a primate publicly undermining one of his own bishops for an act within his lawful jurisdiction. The outcry was enough to bring the affair to a swift end: Sutton rescinded the licence less than two weeks after issuing it.

What Are We Witnessing?
This affair lays bare the underlying ecclesiological instability of the ACNA experiment. Founded to provide a haven for those fleeing revisionism in the Episcopal Church, the ACNA from its outset has contained within itself divergent visions of Anglican identity—Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, charismatic, confessional, and broad church—bound together by a fragile consensus on sexual ethics and the 1662/1979 Book of Common Prayer. On issues such as the ordination of women, liturgical uniformity, and public moral witness, this consensus has steadily eroded.

Robinson, though ordained in non-ACNA jurisdictions, represents a challenge to this ambiguity. He is a man of strong Catholic convictions—pro-life, anti-woke, opposed to female clergy, and publicly reverent in his liturgical practice. He also appeals to disaffected youth through social media, combining charisma with combative clarity. To some in the ACNA, he is a liability. To others, a prophetic voice.

But what cannot be denied is this: the open rebuke of Bishop Sutton by Archbishop Wood, and the subsequent withdrawal of the licence, signals a tectonic shift in ACNA politics. Where once bishops handled internal disagreements quietly, the Robinson episode has brought the conflict into the open.

For Catholics Watching from the Sidelines
Robinson’s saga is more than a denominational drama—it is a mirror held up to us all. If even conservative bodies, claiming to uphold the Gospel against liberalism, fear the presence of forceful, articulate defenders of truth, then what is left? Robinson’s mistakes, if they exist, have never been doctrinal. His failures, such as they are, have been of tone, timing, and tactics. But these are not disqualifying—unless one prefers safety to sanctity, and conformity to courage.

As one commentator put it: “If Calvin can’t thrive under Ray Sutton, then the problem wasn’t the bishops—it was Calvin.” But it may equally be asked: if even Ray Sutton cannot offer cover for Calvin Robinson, then what space is left for men of conviction in the modern Anglican world?

Conclusion
This episode is not ultimately about Calvin Robinson. It is about the future of Anglican witness. Will conservative churches stand up to the culture with clarity and unity? Or will they continue to silence their own prophets the moment Twitter or the Guardian begins to circle?

For traditional Catholics and for the Old Roman Apostolate, the answer is instructive. Institutional conservatism without courage is just liberalism on delay.

Let us pray for Calvin Robinson—and for the bishops who must answer, not to media or synod, but to Christ. 🔝

1. Anglican Unscripted Episode 873, Calvin Robinson & the ACNA, May 2025.
2. “Bishop Sutton Withdraws Calvin Robinson’s License,” The Living Church, May 2025.
3. “Calvin Robinson Out of the REC,” Anglican Ink, 14 May 2025.
4. “Priest dismissed for Nazi-like salute is restored to service by ACNA jurisdiction,” Religion News Service, 13 May 2025.
5. Nuntiatoria, March 2025 Edition: “Calvin Robinson and the Perils of Anglican Conservatism.”

---

Archbishop’s Personal Facebook Account Hijacked — Platform Transparency in Question

A disturbing breach of digital security has prompted renewed concern over Facebook’s accountability mechanisms, after the personal Facebook account of Archbishop Jerome Lloyd, Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate, was hijacked earlier this month. The account, long used for personal and pastoral communication, was taken over by an unknown party and has since been inaccessible to the Archbishop—despite repeated appeals to the platform’s support infrastructure¹.

The incident highlights a growing issue for public figures, clergy, and pastoral workers who rely on major digital platforms to maintain contact with their flock and engage in broader discourse². Archbishop Lloyd, known for his outspoken traditional Catholic voice and consistent engagement with both laity and clergy via social media, found himself effectively silenced overnight when control of the account was lost.

Worse still, Facebook (now operating under the Meta umbrella) has shown a marked lack of transparency in dealing with the situation. Despite the Archbishop’s verified identity and documented efforts to recover the account, the response from the platform has been slow, impersonal, and opaque. Inquiries have been met with automated replies or circular guidance directing users to unhelpful pages—leaving no clear path to restitution, no human contact, and no assurance of action³.

This lack of responsiveness raises broader questions about digital justice and due process for users—especially those whose identity and credibility are public and verifiable⁴. “This is not merely a personal inconvenience,” a spokesman for the Old Roman Apostolate commented. “It is a matter of ecclesiastical dignity and mission integrity. That a bishop’s account can be compromised and ignored by the world’s largest communication platform speaks volumes about the direction of digital governance.”

Digital security experts have increasingly warned about the fragility of social media identities in an era of algorithmic bureaucracy⁵. The paradox is stark: while Facebook aggressively curates content under the guise of “community standards,” it appears indifferent when real community leaders fall victim to breaches⁶.

Calls are now growing for Meta to provide a clear and accountable appeals process—particularly for clergy, journalists, and public servants whose roles depend upon the reliability of their online presence⁷. As platforms position themselves as gatekeepers of public discourse, they must be held to standards that match their power⁸.

The Archbishop, meanwhile, has reiterated his commitment to transparency and personal integrity, choosing not to create a replacement profile under protest until the situation is properly resolved. “We are stewards of truth,” he remarked in a recent public message. “That includes holding truth to power—even when that power wears the mask of convenience and corporate indifference.”

Faithful and supporters are encouraged to monitor the official channels of the Old Roman Apostolate for updates and to remain vigilant against possible misuse of the hijacked account. The Apostolate also warns the faithful not to engage with or respond to messages from the compromised profile.

This event is a sobering reminder that, in the digital age, the Church’s mission is increasingly bound up with questions of access, control, and justice in the virtual public square. It is time that platforms like Facebook began treating clergy and religious institutions not as “users,” but as responsible parties with rightful claims to protection and recourse. 🔝

¹ Facebook’s help forums document thousands of unresolved account hijacking cases, with official recovery processes often depending on algorithmic verification rather than human review. See: Meta Help Center Complaints, Wall Street Journal, 2023.
² Religious leaders’ dependence on digital platforms for pastoral outreach has intensified post-pandemic. See: Heidi A. Campbell, Digital Ecclesiology: A Global Conversation, 2021.
³ Meta’s customer service has long been criticized for opacity. For a comprehensive review, see: “Meta’s Broken Help System,” The Markup, April 2022.
⁴ The failure to recognize public identities in security breaches has disproportionately affected politicians, journalists, and clergy. See: Brookings Institution Report, “Digital Identity and Trust,” 2022.
⁵ “Most social media accounts operate on weak recovery protocols,” cybersecurity analyst Brian Krebs notes. See: Krebs on Security, “Why Account Recovery Is Broken,” March 2024.
⁶ Facebook’s uneven enforcement of content standards has been widely documented. Cf. Oversight Board Annual Report, 2023.
⁷ Calls for tiered, verified support for institutional users have been echoed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the UK Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. See: “Who Gets Help?” EFF Brief, 2021.
⁸ On the dangers of corporate monopoly over public discourse, see: Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 2019; also: Jaron Lanier, Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now, 2020.

---

Fathers, Sons, and the Silent Guardian: The Primus’ Call to Revive Devotion to St Joseph

In a recent Ad Clerum, Archbishop Jerome of Selsey, Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate, issued a pastoral exhortation calling clergy and faithful alike to rekindle devotion to St Joseph, particularly among boys and men, as a remedy to the crisis of fatherhood and masculine identity afflicting both Church and society. The initiative is part of a wider pastoral strategy to nurture the virtues of self-mastery, responsibility, and sacrificial love that St Joseph embodies, and to form what the Archbishop has described elsewhere as just men for unjust times.

The Crisis of Manhood and the Witness of Joseph
The Archbishop’s initiative is rooted in the conviction that the collapse of fatherhood—manifested in absenteeism, irresponsibility, and spiritual tepidity—is not merely a sociological crisis but a theological one. Drawing on traditional Catholic anthropology, the Ad Clerum frames this collapse as a symptom of deeper disorder: the loss of a coherent understanding of masculine virtue rooted in divine fatherhood and modelled in the lives of the saints.

St Joseph stands out in this tradition not only as patronus Ecclesiae universalis, the universal patron of the Church, but also as the quiet protector of the verbum caro factum, the Word made flesh, and His Immaculate Mother. In a time when men are often either effeminised or brutalised by contemporary culture, St Joseph offers a radiant model of dignity in silence, authority in obedience, and strength in chastity. He is, in the Archbishop’s words, “the antidote to the fatherless generation.”

Practical Devotions and Outreach
To realise this vision, the Archbishop has encouraged clergy to organise men’s and boys’ groups centred on the virtues of St Joseph, including the Seven Sorrows and Joys of St Joseph and the traditional Thirty Days’ Prayer. These are to serve not only as formative exercises in personal sanctity but also as instruments of evangelistic outreach—inviting unchurched men and boys into a community of prayer, conversation, and fraternal encouragement. In the Ad Clerum, he advises:

“Gather devout men or boys in your congregation—two or three will be enough—explain the concept and encourage them to invite and bring friends, men and boys from the local community. Use this as outreach, an opportunity for just men to come together and discuss their thoughts, feelings, and issues in a safe and encouraging setting.”

The initiative is to be supported by renewed fraternal engagement among the clergy themselves. Plans are underway for monthly online chapter meetings, allowing priests across the dispersed mission territories of the Apostolate to share insights, experiences, and practical advice. The Archbishop believes this mutual support is critical for inspiring both creativity and perseverance in local initiatives.

Restoring the Image of the Father
The underlying theological aim is clear: to restore, through devotion to St Joseph, the proper understanding of fatherhood as spiritual headship and sacrificial service. As the world promotes distorted images of masculinity—whether domineering or effete—the Church must once again hold up the quiet carpenter of Nazareth, who governed his household with faith, courage, and purity.

In the wider context of cultural breakdown, the Archbishop’s initiative reflects a growing recognition among traditional Catholic leaders that renewal will not come through programs or policies alone. It must begin with persons—specifically, with men who rediscover their vocation to lead in holiness.

As Pope Leo XIII once wrote in Quamquam Pluries:

“Joseph became the guardian, the administrator, and the legal defender of the divine house of which he was the head… It is, then, natural and worthy that as the Blessed Joseph ministered to all the needs of the family at Nazareth and girt it about with his protection, he should now cover with the cloak of his heavenly patronage and defend the Church of Jesus Christ.”

To cover the Church once more with that paternal cloak, we must first raise up sons worthy to wear it. The Primus’ call to devotion is thus no mere pious recommendation—it is a strategic and spiritual imperative. 🔝

¹ Ad Clerum of the Primus, +Jerome of Selsey, May 2025 (internal communication to ORA clergy).
² Pope Leo XIII, Quamquam Pluries (1889), para. 3.
³ See also: Devotions endorsed by St Alphonsus Liguori and promoted by Pope Pius IX, including the Thirty Days’ Prayer to St Joseph and the Seven Sorrows and Joys, which are traditionally associated with the spiritual discipline of Catholic manhood.
⁴ Cf. Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), on the role of fathers in the moral and religious formation of youth.

---

---

In Other News…

---

Scotland’s Assisted Dying Bill: A Dangerous Step Toward State-Sanctioned Death?

On 13 May 2025, the Scottish Parliament voted by 70 to 56 in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, marking the first time such legislation has passed its initial stage at Holyrood. While the vote is hailed by some as a milestone in personal autonomy and compassion, the Catholic Church and many others have issued stark warnings about the moral, pastoral, and societal dangers of legalising physician-assisted suicide.

Two Parliaments, Two Bills
It is important to understand that the devolved Scottish Parliament, seated in Edinburgh, has the legislative competence to consider such a bill independently of Westminster. Health and criminal justice fall under devolved powers, allowing Holyrood to legislate for assisted dying within Scotland. Meanwhile, a separate bill—the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—has also been proposed in the UK Parliament at Westminster, applicable to England and Wales.

While both bills are framed around cases of terminal illness, the Scottish proposal is notably less restrictive in its structure and oversight. Introduced by Scottish Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, the Scottish Bill permits any adult resident in Scotland (for at least 12 months) with a terminal diagnosis of six months or less to request life-ending medication. Two doctors must attest to the individual’s mental capacity and voluntariness, after which a 14-day cooling-off period is observed. The individual must then self-administer the lethal dose.

By contrast, the Westminster bill requires a more elaborate multi-disciplinary process involving legal, psychological, and social assessments. Critics of the Scottish model suggest that its relative simplicity risks becoming, over time, a path of least resistance for those facing psychological, financial, or familial pressures.

Catholic Bishops Respond
The Catholic Church has condemned the Scottish proposal in clear terms. Bishop John Keenan of Paisley warned that the bill promotes “the dangerous idea that a citizen can lose their value and worth,” normalising suicide at a societal level and undermining the principle that life is a gift from God, not a burden to be discarded.

The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has long emphasised the need to protect the most vulnerable, calling instead for investment in high-quality palliative care and end-of-life support. “True compassion,” the bishops argued in their submission to Holyrood, “means standing with those who suffer, not removing the sufferer.”

In England and Wales, Cardinal Vincent Nichols has likewise condemned the lack of scrutiny being given to the Westminster proposal. In a recent letter, he called the potential legalisation of assisted dying “a fundamental alteration of the values that underpin our health service and our society.” The Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales urged Catholic faithful to write to their MPs and MSPs to register their opposition.

A Society on the Brink
Proponents of assisted dying often frame the debate in terms of personal freedom. But freedom divorced from truth becomes a license to destroy. The Church insists that legalising assisted suicide sends a chilling message to the elderly, disabled, and vulnerable: that their lives are less worth living and that death is a solution to suffering. This is not progress—it is abandonment.

Scotland’s bill still has further stages to pass. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee will now scrutinise it line-by-line, and further votes will follow. Yet if it passes into law, it will mark a grave departure from the principles of medicine and law rooted in the sanctity of life.

For Catholics and others concerned with moral law and social order, this moment must become a rallying point—not only to oppose these bills, but to offer something better: a society in which no one faces death alone, in fear, or as a burden, but is accompanied, comforted, and loved to the end. 🔝

¹ Scottish Parliament Official Report, 13 May 2025.
² Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, Submission to the Assisted Dying Bill Consultation, 2024.
³ Cardinal Vincent Nichols, “Letter to Catholics in England and Wales,” CBCEW, April 2025.
⁴ BBC News, “Scotland: Assisted Dying Bill passes first vote at Holyrood,” 13 May 2025.
⁵ The Scottish Sun, “Assisted Dying Bill passes landmark vote,” 13 May 2025.
⁶ The Times, “Catholic leaders warn over rush to legalise assisted suicide,” 14 May 2025.

---

The Trans Toddler Scandal: NHS Referrals, Activist Pressure, and the Quiet Betrayal of Childhood

The National Health Service in England has opened the doors of its newly created regional gender services to children as young as three—children still in nappies, still learning to speak in full sentences, now considered candidates for “gender exploration.” This unprecedented shift comes after NHS England removed a proposed minimum age of seven from its referral guidance, despite earlier statements that younger children were “just too young” to be meaningfully assessed for gender dysphoria. The draft, released in 2023 following the Cass Review, had advised that children under seven typically lack the cognitive and communicative maturity necessary to engage with clinical processes.

But in a familiar pattern, the guidance was quietly rewritten following a consultation process that, insiders report, was heavily influenced by trans activist lobbying. A source close to the process told The Telegraph that NHS England had “caved to the pressure,” and the new guidance now permits referrals with no lower age limit.

Though the NHS claims it is merely offering family-based counselling rather than medical intervention, this reframing does little to reassure critics who see in these changes a thinly veiled continuation of the discredited Tavistock model.

From Tavistock to ‘Holistic Hubs’—Old Wine in New Wineskins
The Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust was closed in 2022 following the Cass Review, which condemned its one-directional affirmation model, its routine prescription of puberty blockers without robust evidence, and its failure to assess coexisting mental health or neurodevelopmental conditions. Baroness Cass’s report called for a new, cautious, evidence-based model—one centred on developmental support and free of ideological capture.

The NHS response was to open regional “gender hubs,” embedded within existing children’s hospitals, promising a more “holistic” approach. But newly released figures reveal that at least ten nursery-aged children are already being seen, and 157 children aged nine or younger are in the referral system. With thousands more on waiting lists, critics now question whether these hubs are truly new at all—or simply a rebranded Tavistock, better distributed and more politically armoured.

The Erasure of Childhood: A Mother’s Witness
Into this unfolding debate stepped Molly Kingsley, co-founder of the parents’ advocacy group UsForThem, whose personal story has gone viral. She recounted how her daughter, between the ages of three and seven, dressed only in “boys’ clothes,” rejected dolls and “girl things,” and asked to be called by a boy’s name. Had this occurred today, Kingsley said, “she’d have been referred to a gender clinic at age four.”

But the child wasn’t “transgender.” She was imaginative. She was playful. She was a child. And she grew out of it.

“Now she’s a confident teenage girl,” Kingsley wrote, “with not a trace of gender confusion. We didn’t medicalise her childhood. We let her be.”¹

Her story is emblematic of what Baroness Cass found in the data: that the majority of children with early gender incongruence desist naturally by adolescence if not steered prematurely toward a trans identity. Kingsley’s warning is blunt: “The NHS is now medicalising ordinary childhood behaviour—and under activist pressure, it’s doing so with toddlers.”

Experts Sound the Alarm
Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, underscores the gravity of the risk:

“Research shows that pre-adolescent children who feel confused or distressed by the fact of their sex will usually grow out of this stage if they’re sensitively supported—but not when they’re encouraged to believe the unscientific notion that everyone has a ‘gender identity’.”²

Stephanie Davies-Arai of Transgender Trend agreed, pointing out the long-term damage of ideological narratives promoted to parents:

“Trans lobbyists have told parents that children know their ‘gender identity’ from age three and that there is no harm in ‘affirming’ a child’s identity. That is not true, and it’s not safe.”³

Both commentators affirm the core concern: that the child’s environment—whether clinical or educational—is now often a place of reinforcement rather than discernment, affirmation rather than inquiry.

Politics and Pretence
Government spokesmen insist that the new policy follows the recommendations of the Cass Review, but the facts suggest otherwise. Dr Cass was clear: early social transition may have lasting psychological consequences, and assessment must proceed from developmental and diagnostic integrity—not ideological assumptions. And yet, with waiting lists now over 6,000, and with NHS trusts accepting referrals of three- and four-year-olds, a dissonance is evident between rhetoric and reality.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has banned the prescription of puberty blockers, and has promised to uphold sex-based rights in hospital settings. Yet the infrastructure being built beneath those policies permits the continued institutionalisation of “gender identity” as a meaningful, medically relevant category—even in children too young to understand its implications.

Catholic Response: A Question of Nature and Truth
The removal of age restrictions in gender referrals is not merely a medical scandal—it is a philosophical and moral one. It presupposes that a toddler can possess a fixed “inner identity” at odds with their biological sex, and that such identity should govern the adult response. This is not medicine. It is a new anthropology, one fundamentally incompatible with the truth of the human person revealed in nature and confirmed by divine law.

The Archbishop of Selsey has been among the few clerical voices willing to confront this reality. In response to parental concern about school-based indoctrination, he co-founded PSHE Brighton, a grassroots initiative equipping parents and educators to resist the imposition of transgender ideology in primary education. Rooted in the Catholic understanding of human dignity, the project defends the innocence of childhood and the primacy of the natural law in education.

In his pastoral guidance, the Archbishop has warned that “to concede the categories of gender identity is already to surrender the soul of the child to the culture of the lie.” The true pastoral response, he argues, is not affirmation but accompaniment; not confusion but clarity.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Courage
The Cass Review offered the NHS a chance to change course—to build a child-centred model rooted in reality, prudence, and truth. Instead, NHS England has chosen to placate the lobbyists, appease the ideologues, and reopen the doors of gender ideology—this time to toddlers.

The betrayal is quiet, bureaucratic, incremental. But its consequences are seismic. If the State cannot protect the mind of a four-year-old from ideological medicalisation, it has forfeited its moral authority. And if the Church will not speak clearly on what it means to be male and female, then parents must take up that task with renewed courage.

In the end, the defence of children may fall to those most willing to say what others fear: that a boy is not a girl, that a tomboy is not trans, and that a confused child deserves clarity, not clinical validation of their confusion. 🔝

¹ Molly Kingsley (@lensiseethrough), X, 15 May 2025.
² Helen Joyce, quoted in The Telegraph, 15 May 2025.
³ Stephanie Davies-Arai, Transgender Trend, ibid.

---

A Nation Undivided—or Fragmented? The Supreme Court, Birthright Citizenship, and the Power of One Judge

The United States Supreme Court this week heard arguments in a case that could redefine both the scope of judicial authority and the legal foundations of American citizenship. Beneath the procedural debate lies a profound ideological confrontation—between those who view constitutional citizenship as inviolable, and those who see it as subject to executive discretion. Yet perhaps more striking is the question that dominated oral arguments: should a single federal judge wield the power to block a presidential policy across the entire nation?

This case arises from Doe v. United States, a legal challenge to Executive Order 14160, issued during Donald Trump’s presidency. The order sought to exclude from automatic birthright citizenship the children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors—a direct challenge to prevailing interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the order never took full effect due to preliminary injunctions issued by federal judges, its legal legacy has resurfaced under the current Court¹.

The Core of the Case: Judicial Injunctions
The Supreme Court is not yet ruling on the constitutionality of the Trump-era policy itself. Instead, the immediate issue concerns the power of the lower judiciary: can a single district court judge issue a nationwide injunction that halts a federal policy for the entire country?

Such nationwide injunctions became a prominent feature of judicial opposition during the Trump administration. Progressive attorneys general and advocacy groups were able to secure sweeping injunctions in sympathetic courts, often in the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and other western states². These rulings frequently frustrated federal immigration, health care, and education policies. Conversely, conservative litigators have used the same strategy against the Biden administration³.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the government, contended that such injunctions disrupt the judicial process and violate the principle of case or controversy enshrined in Article III of the Constitution. He maintained that lower court rulings should bind only the parties to a particular case, not the entire nation—unless a class action has been certified⁴.

Justice Gorsuch, who has previously expressed discomfort with universal injunctions, asked whether such actions risk turning individual judges into “super-legislators”⁵. Justice Alito expressed similar concerns, warning that “a single district judge should not have the authority to impose national policy.” But not all the justices agreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that removing the power of nationwide injunctions could lead to a patchwork legal order, where rights and obligations differ dramatically between jurisdictions. “How do we avoid chaos?” she asked, pointing to the possibility that different states could simultaneously enforce contradictory federal policies⁶. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised concerns about access to justice, suggesting that some plaintiffs might never be able to afford the lengthy appeals process required to reach consistent national outcomes without such injunctions.

The Subtext: Birthright Citizenship
Although the central question of this case is procedural, it cannot be separated from its political and constitutional implications. At issue, ultimately, is whether the children of undocumented migrants—born on U.S. soil—are entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

The relevant clause reads: *“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”*⁷ This language has long been interpreted, following the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, to confer citizenship on nearly all persons born on American soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status⁸.

Conservatives have challenged this interpretation for decades, arguing that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must be read more narrowly. On this view, children of foreign diplomats or temporary migrants—who owe allegiance to another sovereign—are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and thus not automatically citizens. Trump’s executive order was designed to test this interpretation by administrative fiat, triggering an avalanche of lawsuits⁹.

A Catholic Perspective on the Case
Though procedural in focus, this case has profound implications for Catholics—both as citizens concerned with the common good and as members of a Church that transcends national boundaries. Catholic social teaching emphasizes the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized competent authority. A ruling that allows a single federal judge to block national policy undermines this principle by centralizing enormous power in one unelected official. Conversely, unchecked executive authority can lead to the arbitrary use of power—another violation of Catholic teaching, which insists that all political authority must be exercised in service of justice and the moral law¹⁰.

A faithful Catholic analysis must therefore consider how judicial and executive powers are balanced. Both excesses—the judicial overreach of universal injunctions and the potential autocracy of unreviewable executive orders—are deviations from ordered liberty and moral governance.

The question of birthright citizenship itself engages fundamental Catholic principles. The Church affirms that human dignity is not granted by civil status but is intrinsic, as all persons are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). However, this theological truth does not nullify the right of nations to regulate immigration for the sake of the bonum commune, the common good (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2241). The Church insists on the harmonization of mercy and order, hospitality and justice. A legal system that treats the family arbitrarily—denying stable legal identity to children born in its midst—risks undermining both natural justice and social cohesion.

There are broader dangers as well. If nationwide injunctions become merely a tool of political lawfare, legal authority becomes partisan and unstable. If executive power overrides the courts with impunity, the rule of law deteriorates. Either trend weakens the legal structure within which religious liberty, moral advocacy, and the Church’s mission are protected. Catholics rely on a coherent, just, and lawful society to fulfill their vocations as salt and light in the public square.

Finally, this case underscores the deeper tension between universalism and particularism. The Church transcends nations, but she respects their sovereignty. She welcomes the stranger, but also calls the state to guard its people. This case reflects a society wrestling with the meaning of membership—who belongs, who decides, and under what law. It is not only a legal test, but a cultural and moral one.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s deliberations are not merely an abstract constitutional puzzle. They cut to the heart of questions about justice, governance, and the structure of society. Whether it be defending life, advocating for religious liberty, or working for immigration reform, Catholics rely on a stable legal order. If that order begins to fragment—whether through overreach or abdication—the mission of the Church, and the dignity of the person, are imperiled. This case matters, because it reminds us how closely tied the health of a nation is to the health of its laws.

As the Court prepares to rule by the end of June, all eyes will remain fixed on its decision—not only for what it says about judicial power, but for what it portends about the very fabric of American constitutional life. Whether the justices rein in the bench or let it rule the nation may determine how law is made—and for whom—in the coming decades. 🔝

1. Trump’s birthright order gets frosty reception, but justices appear ready to limit nationwide blocks, Politico, 15 May 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Supreme Court Hears High-Stakes Case on Birthright Citizenship and Federal Courts’ Power, TIME, 15 May 2025.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. US Supreme Court Live Updates, The Guardian, 15 May 2025.
7. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.
8. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
9. Trump Executive Order 14160, issued 30 October 2020 (unpublished draft text reported by multiple outlets).
10. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, §394; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1902–1904.

---

Abortion as a ‘Human Right’? Stella Creasy’s Bid to Dismantle the Last Legal Protections for the Unborn

UK Labour MP Stella Creasy has confirmed that the abortion lobby will table a radical new amendment this week aimed not merely at repealing abortion’s criminal status, but at enshrining abortion as a legal “human right.” In a Guardian column, Creasy wrote triumphantly:

“This week we will lay an alternative amendment to the policing bill that doesn’t just repeal the antiquated criminal law and free women from the threat of prosecution. It also puts in place a plan for what happens next – an explicit human rights framework to ensure safe access and prevent the rolling back of abortion rights, whoever is in power.”

This attempt to insulate abortion from future democratic challenge marks the most aggressive legislative move since the 1967 Abortion Act. But to understand the danger of what is proposed, one must revisit the foundation Creasy seeks to destroy.

The 1861 Act: Legal Recognition of the Unborn Child’s Dignity
Contrary to Creasy’s claim, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is not an anachronism rooted in scientific ignorance, but a solemn legal expression of the sanctity of life. It criminalised abortion not as an outdated misunderstanding of biology but as a rational conclusion from moral first principles. Human life, in the legal and moral vision of that Act, is not granted by the State—it is recognised and protected from its very beginning.

The law treated unborn children as members of the human family, not potential persons but persons with potential—already possessed of an intrinsic moral worth. It recognised that human life does not begin when it is convenient, visible, or wanted, but at the moment of conception, when a unique and unrepeatable human identity comes into being. This was no speculative guess of pre-scientific ignorance: by 1861, embryology was well established enough for jurists to appreciate the continuity of human development from conception to birth.

Far from a relic of Victorian biology, the 1861 Act built upon a longstanding legal and moral tradition. As early as the 1803 Lord Ellenborough’s Act, abortion had been criminalised in both the pre- and post-quickening phases of pregnancy, reflecting the common law understanding that unborn life deserved protection under law. English jurists like Sir William Blackstone affirmed that the law recognised the unborn as possessing a moral status, with life beginning “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.”¹ While Blackstone referred to “quickening” as a juridical milestone, the principle was broader: that justice must extend its shield to the most defenceless.

The 1861 Act codified these principles into statute, imposing life imprisonment for anyone who sought to destroy unborn life. This was not merely to protect women from unsafe procedures (though that was acknowledged), but to uphold the principle that the unborn child was a human being entrusted to the community’s protection. This view remained widespread in parliamentary discourse well into the 20th century. During the debates surrounding the 1967 Abortion Act, for example, Conservative MP Norman St John-Stevas observed:

“The child in the womb is not a mere growth or a part of the mother’s body. It is a separate human life entrusted to our protection.”²

This recognition of the unborn as a distinct member of the human family has persisted not only in the moral and legal theory of the past, but even in contemporary criminal law practice. In cases where a pregnant woman is murdered and her unborn child also dies, prosecutors have increasingly pursued double homicide charges.³ This is not a sentimental gesture—it is a juridical acknowledgment that two lives have been unjustly taken. In English law, though inconsistently applied, this dual protection further underscores the internal contradiction of a system that punishes violence against the unborn in some contexts while permitting their destruction through abortion in others. The inconsistency is not just legal but moral: how can the same unborn child be a victim when killed by an assailant, but a non-person when killed in the womb by consent?

Catholic Doctrine and Natural Law
This natural moral instinct—enshrined in law—finds its fullest justification in the Catholic tradition, which draws not only on revelation but on reason. The Church has always taught that from the moment of conception, the human being is to be treated as a person. As the Catechism affirms:

“From the moment of conception, the human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”⁴

St Thomas Aquinas, in his treatment of natural law, teaches that man is directed by reason to preserve life, and that laws contrary to reason and justice are not true laws but corruptions of law (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2). To permit the deliberate killing of the innocent is to dissolve the very foundation of law and civil order.

Canon law reflects this serious moral teaching. The 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication on those who procure a completed abortion, provided they act with full knowledge and deliberate consent.⁵ This penalty is not motivated by harshness, but by the Church’s grave concern for souls and her urgent call to conversion.

Creasy’s Amendment: Innovation or Inversion?
What Stella Creasy now proposes is not legal progress but moral inversion: the redefinition of vice as virtue, of violence as care, of human destruction as a matter of human rights. Worse still, her proposed “democratic lock” would attempt to prevent future governments from undoing the damage, establishing abortion as a fixed principle of British political life.

To call abortion a human right is to reject not only Christian teaching, but the most basic philosophical truth—that rights derive from goods, and the first and most foundational good is life. A society that claims the power to eliminate the innocent under the protection of “rights” has ceased to understand justice at all.

This proposed amendment also portends legal coercion. Already in parts of Canada and Europe, midwives and doctors who refuse to participate in abortion have faced loss of licence or employment. If Britain enshrines abortion as a right, Catholic hospitals, Christian medics, and even educators may be targeted for exclusion from public life.

The Measure of a Nation
As St Teresa of Calcutta warned, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want.” To remove the last vestiges of legal protection for the unborn is to abandon the weakest members of society to the tyranny of convenience.

Catholics must not remain silent. The 1861 Act stood as a moral barrier against the commodification of life. If that wall is torn down, we are not progressing—we are regressing into a darker age, one in which might makes right and the strong dictate who has permission to live.

Let us pray that our legislators remember the God-given dignity of every human life, and reject this amendment that would make the killing of the innocent not merely legal, but a protected right. 🔝

¹ Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769), Vol. I, Ch. 1.
² UK Parliament, House of Commons Debates, Hansard, 1966–67 Session, Abortion Bill Debates.
³ See e.g., Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), “Homicide: Charging Practice,” §4.11, and R v Adeeko (2021) EWCA Crim 712, where the death of an unborn child was included in sentencing. Though the unborn are not defined as legal persons under the Born Alive rule, case law increasingly recognises fetal death as aggravating.
⁴ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2270.
⁵ Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canon 1397 §2.

---

One Soul at a Time: The Promise and Peril of Personalized Gene Editing

A child’s life changed forever — not through a mass-produced pill or a standard clinical trial, but through a bespoke genetic therapy crafted for her alone. Tess Levy, born with a unique and devastating mutation, has become the first widely reported patient to benefit from a CRISPR-based treatment developed for a single individual. The story, reported by The New York Times, marks a scientific and cultural threshold: the beginning of medicine tailored not for populations, but for persons¹.

While the secular world marvels at this achievement, the Catholic Church must bring to the conversation the wisdom of centuries: reverence for life, caution before power, and a moral vision in which the person is never a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be loved.

A Just Application of Human Ingenuity?
The instinct to heal is noble, and personalized gene therapy — when rightly ordered — may indeed be morally licit. In the words of Dignitas Personae (2008), somatic gene therapy (targeting the body’s cells without altering heritable DNA) may be allowed when it “seeks to restore the normal genetic configuration of the patient” and when it is proportionate, safe, and respects human dignity².

This aligns with the broader Catholic understanding of medical ethics as articulated in Donum Vitae (1987), which affirms the duty “to pursue research on genetic diseases” so long as it avoids violating “the dignity of human procreation and the integrity of the human being.”³ The fact that CRISPR-based therapy can now be developed with astonishing speed using AI-based genome modeling and synthetic RNA — as in Tess’s case — presents both a blessing and a challenge⁴.

The Danger of Individual Experimentation
Yet the ethical boundary is thin. As Pope Pius XII warned in a 1953 address to medical researchers, “the human person is not a laboratory specimen.”⁵ Personalized gene therapy, especially when performed outside conventional trials, places immense weight on unrepeatable, high-risk interventions. The subjects — often children — cannot consent, and the long-term effects are unknown. A study published in Nature Medicine (2024) raised concerns that individualized gene therapies may produce unintended immune reactions or off-target effects not fully predictable at design stage⁶.

There is also the epistemic challenge: n=1 medicine is, by nature, unrepeatable. It challenges the basis of modern biomedicine, which has rested for two centuries on the replication of results. It also makes regulatory oversight extraordinarily difficult — as noted by the U.S. FDA’s own Advisory Panel on Individualized Genomic Therapies in its February 2025 interim report⁷.

Justice and the Temptation of Biotech Elitism
Catholic social teaching insists that healing must not be the preserve of the privileged. If individualized therapies are available only to families with media connections or millions in funding, then we risk a new caste of “curable elites.” This is already feared within the scientific community. A Science policy report from March 2025 warns that “without clear ethical safeguards and funding models, the era of personalized medicine could intensify global health inequality.”⁸

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in Caritas in Veritate that “technology is never merely technology,” but a moral act with social consequences. When it serves ideology or market forces over the common good, it becomes dangerous.⁹

Where the Church Must Stand
What, then, should the Church say? First, that every life is worthy of rescue. Second, that not all forms of rescue are worthy of life. There is no salvation in control — only in love and grace. Science must serve the human person, not redesign him. In Evangelium Vitae, St. John Paul II warned against an age in which “the powerful can remove the weak in the name of freedom or efficiency,” a prophecy now visible in debates around eugenic gene-editing and enhancement.¹⁰

Where science heals through proportionate, morally acceptable means, it may become a luminous form of charity. But when it seeks to “perfect” man, to overcome mortality or erase frailty, it becomes the ancient temptation of Eden — to be as gods.

As Catholics, we must lead a third way: not reactionary rejection, nor naïve embrace, but faithful discernment. Let us welcome the healing of the afflicted while remaining vigilant to defend the image of God in every person — unique, beloved, unrepeatable. 🔝

¹ Pam Belluck, “A New Era: Gene Editing Spurs Hope for Treating Rare Disorders One Patient at a Time,” New York Times, 15 May 2025.
² Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae, §§25–27, 2008.
³ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, Part I, §1, 1987.
⁴ Fyodor Urnov et al., “CRISPR Therapies and the Future of Personalized Medicine,” Cell Reports Medicine, vol. 6, 2025.
⁵ Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress on the Histopathology of the Nervous System, 13 September 1952.
⁶ Wang et al., “Safety Profiling of Single-Patient Gene Therapies,” Nature Medicine, vol. 30, no. 1 (2024): 14–22.
⁷ FDA Advisory Report on Individualized Genomic Interventions, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, February 2025.
⁸ “Equity and Access in Precision Genomics,” Science Policy Forum, vol. 379, issue 6630, March 2025.
⁹ Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, §33, 2009.
¹⁰ St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, §12, 1995.

---

Britons Reject Gender Ideology Across All Demographics, YouGov Poll Reveals

A landmark YouGov survey, published on 12 February 2025, has confirmed a decisive shift in British public opinion against core aspects of transgender ideology. Titled “Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2024/25?”, the survey—conducted between 17–18 December 2024—measured national attitudes on gender identity, medical transition, legal recognition, and sex-based rights.

The results demonstrate a remarkable collapse in public support for the gender ideology agenda, revealing widespread rejection even among previously sympathetic demographics such as young adults and women.

The Collapse of Support for Self-Identification
Legal self-identification without medical oversight—once the flagship policy of trans activists—was rejected by clear majorities across nearly all age and political groups. Among women, support for the right to legally change gender fell from 44% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, while opposition rose from **32% to 42%**¹.

Even among 18–24 year-olds, the only group with a small plurality in favour, support was hesitant and significantly reduced compared to previous years.

Public Defence of Women’s Spaces
Respondents were overwhelmingly opposed to allowing biological males into women’s toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, rape shelters, prisons, and competitive sports—regardless of gender identity. These results held across all age groups and voting blocs. The claim that transgender policies “do not pose a risk to women” was directly contradicted by a majority of those surveyed.

Medicalisation of Children Rejected
Strongest of all was the public’s rejection of medical interventions for minors. Every demographic group, including Labour voters, under-25s, and women, expressed opposition to the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for children under 16. There was no support for NHS funding of these treatments, and private provision also drew major concern.

These results come amid heightened scrutiny of NHS gender services following the Cass Review, which found serious ethical and evidentiary gaps in current clinical practices³.

Campaigners and Clergy Respond
Progressive outlets expressed concern. PinkNews noted that “anti-trans sentiment” is rising across all age brackets², and Gay Express described the data as indicative of “a troubling shift” among formerly supportive constituencies³.

A related YouGov poll, conducted between 18–19 December 2024, found that a majority of Britons support clarifying the Equality Act 2010 to define ‘sex’ as biological sex⁴. The campaign group Sex Matters hailed the result as evidence that “mainstream Britain supports fairness, not fiction.”

In line with this public shift, the UK Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 that the protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not gender identity. The judgment, delivered in a case brought by For Women Scotland, reinforced the right to offer single-sex services on the basis of biological criteria—an interpretation now backed by both public opinion and legal precedent⁶.

Parents’ advocate Molly Kingsley, writing on X, commented:

*“These numbers confirm that the British people want to see responsible safeguarding and a return to reality-based policy. The safeguarding of children and women is not a culture war—it’s a public duty.”*⁵

Clerical Leadership and Pastoral Clarity
Church leaders have also spoken plainly. Among them, Archbishop Jerome of Selsey, co-founder of PSHE Brighton, has consistently warned against the infiltration of gender ideology in schools and public services. In recent pastoral writings, he stated:

“To allow activist ideology to dismantle safeguarding structures is not inclusion—it is abandonment. No ideology that endangers children’s mental health, sterilises their bodies, or destabilises their sense of identity can claim moral legitimacy.”

He added:

“The task now falls to parents, teachers, and priests to uphold reality in a culture of confusion. What was once moral common sense is now labelled hate—but the truth remains: no child is born in the wrong body.”

And:

“We do not hate those caught up in gender confusion; we grieve for them. But we will not lie to them. The Church has no right to confirm someone in a delusion—and every duty to speak the truth in charity.”

Conclusion: A Turning Point
The YouGov survey confirms what many have long suspected: gender ideology is not grounded in public consensus, legal clarity, or moral truth. It is now being challenged not only by faith leaders and safeguarding experts, but by the British public at large.

The data reflect not a backlash but a return to reality—a reawakening of moral reason and democratic voice. The false consensus has broken. What remains is the task of rebuilding a society where the truth is not punished, and the vulnerable are once again protected. 🔝

1. “Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2024/25?”, YouGov, 12 Feb. 2025.
2. “Anti-trans sentiment among British people is increasing, YouGov data shows”, PinkNews, 12 Feb. 2025.
3. “Cass Review: NHS gender care for children must change”, BBC News, 10 Apr. 2024.
4. “Poll shows support for sex meaning sex in Equality Act”, Sex Matters, 14 Feb. 2025.
5. Molly Kingsley, comment on X (formerly Twitter), 15 May 2025.
6. For Women Scotland v. Scottish Ministers, UK Supreme Court judgment, May 2025.
7. Pastoral letters and safeguarding commentaries, Archbishop Jerome of Selsey, 2025.

---

Why Are Universities Under Fire? A Reckoning of the Academic Left’s Long March

In a recent Financial Times column titled “Universities Challenged”, columnist Simon Kuper asked what many in the academic elite still find perplexing: why are universities now the object of growing scorn across the West?

Kuper quotes Cornelia Woll, president of Berlin’s Hertie School, who voiced the question at a recent conference: “Why do so many people hate universities?” The tone is one of bafflement. But the answer is not difficult to discern. The cultural, political, and institutional trajectory of Western universities has drifted ever leftward—just as much of the public in Europe and North America has shifted to the right.

This is not merely about party politics. While electoral results reflect the trend—Trump’s re-election, a Republican-controlled Congress, rising support for Reform UK, the ascendancy of Giorgia Meloni in Italy, and the growth of right-wing parties in Germany, Hungary, and Slovakia—the deeper divide is cultural. Immigration, national sovereignty, trans ideology, law and order, and freedom of speech have become defining issues. Yet on these matters, universities have placed themselves not only on the opposite side of the political spectrum, but often in active hostility to the moral instincts of the societies that fund them.

Nowhere is this disconnect more obvious than in the recent student-led protests over Israel and Gaza. Sit-ins, library occupations, and encampments on elite campuses have become emblematic of a broader hostility toward Jews and the State of Israel, often cloaked in the language of social justice. Administrators, far from enforcing civility or debate, have too often enabled the intolerance. In Oxford, the iconic Radcliffe Camera has been overshadowed by tents and banners declaring the university’s alleged complicity in genocide. Only after weeks of disruption did university authorities intervene.

The problem is generational and institutional. Young faculty not only endorse the worldview of radicalised students; many share their ideological formation. That training is rooted in Critical Race Theory, postcolonial grievance, and identitarian hermeneutics. When Kemi Badenoch, then the UK’s Equalities Minister, challenged CRT in Parliament in 2020, her speech went viral with over 2.4 million views. An open letter condemning her was quickly signed by academics who, when examined more closely, had expressed extreme views—not just against Israel and the Royal Family, but also against British national symbols like the Proms, or political figures across the spectrum.

Across the Atlantic, the situation is no better. In a widely-read Free Press essay, historian Niall Ferguson recalled Julien Benda’s La Trahison des Clercs, warning that today’s academic Left resembles the intellectual Right of the 1920s in its “organization of political hatreds.” Ferguson sees elite universities as captured by “an illiberal coalition of woke progressives, adherents of Critical Race Theory, and apologists for Islamist extremism.” He calls out the complicity of trustees and donors in tolerating this ideological capture.

That began to change only after the October 7 Hamas attacks. When prominent college presidents—Harvard’s Claudine Gay, MIT’s Sally Kornbluth, and Penn’s Elizabeth Magill—were summoned to Congress, they could not answer the most basic moral question: did calling for the genocide of Jews violate their institutions’ own policies on bullying and harassment? President Gay replied, “It can be, depending on the context.”

Such equivocation provoked backlash. Major donors including Marc Rowan (Apollo), Bill Ackman (Pershing Square), and Ross Stevens (Stone Ridge) began pulling funding. Ackman wrote that Gay “has done more damage to the reputation of Harvard University than any individual in our nearly 500-year history,” citing her failure to condemn Hamas and her willingness to excuse those who blamed Israel for its own slaughtered civilians.

Ferguson noted that while Gay was dean of Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the university plummeted in national free speech rankings. Following George Floyd’s death, Gay released a deeply personal statement linking events in Minneapolis to her own sense of racial vulnerability. Yet after October 7, she showed no such awareness that Jewish students might feel similarly afraid. The double standard was glaring.

This collapse of moral clarity is not confined to the Anglosphere. At an event at Sciences Po in Paris, where Kuper was present, masked pro-Palestinian students shouted down every attempt by university leaders to discuss free speech and governance. Every speech was interrupted with scripted accusations of “complicity with genocide.” There was no desire for dialogue—only domination.

Kuper’s final reflection was as evasive as the American presidents’ testimonies: “I don’t think they [the protesters] did anything to help people in Gaza, whose problem isn’t western universities but the Israeli army.” No mention of Hamas, the instigator of the atrocities. No reckoning with the ideological radicalisation of Western campuses.

But others are willing to confront this crisis. The Battle of Ideas festival, organised by the Academy of Ideas, has become a critical forum for challenging the ideological capture of academia. Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics for Academic Freedom (AFAF), observed: “Universities’ abandonment of institutional neutrality about controversial ideas has led to the suppression of dissenting opinions, forcing people to conform to EDI agendas.”

John Armstrong, a mathematician at King’s College London and co-founder of the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom, warned of ideological contamination in science: “EDI has been used to introduce ideas from critical theory into science curricula… it would be better to reverse the process and introduce ideas from science into EDI.”

Claire Fox, Director of the Academy of Ideas and a member of the House of Lords, has long sounded the alarm: “For those of us who still care about freedom and liberal values, a fitting resolution would be to be less complacent when it comes to the threats to liberty coming from unexpected sources.”

Among the religious voices engaging with this issue is the Archbishop of Selsey, who has repeatedly expressed support for the cause of academic freedom and the right to dissent within the university. A signatory and member of both the Academics for Academic Freedom and the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom, he has publicly praised the Battle of Ideas festival for offering “one of the few remaining public platforms where truth can still be spoken freely—without the suffocation of bureaucratic orthodoxy.” His intervention is notable: a prelate defending the life of the mind not only from moral relativism, but also from ideological capture.

Together, these voices offer a rare beacon of resistance in a landscape dominated by conformity and intellectual policing. Their challenge is not merely to restore balance, but to recover the university’s foundational vocation: the pursuit of truth, not the imposition of dogma.

If universities are to recover their credibility—and their soul—they must return not merely to free speech, but to truth. The medieval university was born from the Church’s quest for wisdom: Veritas, not activism, must be its guiding light once more. 🔝

¹ Simon Kuper, “Universities Challenged,” Financial Times, 10 May 2025.
² Niall Ferguson, “The Treason of the Intellectuals 2.0,” The Free Press, 11 December 2023.
³ Julien Benda, La Trahison des Clercs (1927).
⁴ Bill Ackman, public statement on Claudine Gay, December 2023.
⁵ Congressional Hearing on Campus Antisemitism, US House of Representatives, December 2023.
⁶ Dennis Hayes, quoted in The Times, 24 April 2023.
⁷ John Armstrong, quoted at Battle of Ideas, 2023.
⁸ Claire Fox, Academy of Ideas, New Year Address, 2024.
⁹ Archbishop of Selsey, statement on academic freedom, January 2025.

---

Arson Charges Laid After Fires at Properties Linked to Prime Minister Starmer

A 21-year-old Ukrainian national has been formally charged in connection with a string of arson attacks targeting properties associated with UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. The suspect, Roman Lavrynovych, was arrested on 13 May and faces three counts of arson with intent to endanger life. He is due to appear before Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 16 May.

The attacks occurred across three separate dates—8, 11, and 12 May—in North London. Among the targeted sites was Starmer’s former family home in Kentish Town, now occupied by his sister-in-law, and a Toyota Rav4 previously owned by the Prime Minister, now in the possession of a neighbour. Fires were also reported at an additional, undisclosed residential address linked to Starmer.

No injuries were reported, but the incidents have triggered significant concern at the highest levels of government. The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Command is leading the investigation and treating the incidents as potentially politically motivated. Authorities have not ruled out other motives, including personal grievances or involvement by hostile foreign actors.

In remarks during Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer condemned the attacks as “assaults not merely on property or on an individual, but on the democratic values we all share.” He underscored that such acts of violence threaten the collective security and order of the nation.

Increased police patrols are now in place in the affected areas, and MPs have been reminded to consult with Operation Bridger—a national security scheme offering protection for elected officials—if concerns arise.

The timing and nature of the attacks have prompted speculation about their significance, particularly given Starmer’s leadership amid international tensions and domestic protests over foreign policy. However, the police remain publicly cautious, stating they are “keeping an open mind.” 🔝

¹ “Ukrainian man charged with arson after car and homes linked to Starmer set on fire,” The Telegraph, 15 May 2025.
² “Man charged over fire at Keir Starmer’s house,” The Times, 15 May 2025.
³ “Starmer: Arson attack ‘an attack on us all’,” The Sun, 15 May 2025.
⁴ Operation Bridger is a national police programme for the safety of MPs, established following the murder of Sir David Amess in 2021.

---

---

🔝

---

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 ⬆️

🔝

---

Litany of St Joseph (Sunday 11th May 2025)

Lord, have mercy on us.	Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.	Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.	Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us.	Christ, graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven,	have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the World,	have mercy on us.
God the Holy Spirit,	have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God,	have mercy on us.
Holy Mary,	pray for us.
St. Joseph,	pray for us.
Renowned offspring of David,	pray for us.
Light of Patriarchs,	pray for us.
Spouse of the Mother of God,	pray for us.
Guardian of the Redeemer	pray for us.
Chaste guardian of the Virgin,	pray for us.
Foster father of the Son of God,	pray for us.
Diligent protector of Christ,	pray for us.
Servant of Christ	pray for us.
Minister of salvation	pray for us.
Head of the Holy Family,	pray for us.
Joseph most just,	pray for us.
Joseph most chaste,	pray for us.
Joseph most prudent,	pray for us.
Joseph most strong,	pray for us.
Joseph most obedient,	pray for us.
Joseph most faithful,	pray for us.
Mirror of patience,	pray for us.
Lover of poverty,	pray for us.
Model of workers,	pray for us.
Glory of family life,	pray for us.
Guardian of virgins,	pray for us.
Pillar of families,	pray for us.
Support in difficulties,	pray for us.
Solace of the wretched,	pray for us.
Hope of the sick,	pray for us.
Patron of exiles,	pray for us.
Patron of the afflicted,	pray for us.
Patron of the poor,	pray for us.
Patron of the dying,	pray for us.
Terror of demons,	pray for us.
Protector of Holy Church,	pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	spare us, O Jesus.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	graciously hear us, O Jesus.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	have mercy on us, O Jesus.
He made him the lord of his household	And prince over all his possessions.

Let us pray:
O God, in your ineffable providence you were pleased to choose Blessed Joseph to be the spouse of your most holy Mother; grant, we beg you, that we may be worthy to have him for our intercessor in heaven whom on earth we venerate as our Protector: You who live and reign forever and ever.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Note: Pope Francis added these titles to the Litany of St. Joseph in his “Lettera della Congregazione per il Culto Divino e la Disciplina dei Sacramenti ai Presidenti delle Conferenze dei Vescovi circa nuove invocazioni nelle Litanie in onore di San Giuseppe,” written on May 1, 2021:

Custos Redemptoris (Guardian of the Redeemer)Serve Christi (Servant of Christ)Minister salutis (Minister of salvation)Fulcimen in difficultatibus (Support in difficulties)Patrone exsulum (Patron of refugees)Patrone afflictorum (Patron of the suffering)
Patrone pauperum (Patron of the poor)

---

🔝