w/c 01/06/25

ORDO

Dies	01 SUN	02 MON	03 TUE	04 WED	05 THU	06 FRI	07 SAT	08 SUN
Officium	Dominica infra Octavam Ascensionis	Feria II infra Octavam Ascensionis	Feria III infra Octavam Ascensionis	S. Francisci Caracciolo Confessoris	Feria V in Octava Ascensionis	S. Norberti Episcopi et Confessoris	In vigilia Pentecostes	Dominica Pentecostes
CLASSIS	Semiduplex Dominica minor	Semiduplex	Semiduplex	Duplex	Feria major	Duplex	Duplex I. classis	Duplex I. classis
Color*	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Purpura et Rubeum	Rubeum
MISSA	Exáudi, Dómine	Viri Galilǽi	Viri Galilǽi	Factum est	Viri Galilǽi	Státuit ei	Cum sanctificátus	Spíritus Dómini
Orationes	2a. Pro Octava Ascensionis	2a. Ss. Marcellini, Petri, atque Erasmi, Episcopi, Martyrum	2a. de S. Maria 3a. Pro papa (vel ad libitum)	2a. Commemoratio Feria IV infra Octavam Ascensionis	2a. Commemoratio S. Bonifatii Episcopi et Martyris	2a. Commemoratio Feria VI post Octavam Ascensionis
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Ascensione Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Ascensione Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Ascensione Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Ascensione Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Ascensione Domini	Gl. Pref. de Ascensione Domini	Gl. Pref. de Spiritu Sancto	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Spiritu Sancto
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva

Ad Summum

“Ad Summum” — To the Highest: evokes both Christ’s exaltation in the Ascension and the soul’s call to rise toward heavenly things reminding the faithful that Christ’s Ascension is not merely His glorification, but our calling. It urges us to lift our hearts from earthly concerns and strive always toward the highest good—union with God. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

As we come to the Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension, the Church bids us linger in the mystery of our Lord’s glorious return to the Father. With reverence and awe, we gaze heavenward, contemplating that same sacred humanity now exalted above the angels, seated at the right hand of God. And yet, like the men of Galilee, we are reminded that our eyes must not remain fixed only on the skies—but upon the mission entrusted to us on earth.

Christ Has Not Abandoned Us
The Ascension is not the end of Christ’s presence, but its transformation. His visible, bodily departure is not absence, but a divine act of pedagogy: He draws us to seek Him now in faith, in the Sacraments, in His Mystical Body, the Church. As the liturgy proclaims with triumphant serenity: Ascendit Deus in jubilatione—God is gone up with rejoicing. Yet the very Preface of the Mass declares, non ut deserat humilitatem nostram, sed ut illuc confidere possimus ascendere—not that He might abandon our lowliness, but so that we might trust in our own ascent.

This is the paradox of our faith: Christ departs so that He may be closer still, not externally but internally; not temporally, but eternally. He goes to prepare a place for us—not just in heaven, but in the divine will, where each soul has a part in the work of redemption, offered in union with the glorified wounds of Christ.

The Church’s Mission Between Ascension and Pentecost
In this sacred interval between Ascension and Pentecost, we live in imitation of the Apostles in the Upper Room. Our Lady is among us, as she was with them, preparing hearts to receive the Paraclete. It is not a time of passivity, but of recollected vigour. Here the Church learns again to wait, to pray, to obey.

And what of us? We are tempted in our day to act as though Christ had left us to ourselves, to construct the Church as a project of our own devising, a worldly polity, a forum for consensus or debate. But the Church is not a parliament; she is a Body. And the Head of that Body reigns in glory, directing all things by the Spirit whom He has sent.

As traditional Catholics—especially those of us who endure marginalisation for our fidelity to the perennial faith—we must resist the temptation to despair. The same Jesus who was taken from us into heaven will return in the same way. In the meantime, He is not absent. He is mystically present on the altars where the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed; He is mystically present in the Church when she teaches with His authority; He is mystically present in every soul in sanctifying grace.

Heaven is Our Homeland
The readings of this Sunday urge us toward a supernatural outlook. St. Peter bids us to be sober and watchful in prayer, knowing that the end of all things is at hand. The Gospel (John 15) reminds us that if the world hates us, it hated Christ first. This is not cause for bitterness, but for rejoicing. We are not at home in a world that rejects the Cross.

This is not the time to ask whether we are succeeding in worldly terms, but whether we are remaining faithful. Fidelity may appear fruitless to the eyes of the world, but heaven sees differently. The victory is already won—surrexit Dominus vere—and the Church is not a ship lost at sea, but a vessel steered from on high by her ascended Lord.

The Practical Ascension of the Soul
Let us then live as those who believe in the Ascension. Let us mortify our passions, elevate our minds, detach our hearts from the vanities of this passing age. This is not to reject the world, but to love it rightly, as pilgrims who use the world without clinging to it.

Let our families be altars of prayer in these days of preparation for Pentecost. Let our chapels ring with the psalms of expectation. Let our children be taught the truth of the faith—that Christ is King, not merely of our hearts, but of nations, laws, cultures and calendars.

Conclusion
Dearly beloved, do not be disheartened. The Ascension is not an end, but the beginning of a greater hope. Christ has lifted human nature to the heights of the divine. He has gone ahead to open the gates, to intercede for us, to pour forth His Spirit, to draw all things to Himself. Let us respond with courage, constancy, and joy.

Let us rise with Him, through every confession of faith, every act of charity, every tear of repentance, every offering of the Holy Mass.

So that when He returns—as surely He shall—we may not be found looking idly up to heaven, but found in His service, steadfast in hope, ablaze with love.

In Christo Ascendente,

---

Footnotes
¹ Acts of the Apostles 1:11
² Traditional Preface of the Ascension: Missale Romanum (Tridentine)
³ Cf. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year: Ascensiontide
⁴ Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Ascension of Christ
⁵ St. Leo the Great, Sermon LXXIII on the Ascension
⁶ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q.57 🔝

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

ASCENSIONTIDE

Overview:
Ascensiontide begins with the Feast of the Ascension (forty days after Easter Sunday) and extends through the Vigil of Pentecost, forming a liturgical bridge between Easter and Pentecost.

Feast of the Ascension (Thursday):
One of the most ancient and solemn feasts, universally attested by the fourth century. Commemorates Christ’s bodily Ascension into Heaven, marking the completion of His earthly mission and the beginning of His heavenly reign. White vestments are worn. The Mass Proper includes the Introit Viri Galilaei, the Gradual Ascendit Deus, the Alleluia Dominus in Sina, and the Gospel from Mark 16:14–20. The Paschal Candle is extinguished after the Gospel (in some traditions) or after the Mass, indicating Christ’s visible departure. The Credo is sung and the Gloria in excelsis is retained.

Liturgical Notes for the Octave (Tridentine Use):
The Octave of Ascension was historically observed in the Roman Rite (pre-1955). In the pre-1955 Missal, each day of the Octave had its own Mass formulary taken from the Ascension, without commemorating Saints’ feasts unless they were of higher rank. The weekdays between Ascension and Pentecost are days of prayer and preparation for the coming of the Holy Ghost, known as the First Novena. The Pentecost Novena, the prototype of all novenas, begins on Ascension Friday, culminating in the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Themes:
Christ’s glorification and the inauguration of His heavenly priesthood
Hope in the promise of the Paraclete
A contemplative period awaiting the descent of the Holy Ghost

Devotional Practices:
Participation in the Pentecost Novena
Meditations on Christ’s heavenly intercession and the coming of the Holy Ghost
Reading from Acts 1–2, reflecting on the nascent Church’s prayerful anticipation

Conclusion
Ascensiontide is not a mere interlude but a profound theological bridge. It binds the Resurrection to the birth of the Church, inviting the faithful to contemplate the mysteries of Christ glorified and the gift of the Holy Ghost. The period is rich in ecclesial identity: the Church is Marian, apostolic, prayerful, and awaiting the fulfilment of promise. 🔝

---

Dominica infra Octavam Ascensionis: Missa “Exáudi, Dómine”

“They shall take up serpents… they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover.”
— Gospel: Mark 16:14–20

The Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension — often simply referred to as the Sixth Sunday after Easter in older missals — occupies a sacred space in the liturgical drama between the Ascension of Our Lord and the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. It is a time of longing, of expectancy, and of preparation. The Church, like the Apostles gathered in the upper room with the Virgin Mother of God, waits in prayerful recollection for the Spirit who will come from on high.

Liturgical Theme: A Holy Expectancy
Dom Guéranger observes that this Sunday “belongs to the privileged days consecrated to the glory of our Jesus, who has risen in triumph and ascended into heaven.”¹ The Gospel recounts not only Christ’s Ascension, but the apostolic mandate: “Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel.” This marks the universal mission of the Church — a mission that is only possible through the power of the Holy Ghost, promised and awaited.

The Collect sets the tone: “Almighty, eternal God, make us ever bear a devout affection toward Thee…” Here we beg not only for an emotional piety but a persevering supernatural charity that unites us to the will of the Father. It echoes the inner dispositions required to receive the Paraclete fruitfully: docility, purity, and union with Christ.

Epistle: James 1:22–27 — Hearers and Doers
The Epistle from St. James exhorts us not to be “hearers only, deceiving yourselves,” but “doers of the word.” This reading, as Fr. Maurice de la Taille notes, serves as a bridge between the contemplative joy of the Ascension and the active fire of Pentecost. The Church, in awaiting the Spirit, does not simply wait — she prepares, she obeys, she acts.²

This is especially vital in a time when Christianity risks becoming reduced to aesthetic or moral sentimentality. The liturgy, in its traditional fullness, demands more: a transformative union with Christ, leading to action in the world — but an action rooted in the life of grace.

Gospel: Mark 16:14–20 — Signs of Faith
The signs that follow those who believe — exorcisms, tongues, healing — are not parlor tricks but manifestations of Christ’s victorious reign extended through His Mystical Body. Gueranger again notes: “The Ascension of Jesus has not taken Him from us. He is with us until the consummation of the world — but in a new mode: sacramental, mystical, and powerful.”³

The Gospel thus affirms the enduring apostolic mark of the Church: her mission is divine, her authority supernatural. And we — weak vessels though we be — are called into that divine mission.

Preface and Offertory: The Heavenly Intercession
The Preface of the Ascension is sung throughout the Octave, and it lifts our hearts heavenward: “He was taken up into heaven to make us sharers in His divinity.” The Offertory, quoting Psalm 46, exclaims: “God is ascended with jubilee, and the Lord with the sound of trumpet.”

These words are not mere poetic elevation — they are a metaphysical reality. Christ ascends, not to abandon us, but to draw us to Himself. As St. Leo the Great declared: “The visible presence of our Redeemer has passed into the sacraments.”⁴

Postcommunion and Pentecost Preparation
The Postcommunion prayer pleads: “Grant us, we beseech Thee, almighty and merciful God, that what we have received in visible mysteries may profit us in invisible effects.” The sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are the means by which we receive the fruits of the Ascension and the promise of Pentecost.

Hence the Church’s faithful keep this time as a spiritual novena, imitating the Apostles who were “persevering with one mind in prayer” (Acts 1:14). As Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen writes, “This period between Ascension and Pentecost is meant to revive our desire, our expectation, our yearning for the Holy Spirit.”⁵

Conclusion: Toward the Upper Room
This Sunday is a spiritual threshold. We have witnessed the Ascension, heard the apostolic commission, and now we must imitate the Virgin and the Eleven in the Cenacle — hearts raised, minds alert, and souls cleansed — that we may be enkindled by divine fire. The Mass is our Cenacle; the Eucharist, our union with the Ascended Christ; and our lives, if conformed to His Word, shall manifest the signs that follow those who believe.

Let us ask the Holy Ghost to make us worthy disciples of so high a calling — not in presumption, but in trembling joy. 🔝

¹ The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Guéranger, Vol. 9.
² The Mystery of Faith, Fr. Maurice de la Taille, SJ.
³ Guéranger, ibid.
⁴ St. Leo the Great, Sermon 74 on the Ascension.
⁵ Divine Intimacy, Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, OCD.

---

Missalettes (Dominica V Post Pascha)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Spiritual Reflection: Ascensiontide

“And it came to pass, whilst He blessed them, He departed from them, and was carried up to heaven.” (Luke 24:51)

As the Paschal season nears its culmination, Ascensiontide calls us to lift our eyes and hearts above the world, to the One who has gone to prepare a place for us. The Lord, who came down in humility and walked among us in our frailty, now ascends in glory, drawing our gaze heavenward. Yet He does not abandon us—He elevates us.

The Ascension of Christ is not a departure in the manner of earthly goodbyes. It is the liturgical triumph of His earthly mission and the theological bridge to the descent of the Holy Ghost. In the words of Dom Gueranger, “The mystery of the Ascension shows us the glorified Humanity of our Redeemer taking possession of the throne prepared for Him at the right hand of the Eternal Father.”¹ His Ascension is our hope, for where the Head has gone, the Body is called to follow.

The Church, like the Apostles on Mount Olivet, now dwells in sacred expectation. In this in-between time—these days of longing between the Ascension and Pentecost—she teaches us to persevere in prayer, to await the Paraclete, and to prepare our hearts for the Spirit of Truth. This is the novena of the Church’s heart.

Ascensiontide is thus marked by three graces: detachment, longing, and promise.

• Detachment: Christ withdraws His visible presence that we might learn to walk by faith. “It is expedient for you that I go,” He had said (John 16:7), and now the disciples, once scattered and confused, begin to gather with purpose and prayer. Detachment is not rejection—it is purification, to desire the Giver more than the gifts.
• Longing: The disciples, as St. Leo the Great wrote, were “not saddened at being left behind, but filled with joy at the promise of what was to come.”² True longing is joyful—it does not grasp at what has passed, but looks to the fulfillment of Christ’s promise in the descent of the Holy Ghost and the heavenly homeland that awaits.
• Promise: In ascending, Christ pledges our adoption, glorification, and union with God. He does not merely promise to return—He promises to draw us with Him. The Ascension is the pledge that our flesh, assumed by Christ and now glorified, has a place in eternity.

Let us live these days as the Apostles did: in prayerful recollection, united with Our Lady, awaiting the Spirit. Let our hearts ascend with Christ, our affections be drawn away from vanity, and our lives be ordered by the promise of heaven.

For if we truly believe in the Ascension, then every sorrow is temporary, every sacrifice meaningful, and every Mass a glimpse of glory.

Veni, Sancte Spiritus. 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year: Paschal Time Vol. III
² St. Leo the Great, Sermon LXXIII On the Lord’s Ascension

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension

Dearly beloved, be prudent and watch in prayers. But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins. Using hospitality one to another without murmuring: as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Today is the Sunday within the Octave of the Ascension, which we celebrated on Thursday. The Ascension marked the end of Jesus’ resurrection appearances to his disciples, and we now look forward to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost next Sunday. It is fitting that today’s epistle from St. Peter speaks of the need to be prudent and watch in prayer, and seek to cultivate that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues. This great gift of charity, the divine charity that suffereth long and is kind, that endures all things, is not something that we can achieve of ourselves by our own strength and effort. It comes as the supreme gift of the Holy Spirit to transform our hearts and minds. But the outworking of the Holy Spirit, the divine charity, does not reduce our own humanity, but rather enables us to become by grace what Christ is by nature. We thus become not less human, but more truly human and can fulfil our own true vocation.

St. Peter reminds us that we have all been given very different gifts, “as every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak, as the words of God: if any minister, let him do it, as of the power with God administereth: that in all things God may be honoured through Jesus Christ our Lord.” We must therefore pray for grace that we may be enabled to more fully utilise the gifts that God has given us. For one person this may be the gift of hospitality. If so they should exercise this without murmuring. For another person this may be the gift of speaking. If so they should seek to speak as the words of God. For another this may be the gift of ministry. If so they should do it, as the power with God administereth. Each should seek to glorify God through their own individual vocation. As St. Paul put in, the One body has many members. Each part is not sufficient of itself, but every part is distinct in itself, and has an important role to play.

It is this that distinguishes the Church, the Body of Christ, from a cult. In a cult everything depends on the personality of the cult leader. The followers of the cult are encouraged to copy everything that the cult leader says and does. They are merely cogs in the machine and have to suppress their own distinctive personality and characteristics in order to comply with the diktats of the cult leader. Any suggestion that the cult leader is not completely correct leads to the person being stigmatised as disloyal to the cult. For the cult leader, it is a glory to me, glory to this movement, rather than a glory to God religion.

By contrast, in the Church it is necessary to hold to the faith once delivered to the saints, but this does not involve us becoming merely cogs in the machine, but expresses itself in very different ways. Christian leadership should not be about lording it over God’s heritage, like the leader of a cult, but service to God and to neighbour. The church is first and foremost an organism and only secondarily an organisation. The saints, those whom we recognise as especially manifesting the spirit of charity in their lives, were all very different. A cult produces dullness and uniformity, but the Church produces diversity, as each member of the one Body fulfils its own individual vocation in its distinct way.

Sadly, it has all too often been the case that the Church falls short of what it should be and degenerates into a cult. In the first century people said, “I of Peter, I of Apollos, or I of Paul.” In the age of the great Councils they said, “I of Donatus, I of Nestorius, or I of Eutychus.” In the sixteenth century they said, “I of Luther, or I of Calvin, or I of Zwingli”. In more recent time they say, “I of Benedict, or I of Francis, or I of Leo”. The mistake is always the same, to try to erect a particular Christian into the status of a cult leader whose every word must be followed. People who are outside the particular clique of followers of a particular leader are stigmatised because they fall outside the cult. The surest sign of a cult is when a hard line is taken with those who criticise the leadership personally, but not over fundamental matters of doctrine. Cases of abuse that happen in the Church usually spring from a particular person in the Church encouraging others to defer to them and not allow any criticism. Those who speak out against the abusive practices of the cult leader find themselves crushed by the abusive personality of the cult leader. This is how worldliness can invade the Church.

Authentic Christian leadership and discipleship is not about lording it over God’s heritage. Jesus certainly made exclusive claims upon his followers, but he did not lord it over others like the rulers of the nations. The kings of the Gentiles, he said, exercise authority, and they are called benefactors. But it is not to be so among you. For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

As we await the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, let us pray for grace to exercise that most excellent gift of charity in service to one another, each in our own individual way within the one Body of Christ. 🔝

---

Feasts this week

Monday June 2nd Saint Marcellinus, a priest, and Saint Peter, an exorcist, were Roman martyrs during the Diocletian persecution in the early 4th century. According to tradition, they were imprisoned and executed after converting their jailer and his family. Their bodies were secretly buried, but their cult spread rapidly in Rome and was confirmed by later inscriptions and martyrologies. They are named in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I).

Saint Erasmus, also known as St. Elmo, was Bishop of Formiae in Campania and likewise suffered during the Diocletian persecutions. Famous for miraculous endurance under extreme torture, including the legendary “winding of entrails,” he became one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers and is the patron saint of sailors, who associated him with the electrical phenomenon known as “St. Elmo’s Fire.”

All three are commemorated together on June 2 in the traditional Roman calendar.

Tuesday June 4th Saint Francis Caracciolo, Confessor, was born in the Kingdom of Naples in 1563. Of noble lineage, he renounced a promising secular future to serve God. He co-founded the Clerics Regular Minor, a congregation devoted to perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and missionary preaching. Renowned for his deep humility, intense Eucharistic devotion, and penitential life, he tirelessly promoted reform among clergy and laity.

He died in 1608 at the age of 44 and was canonized in 1807 by Pope Pius VII. His feast is kept on June 4 as a Double in the 1888 Missal (transferred or commemorated on June 3 depending on overlap with other feasts). His body rests in Naples, where he is venerated as a model of priestly holiness.

Thursday June 5th Saint Boniface, Bishop and Martyr, known as the Apostle of Germany, was born in England around 675 and entered monastic life under the name Winfrid. A learned and zealous priest, he was commissioned by Pope Gregory II in 719 to evangelize the Germanic peoples. He was consecrated Archbishop of Mainz, reformed the Frankish Church, founded monasteries (including Fulda), and worked to bring local practice into conformity with Roman discipline.

On June 5, 754, while preparing converts for Confirmation near Dokkum in Frisia (modern Netherlands), he was attacked by pagan raiders and martyred with his companions, refusing to resist violence with violence. He is venerated as a founder of the German Church and one of the great missionaries of the early medieval West.

Friday June 6th Saint Norbert, Bishop and Confessor, was born around 1080 in Xanten, Germany. Originally a court cleric with worldly ambitions, he underwent a profound conversion after a near-death experience. Renouncing wealth and status, he embraced a life of radical poverty and preaching.

He founded the Premonstratensian Order (Norbertines or White Canons) at Prémontré in 1120, combining monastic life with active pastoral ministry. Known for his austere holiness, Eucharistic devotion, and efforts to reform clergy and restore reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, he was appointed Archbishop of Magdeburg in 1126, where he worked to convert pagans and correct abuses within the Church. He died in 1134, and his cultus spread quickly. Canonized in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. 🔝

---

Rebuilding from the Roots: Archbishop Jerome Lloyd on Why the Family Must Be the Focus of National Renewal

The Titular Archbishop of Selsey warns that the crisis of community begins with the breakdown of the family—and calls for ordinary people to re-enter public life from the foundation of the home.

At a recent gathering of the New Culture Forum’s Locals network, Archbishop Jerome Lloyd of Selsey responded to a presentation by Dr Philip Kiszely with a powerful reflection on the state of British society. Dr Kiszely, Senior Fellow at the NCF, had delivered a sharp analysis of cultural fragmentation and the loss of shared meaning in modern Britain. In reply, Archbishop Lloyd went further: if we want to rebuild the nation, we must begin not with politics or programmes, but with the family.

According to the Archbishop, the fractures in public life—rising division, institutional failure, and social distrust—are not the root cause of Britain’s decline but its surface symptoms. The true crisis, he said, is the disappearance of the family as the generative heart of society. It is within the family that virtue is first learned, trust is first practised, and the habits of community life are first formed. When the family breaks down, no amount of bureaucratic management can replace what has been lost¹.

Misusing “Community”
Archbishop Lloyd also critiqued the modern misuse of the word community. Once a word grounded in shared place, shared history, and shared values, “community” has now been reduced to a rhetorical tool of unelected activists who claim to speak for abstract identity groups.

He described his own experience with so-called community consultations in local government. Again and again, he observed, the same handful of activist voices are platformed as “representatives” of entire communities, despite being unknown to and unaccountable to those they supposedly speak for. When one actually speaks to residents from these groups, their views often diverge sharply from the ideology advanced by the activist class².

Reconnecting Civic Life to the Family
The Archbishop went on to offer a positive vision of renewal, rooted in what Catholic tradition has long taught: that the family is the foundation of all authentic social and civic life. He stressed that true community is not engineered from above, but formed from below—by families who stay, churches that pray, and neighbours who take responsibility for one another³.

His call to action was direct: ordinary people must return to public life. But not in the way modern politics encourages—by shouting louder on social media or attaching themselves to fashionable campaigns. Instead, he urged citizens to quietly and faithfully reclaim the structures of local responsibility:

“Local councils, parish councils, planning committees, parent-teacher associations, school governorships, magistrates’ benches, and residents’ groups.”

These roles, Archbishop Lloyd acknowledged, do require a degree of time and attention. But they are often far more flexible than people realise—and participation can be scaled according to one’s availability. The key is simply to show up and offer something⁴.

Moreover, Dr Lloyd stressed that civic involvement should not be separated from the life of the family, but rather seen as its natural extension. When parents speak up in school meetings or advocate for safer streets, they are not abandoning the home—they are carrying its values outward into the world. Where strong families exist, he noted, one almost always finds rooted and resilient communities.

How to Respond to Ideological Intimidation
Addressing a frequent concern, the Archbishop spoke to the intimidation many people feel when facing professional council officers or ideologically confident administrators. These officials often present themselves as neutral experts, yet in reality, they often promote deeply ideological policies with little input from the broader public.

Dr Lloyd advised: prepare, ask questions, and speak plainly. But above all, he encouraged people to assert their rights under the Equality Act 2010, especially when they belong to a protected category—whether as women, people of faith, carers, or those with disabilities. Activists regularly appeal to “lived experience” to gain moral credibility. The Archbishop’s point was simple:

“So can you.”

He urged citizens to use the legal language available to them:

“As a mother, my lived experience is not being heard.”
“As a Christian, my belief must be respected in this process.”
“As a carer, I believe this proposal overlooks what families actually need.”

Public servants, he noted, are often reluctant to contradict such claims directly. By appealing calmly to these principles, ordinary people can reclaim moral ground without resorting to confrontation⁵.

Back to the Beginning: The Family First
The Archbishop concluded by returning to his central thesis: civic renewal means little without the restoration of the family. Britain does not need more management or more ideology—it needs more marriages that last, more fathers at home, more mothers forming children in virtue, more grandparents passing on wisdom.

Quoting Catholic social teaching, he reminded listeners of the twin pillars of a just society: subsidiarity, which calls for decisions to be made at the most local level possible; and solidarity, which insists on mutual responsibility within society⁶. Both begin, he said, not in the ballot box or the boardroom—but at the hearth, the table, the school gate, and the chapel door.

“Strong families create strong communities,” he said. “Strong communities preserve the nation.”

Footnotes 🔝
¹ Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II (1981), §42: “The family is the first and vital cell of society.”
² Neil Thin, Why Communities Matter: Understanding Attachments to Place (Policy Press, 2020), Chapter 3.
³ Cf. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).
⁴ The Two Nations: The State of Our Neighbourhoods, Centre for Social Justice (2023).
⁵ Equality Act 2010, Sections 4 and 149.
⁶ Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno (1931); Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, §§185–188.

---

---

Forgotten Rubrics: The Maniple

Once worn by every priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the maniple is now a largely forgotten vestment—a casualty of liturgical reform and simplification in the postconciliar era. Yet its disappearance is emblematic of a deeper rupture: the abandonment of liturgical symbols that once spoke clearly of the priest’s role, his labour, and his spiritual identity. To recover the maniple is not simply to reclaim a decorative relic, but to restore a profound sign of the priestly character and of the cross-shaped logic of Catholic worship.

Historical Origins and Use
The maniple developed from the Roman mappula, a handkerchief or napkin carried by dignitaries and officials, especially during ceremonies. By the sixth century, it had taken on a liturgical form, worn over the left forearm and richly ornamented to match the other sacred vestments. By the twelfth century, its use was universal in the Roman rite and was required for the celebration of Mass.

In the Tridentine Missal codified by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent, the maniple is not optional. It is prescribed for all priests at Mass, regardless of the day or occasion, except during the Requiem when its ornamentation was suitably subdued. Its removal in the 1967 Tres Abhinc Annos instruction, and omission in the 1969 Missale Romanum of Paul VI, was not based on theological objections but on perceived redundancy and simplification. Yet, this very redundancy was liturgically meaningful.

Symbolism and Significance
The prayer said by the priest while vesting with the maniple is telling:

Merear, Domine, portare manipulum fletus et doloris: ut cum exsultatione recipiam mercedem laboris.
“May I merit, O Lord, to bear the maniple of weeping and sorrow, that I may receive with joy the reward of my labour.”

The maniple is thus explicitly a sign of work and suffering in the service of the altar—a reminder to the priest that his offering is not merely ritual but sacrificial. The maniple binds him to Christ, the suffering servant, and to the faithful whose burdens he symbolically bears.

As Dom Prosper Guéranger notes, “the maniple… is the emblem of the toils and tears of this present life, which we must never cease to bear, if we would enjoy the eternal recompense.”¹ In this way, the maniple speaks not just of the priesthood but of the whole Christian condition, especially as expressed in the liturgy: toil rewarded only by supernatural joy.

Modern Rejection and Traditional Recovery
In the reformed Roman Rite, the maniple was dismissed as “useless.” Yet this very judgment highlights a utilitarian approach foreign to traditional Catholic liturgy, in which symbolic richness was never judged by practical function alone. The loss of the maniple was part of a wider erosion of symbolic expression that made the liturgy less catechetical, less transcendent, and less sacrificial in tone.

Its retention in the usus antiquior (the Traditional Latin Mass) stands today as a quiet rebuke to this loss. The maniple reasserts that the priest’s labour is not bureaucratic, but spiritual and penitential. His participation in the sacrifice of Christ requires personal mortification, and the maniple—clothed in sorrow—reminds him of that truth at every Mass.

Conclusion: Vestment of Humility, Sign of Fidelity
For those attached to the traditional Roman Rite, the maniple has become a symbol of continuity and fidelity. But beyond this, it is a sign of humility and service. It speaks silently but eloquently of what the Mass is: not a community gathering but a sacrifice; not a performance but an offering; not a choreographed event but a labor of love.

In an age that often flees from the language of sacrifice, the maniple invites both priest and people to remember that salvation comes through the Cross—and that every liturgical act is a share in the sorrowful joy of Christ’s redeeming work. 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, vol. 6 (Lent), trans. Laurence Shepherd (Dublin: James Duffy, 1870), p. 202.

---

Flores de Maria and Santacruzan Processions: A Traditional Filipino Devotion

Flores de Maria (Flowers of Mary) and Santacruzan are deeply cherished Marian devotions celebrated during the month of May in the Philippines, blending Catholic piety with cultural pageantry. Rooted in the Spanish colonial era, these processions are both acts of faith and vibrant expressions of Filipino heritage.

Flores de Maria
Flores de Maria is a month-long devotion in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, celebrated especially in May, her traditional month. Each evening throughout May, parishioners, especially children and young women, gather in churches or chapels to offer flowers, prayers, and hymns to Mary. The culmination often includes a floral offering at the foot of her statue, recitation of the Rosary, and singing of the “Ave Maria” and other Marian hymns. It emphasizes Mary’s spiritual motherhood and queenship, often associated with the Litany of Loreto and traditional Filipino Marian songs like “Dios Te Salve Maria.”

Santacruzan
The Santacruzan is the grand finale of the Flores de Maria devotion, held on the last day of May. It is a religious-historical procession commemorating St. Helena’s finding of the True Cross (Santa Cruz), traditionally dated to the 4th century under the reign of her son, Emperor Constantine. Filipinos transformed this historical memory into a colorful, semi-theatrical procession called the Santacruzan, featuring young women dressed in elaborate traditional or formal gowns, each representing biblical or allegorical characters, led by the Reyna Elena (Queen Helena), who carries a cross.

Common Characters in the Santacruzan include:

• Reyna Elena: The main figure, representing St. Helena.
• Reyna Emperatriz: The empress, often depicting the imperial dignity of Helena.
• Reyna de los Angeles, Reyna Fe (Faith), Reyna Esperanza (Hope), Reyna Caridad (Charity): Allegorical virtues.
• Reyna de las Flores: Queen of Flowers, symbolizing the title of Mary.

Processions usually begin with a Holy Mass and culminate in a procession around the town or barangay, often accompanied by the recitation of the Rosary, Marian songs, and sometimes brass bands. In more devout settings, the focus remains spiritual, while in others, it has evolved into a cultural pageant.

Theological and Cultural Significance
While Santacruzan has been criticized in some quarters for becoming too secular or fashion-focused, its roots remain solidly Catholic. It symbolizes the triumph of the Cross and honors the Blessed Virgin Mary as Queen and intercessor. For the faithful, it is an act of devotion that unites community, catechizes the young, and publicly proclaims the beauty of Catholic tradition.

The following photos are from the Flores de Mayo Santacruzan held by our apostolate in San Mateo Rizal, Philippines.

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

Leo XIV: Symbol, Strategy, or Shepherd? Weighing the New Papacy

The first ten days of the new pontificate have stirred a range of reactions — from guarded admiration to cautious reserve. On one hand, respected commentators such as Sandro Magister and José Antonio Ureta have heralded Pope Leo XIV’s debut as a clear departure from the disordered style and doctrinal fluidity of his predecessor¹. On the other, traditional Catholic observers — including this publication — remain alert to the enduring dangers of continuity without conversion².

Symbols of Restoration
There is no denying the symbolism. Leo XIV’s appearance on the loggia in the mozzetta, the embroidered stole, and the pectoral cross of his predecessors was a relief to Catholics long weary of liturgical minimalism and populist spontaneity. His first words were not of sociopolitical pleasantries or personal anecdotes but a Christocentric greeting: “Peace be with you,” the words of the Risen Lord³. In his inaugural homilies, Leo has consistently pointed to the Person of Jesus Christ — not an abstraction of mercy, nor a sentimentalism of encounter, but the Crucified and Risen Son of the Living God⁴.

The phrase that has echoed loudest is his appeal to the clergy — and to himself — to “disappear so that Christ remains”⁵. This, combined with his homiletic critiques of those who see Jesus as merely a moral leader, hints at a reassertion of the Church’s missionary identity⁶.

A Marian Pope?
Early gestures suggest a strong Marian devotion rooted in Leo’s Augustinian formation. His unannounced pilgrimage to Genazzano — site of the miraculous fresco of the Madonna del Buon Consiglio — signaled not only personal piety, but a conscious re-alignment with the theological spirituality of Leo XIII⁷. His invocation of Mater Boni Consilii in the Litany of Loreto further cements this alignment⁸.

But Marian gestures must be matched by Marian doctrine. Will Leo XIV speak with clarity where Francis equivocated — on the unique role of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate? Will he support efforts to enshrine these truths definitively?

What Magister and Ureta Get Right
Sandro Magister rightly observes that Leo XIV is “a pope entirely at the service of the proclamation of faith in Christ to a world in which it threatens to be extinguished”⁹. José Antonio Ureta goes further, interpreting Leo’s sermons as a repudiation of the horizontal optimism of Vatican II¹⁰. In Leo’s reading of the modern world — a world that mocks faith, despises sacrifice, and abandons Christ in the moment of difficulty — there is no trace of the Council’s “joy and hope” (Gaudium et Spes) anthropology¹¹.

Ureta is correct to note that this contrasts sharply with the doctrinal relativism of the Abu Dhabi Declaration¹², the ecclesiological incoherence of Fiducia Supplicans¹³, and the pastoral laxity of Amoris Laetitia¹⁴. He is also justified in seeing Leo’s references to the missionary call and witness in suffering as a recovery of a militant and ascetical Catholicism.

What They Omit
And yet — for all their justified enthusiasm — Magister and Ureta risk mistaking intention for action.

• Fiducia Supplicans remains in force¹⁵.
• Traditionis Custodes has not been repealed¹⁶.
• Not a single public word has been offered to vindicate the persecuted clergy, seminarians, and faithful who suffered under Francis for their fidelity to doctrine and tradition¹⁷.
• No doctrinal clarification has been issued on Amoris, Abu Dhabi, or even on the synodal confusion that continues to fester¹⁸.

Words may shape the tone of a pontificate, but only concrete governance shapes its legacy.

What the Faithful Deserve
From the first days of this papacy, Nuntiatoria has urged cautious discernment. We recognize the shift in tone. We welcome the elevation of doctrine, the return to formality, the personal reverence shown in gesture and dress. But we also refuse to be content with surface peace — what Augustine calls pax ficta, a peace that is no more than delay or distraction¹⁹.

The Church does not need a papal “reset.” It needs a restoration — of clarity, discipline, and worship. Leo XIV may be that restorer. But he must act.

Three Benchmarks for True Reform
Let the faithful look not to rhetoric but to reality. Judge the new papacy by these benchmarks:

1. Abolition of Fiducia Supplicans and doctrinal correction of Amoris Laetitia, restoring sacramental discipline.
2. Restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass by universal permission and protection, in reversal of Traditionis Custodes.
3. Vindication of those faithful Catholics marginalized under Francis, including traditional orders, academics, and families.

Until these are fulfilled, the Church remains in danger — and the lion remains caged.

Conclusion: Peace through Order
Leo XIV has invoked St Augustine repeatedly. Let us hope he truly means to imitate the Bishop of Hippo — not only in words, but in conviction. For Augustine, peace is not a truce with error. It is the tranquility of order — divine order, hierarchical, doctrinal, and sacrificial²⁰.

Let us pray, as so many did in St Peter’s Square, Viva il Papa. But let us also say, with equal devotion: Fiat voluntas tua. May the new Pope restore all things in Christ — not by mere tone, but by action, correction, and courage. 🔝

¹ Sandro Magister and José Antonio Ureta, May 2025 reports on the early papacy of Leo XIV.
² Nuntiatoria, Editorial Analysis: “A Papacy of Gestures or Governance?” (May 2025).
³ Leo XIV, Urbi et Orbi Greeting, 8 May 2025.
⁴ Leo XIV, Homily “Pro Ecclesia,” 9 May 2025.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Ureta, Paris Report, citing Leo XIV’s Marian pilgrimage to Genazzano, 9 May 2025.
⁸ Leo XIII, Mater Boni Consilii, Litany invocation, 1903.
⁹ Sandro Magister, “This is the Greeting of the Risen Christ,” May 2025.
¹⁰ José Antonio Ureta, “Return to Order,” May 2025.
¹¹ Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 1965.
¹² Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together, Abu Dhabi, 4 February 2019.
¹³ Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Fiducia Supplicans, 18 December 2023.
¹⁴ Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia, March 2016.
¹⁵ Confirmed by its continued presence on the Vatican website and its application by episcopal conferences.
¹⁶ No decree reversing Traditionis Custodes has been issued as of May 2025.
¹⁷ For example, the Fraternity of St Peter, Institute of Christ the King, and multiple diocesan clergy punished under the prior pontificate.
¹⁸ Synodal ambiguity continues with documents from the Synod on Synodality lacking doctrinal clarity.
¹⁹ St Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Book XIX: “Pax est ordinata concordia.”
²⁰ Ibid.— not by mere tone, but by action, correction, and courage.

---

The Return of the Patriarchate: Leo XIV, the West, and the Universal Mission of the Church

A Forgotten Title Reclaimed
Among the historical titles of the Roman Pontiff, “Patriarch of the West” has long stood as a symbol of the Pope’s specific pastoral responsibility toward the Latin Church. It was first adopted by Pope Theodore I in 642, officially appearing in the Annuario Pontificio from 1863 under Pius IX, and was notably suppressed in 2006 by Benedict XVI, a move interpreted as reaffirming Rome’s universal jurisdiction and distancing itself from any appearance of limitation to one ecclesial territory.

In 2024, under Pope Francis, the title made a curious return to the Pontifical Yearbook. This act was widely seen as a symbolic olive branch to the Eastern Orthodox, particularly the Moscow Patriarchate, after tensions over the declaration Fiducia supplicans. But its deeper meaning lies not in the realm of ecclesiastical diplomacy alone.

Orthodox Objections and Catholic Affirmations
The reintroduction of the title must be read in light of Orthodox objections. Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, in 2006, had sharply criticised the removal of “Patriarch of the West,” arguing that the Orthodox could tolerate such a designation, but not titles asserting universal jurisdiction, such as “Vicar of Christ” or “Sovereign Pontiff of the Universal Church”¹.

Yet Rome has never conceded that the Pope is merely primus inter pares among the patriarchs. The Petrine ministry has always included a universal dimension, a truth underscored by the Magisterium through councils and encyclicals alike. The abandonment and then restoration of the title thus reflects not a shift in doctrine, but a shift in symbolic emphasis—from juridical primacy to pastoral patrimony.

Francis, Synodality, and the “Geo-Ecclesial” Turn
Francis’ decision is also in line with the “geo-ecclesial” vision of theologians like Giuseppe Alberigo and Alberto Melloni, advocates of a model of Church governance echoing the synodality of Eastern patriarchates². The revival of the title “Patriarch of the West” serves their vision of a pluralized ecclesiology, in which regional patriarchates may function with greater autonomy—though not without risk of doctrinal relativism.

Nevertheless, Francis has tended to present himself more as “Bishop of Rome” than as Universal Pontiff, often omitting titles that would alienate Orthodox sensitivities. This self-presentation makes the restoration of the patriarchal title all the more striking—potentially a nod to both Eastern tradition and Western decentralization.

Leo XIV and the Primacy of Rome
Enter Leo XIV. Within the first weeks of his pontificate, he has chosen instead to emphasize the fullness of the Petrine office, describing himself as “Vicar of Christ”, “Successor of Peter”, and affirming the Church of Rome as “Mater omnium Ecclesiarum”, the “Mother of all Churches”³.

This marks a notable contrast to his predecessor. Rather than sidestepping controversial titles, Leo XIV affirms the universality of the Church’s mission while giving new cultural and moral substance to the title “Patriarch of the West”.

A Cultural and Moral Meaning
As Cardinal Ratzinger once said of Europe, the West is not a geographic notion, but a cultural and historical reality⁴. The term Patriarch of the West, then, cannot refer merely to jurisdictional limits but must signify custodianship of a Christian civilization—a civilization forged by faith, reason, and sacrament, now in existential crisis.

It is in this sense that Leo XIV may be called to embrace the title with prophetic urgency. The moral and spiritual leadership of the West has crumbled. The heritage of Christendom—its laws, customs, festivals, education, and public order—is daily undermined. If the West is to recover, it will require a patriarch who is also a prophet, not merely of conciliar dialogue but of mystagogy, penance, and truth.

A Lesson from History: Saint Leo the Great
It was possibly Emperor Theodosius, in a letter dated 450, who first called Pope Leo I “Patriarch of the West.” Two years later, the same Pope stood on the banks of the Mincio and halted Attila, the Hunnic scourge. Whether through diplomacy or divine providence, the Church’s spiritual leader became the saviour of the West. As Saint Prosper of Aquitaine wrote, Leo embodied the rebirth of a civilization from the ruins of empire⁵.

Conclusion: A Hope for This Pontificate
Today, as in the fifth century, the West totters under the weight of its sins, facing barbarism from without and decay from within. In this hour, we may hope that Leo XIV, like his namesake, will become a true Patriarch of the West: not in the limited sense of regional oversight, but as a moral sentinel, guardian of faith and civilization alike.

His own words on 14 May 2025 give us reason to hope:
“How important it is to rediscover also in the Christian West the sense of the primacy of God, the value of mystagogy, of incessant intercession, of penance, of fasting, of weeping for one’s own sins and those of all humanity, so typical of Eastern spiritualities.”

Let us then, with him, pray and weep for the West, and invoke once again the aid of the great Patrons of Christian civilization, that a new Leo may stand once more against the modern Attilas of our day. 🔝

1. Saint Prosper of Aquitaine, De vocatione omnium gentium.
2. Hilarion Alfeyev, Europaica Bulletin, no. 89 (March 2006), p. 14.
3. Giuseppe Alberigo, La Chiesa nella storia, Paideia, Brescia 1988, pp. 300–302; Alberto Melloni in Corriere della Sera, 8 Jan 2014.
4. Leo XIV, Homily of Installation on the Roman Chair, 25 May 2025.
5. Joseph Ratzinger, Europe – Its Foundations Today and Tomorrow, Edizioni San Paolo, Alba 2004, p. 9.

---

June and the War for Human Nature

What began as a campaign for tolerance has become an all-encompassing doctrine of gender fluidity, which insists that biological sex is arbitrary and malleable, and that the human person can “self-determine” into any category they choose. This Gnostic repudiation of the body undermines both nature and grace. As detailed in La teoria del gender: per l’uomo o contro l’uomo (Solfanelli, 2013), the ideology constitutes an outright revolt against reality and against God¹.

When the State Flinches at Sin
In a rare move, the Lazio Region under Governor Francesco Rocca revoked its patronage of Roma Pride 2023, citing the event’s promotion of surrogate motherhood—a practice that remains illegal in Italy. Officials stated that they could not support events advocating unlawful behaviour, particularly those involving the “surrogate womb.”² Yet this was not a rejection of Pride as such, nor even of surrogacy on moral grounds—but merely of its legal status. Were surrogacy legalized tomorrow, state opposition would vanish overnight.

This underlines a key truth: as long as civil law is decoupled from natural and divine law, it cannot serve the common good. Opposition to evil based only on legality is superficial and ephemeral. A genuine rejection of surrogacy must be rooted in the truth about human dignity and procreation.

Surrogacy’s Origins: From Animal to Man
The practice of surrogate motherhood is not an isolated evil; it is the direct result of a long process of biotechnological manipulation that began with artificial insemination. Without the ability to isolate and fertilise gametes in vitro, surrogate wombs would not exist. From Lazzaro Spallanzani’s 1783 experiment on dogs to the 20th-century cryopreservation breakthroughs at Cambridge, scientific techniques once applied to livestock were soon adapted to human reproduction³.

There are two dominant types of surrogacy:

1. Traditional surrogacy, where the surrogate provides her own egg, making her the biological mother, but is contractually required to surrender the child.
2. Gestational surrogacy, where the egg comes from the intended mother or donor, and the surrogate has no genetic link to the child⁴.

In either case, the woman is reduced to a vessel, and the child to a product.

Law 40 and the Commodification of Life
In Italy, Law 40/2004 originally allowed only homologous fertilization (gametes from the couple themselves). But this limitation was struck down in 2014 by Constitutional Court ruling 162/2014, which declared the ban on heterologous fertilization unconstitutional. This reintroduced the “procreative Wild West” the law was meant to suppress.

As the Treccani Encyclopedia explains, industrial-scale sperm collection (derived from animal breeding) and freezing technologies made it possible to generate thousands of offspring from a single male donor⁵. Clinics and “sperm banks” worldwide now sell gametes for profit, resulting in violations of natural law through:

• The severing of procreation from the marital act;
• Adulterous conception via third-party gametes;
• The risk of consanguinity, as offspring from anonymous donors unknowingly meet and procreate.

The Meijer Scandal: A Global Wake-Up Call
These risks are not hypothetical. The notorious case of Dutch musician Jonathan Jacob Meijer exemplifies them. Despite a ban on sperm donation in the Netherlands since 2017, Meijer is reported to have fathered between 500 and 600 children by donating to clinics across multiple countries⁶. In 2023, a Dutch court ordered him to cease all donations and to destroy stored samples, citing psychological harm to children and the danger of incest⁷.

English-language media, including The Guardian, The Times, and Vanity Fair, have reported on the case in detail. A Netflix documentary titled The Man with 1,000 Kids aired in 2024, prompting renewed debate. Meijer has since launched a defamation lawsuit against Netflix⁸.

The incident has forced regulatory reform. The Dutch government has introduced a centralized national donor registry to prevent duplication of donations across clinics, capping the number of children per donor. But the scandal reveals a deeper failure: treating human life as a consumable product leads inevitably to disorder and suffering.

The Path Forward: From Technocracy to Truth
Surrogacy and sperm commodification are not aberrations. They are the logical fruit of a post-Christian society that rejects both nature and the Author of nature. If we lack the courage to overturn unjust laws and repudiate the ideologies that underpin them, we will continue to treat only the symptoms while the disease worsens.

True reform must begin with reverence for life, respect for the body, and the recognition of divine order. In the month of the Sacred Heart—heart pierced for love of man—we must preach again the sacredness of the marital act, the dignity of womanhood, and the truth that children are not made, but begotten through love. 🔝

1. La teoria del gender: per l’uomo o contro l’uomo, Ed. Solfanelli (2013), Associazione Famiglia Domani.
2. Statement from the Lazio Region, reported 6 June 2023 in Il Giornale.
3. Treccani Enciclopedia Italiana, “Riproduzione: tecniche di inseminazione artificiale”.
4. G. Brambilla, Riscoprire la Bioetica, Rubbettino Editore, 2020, pp. 274–275.
5. Ibid., see also Christ Polge’s Cambridge group (1940s).
6. “Fears of inbreeding after Dutch sperm donor fathered hundreds,” The Times, 28 April 2023.
7. “Dutch court orders sperm donor to stop after fathering 550 children,” The Guardian, 28 April 2023.
8. “Jonathan Meijer sues Netflix over ‘The Man With 1,000 Kids,’” Vanity Fair, 20 July 2024.

---

Mary Co-Redemptrix: Reclaiming a Crowned Doctrine of Tradition

In Paris, on 23–24 May 2025, an extraordinary theological and devotional conference took place at the Cité Internationale: La Corédemption de la Sainte Vierge: contribution au débat (“The Co-Redemption of the Holy Virgin: Contribution to a Debate”). Organized by the Confraternity of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix under the leadership of Karen Darentière, the event signalled a decisive return to traditional Mariology, rejecting postconciliar minimalism and calling for renewed dogmatic clarity.

This movement, far from novelty, is anchored in centuries of theological development, drawing upon the wisdom of the Church Fathers, the Scholastic Doctors, and the Magisterium of the pre-Vatican II popes. It is the fruit of doctrinal continuity, and it reaffirms that Mary’s co-redemptive role is not an optional devotion, but a truth intimately linked with Christology and ecclesiology.

The Positive Teaching of the Doctrine
The doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix expresses her unique, intimate, and subordinate cooperation in the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ. It affirms that:

• Mary freely consented to the Incarnation (Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum), thus enabling the Redeemer to take flesh (Lk 1:38);
• She bore Him, nursed Him, and prepared Him for His sacrificial death (Lk 2:35; Jn 2:4);
• She stood by Him at Calvary, spiritually united with His Passion, offering Him and herself to the Eternal Father;
• She continues to exercise a maternal role from heaven in the distribution of the graces of redemption.

This theology does not stand apart from Marian dogma. Rather, as the Paris conference emphasized, the mystery of the Co-Redemption is its crowning harmony:

• Divine Maternity (431): Mary’s motherhood is not biological alone—it is theological and soteriological. She became the Mother of God in order to give the Redeemer to the world.
• Perpetual Virginity: Her intactness prefigures the interior purity with which she would suffer in union with Christ for the birth of the Church.
• Immaculate Conception (1854): She was preserved from original sin precisely to be a fitting associate of Christ in the redemptive mission.
• Assumption (1950): Having suffered with Christ, she now reigns with Him, her glorification a sign of her unique co-operation in the mystery of redemption.

At the Paris colloquium, these dogmatic connections were brought to light in powerful theological expositions. Fr. Jean-Christophe de Nadaï (Dominican, Commissio Leonina) grounded Mary’s unique redemptive role in her Divine Motherhood¹. Abbé Patrick Troadec (SSPX) traced the link between the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s combat under the Cross². Fr. Serafino Lanzetta explored the relationship between her perpetual virginity and the mystical birth of souls to grace³. Prof. Manfred Hauke demonstrated how the Assumption completes her mission and confirms her ongoing maternal mediation⁴.

Doctrinal Clarifications: What It Does Not Teach
To advance a proper understanding, the Paris speakers also took care to refute common misconceptions. As reinforced by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in his concluding report, Our Lady Co-Redemptrix, Destroyer of Heresies, the doctrine:

• Does not teach that Mary is equal to Christ.
  Christ alone is the Redeemer. Mary is Co-Redemptrix only in the sense of cooperation, never in equality or autonomy.
• Does not imply that Mary merited salvation for us independently.
  Her merits are de congruo, not de condigno. She cooperated as a mother, not as a redeemer in her own right⁵.
• Does not mean that her role was necessary in an absolute sense.
  Rather, it was freely willed by God, who chose to involve her out of fittingness and to exalt her as a model of redeemed humanity⁶.
• Does not teach that Mary was crucified or shared physically in the Passion.
  Her suffering was spiritual, rooted in compassion and maternal offering—not a physical co-crucifixion⁷.
• Does not claim to be already a solemn dogma.
  While widely taught, it awaits formal definition. The conference itself was a call to that end, not a presumption of its arrival.

Pre-Vatican II Roots and Postconciliar Resistance
The conference opened with a landmark address by Prof. Roberto de Mattei, who exposed how the preparatory schema on Our Lady (De Beata Maria Virgine)—which robustly defended her co-redemptive role—was deliberately gutted during the Second Vatican Council. To accommodate ecumenical concerns, the Council Fathers—led by figures like Yves Congar and René Laurentin—chose to embed Marian doctrine within ecclesiology, resulting in the restrained treatment seen in Lumen Gentium VIII⁸.

This “Marian minimalism,” as Darentière described it, has impoverished both theology and devotion. The Paris colloquium, in contrast, marked a restoration of the maximalist vision, in continuity with the great preconciliar voices: Pope Leo XIII, St Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

As Abbé Claude Barthe showed in his contribution, the French School of spirituality (Bérulle, Grignion de Montfort, Olier) already contained a developed theology of Mary’s co-sacrificial offering—a form of “Marian priesthood”—which mirrors the core substance of Coredemption⁹.

A Dogma for Our Time
Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s closing address provided not only doctrinal clarity but also prophetic exhortation. He reminded the faithful that in the traditional Roman Rite, the Church has prayed for centuries:

“Gaude Maria Virgo, cunctas haereses sola interemisti.”
“Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies throughout the world.”

The doctrine of Mary Co-Redemptrix, he argued, is not simply theological ornament—it is a bulwark against heresy, a doctrinal crown that safeguards the truths of the Incarnation, Redemption, and the Church.

As the voices gathered in Paris affirmed, the time is ripe for the definition of the fifth Marian dogma—Mary Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, and Advocate. Not to elevate Mary above her place, but to proclaim her role rightly—with, through, and always beneath Christ, to whom be all glory. 🔝

1. Fr. Jean-Christophe de Nadaï, Coredemption and the Dogma of the Divine Motherhood, Paris Conference, May 2025.
2. Abbé Patrick Troadec, Co-Redemption and the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Paris Conference, May 2025.
3. Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, Co-Redemption and the Dogma of Perpetual Virginity, Paris Conference, May 2025.
4. Prof. Manfred Hauke, Co-Redemption and the Dogma of the Assumption, Paris Conference, May 2025.
5. Pope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum, 1904.
6. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST III, q.30, a.1.
7. Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943.
8. Roberto de Mattei, The Second Vatican Council: A History Never Written, 2010.
9. Claude Barthe, The French School and the Co-Redemptive Priesthood of Mary, Paris Conference, May 2025.

---

Relic Discovery in Dublin School Sparks Vatican Inquiry and Student Faith Revival

A remarkable discovery at St Vincent’s Secondary School in Glasnevin, north Dublin, has sparked an investigation reaching the Vatican archives. During preparations for a graduation ceremony, a group of fifth-year students accidentally uncovered a first-class relic—believed to be that of St Hilarii, a little-known early Christian martyr—hidden within the school’s altar.

The incident unfolded when a panel fell off the wooden altar as it was being relocated, revealing a hollow compartment. Inside, the students found a parcel wrapped in old paper, bearing Latin inscriptions and the date 1787. On alerting principal Máire Quinn, a historian by training, the school contacted the Edmund Rice Trust and subsequently brought in renowned relic expert Fr William Purcell of Kilkenny.

Fr Purcell, who maintains a private collection of over 2,000 relics, carefully unwrapped the package to reveal a wax-sealed ornate box and a visible vial of blood. A certificate inside, dated 1878 and bearing Roman ecclesiastical seals, authenticated the relic as that of St Hilarii Martyris. The box appeared to originate in Nantes, France, bearing the initials “GA”. Purcell confirmed the relic’s legitimacy and noted its exceptional preservation.

A Rare and Timely Discovery
While Catholic altars are traditionally required to contain relics, most lack detailed documentation. This case is unusual for the presence of both the relic and its certification. The altar itself is thought to have come from O’Connell’s School in Dublin city centre over 30 years ago, but the relic’s presence had been forgotten.

Fr Purcell is now consulting Vatican records to confirm the identity of St Hilarii, since multiple saints by that name exist in the martyrologies. Two candidates are most probable.

The Two Saint Hilarys
The first is Saint Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310–367), a Doctor of the Church, renowned for his opposition to Arianism and his theological work De Trinitate. Known as the “Hammer of the Arians” and the “Athanasius of the West,” Hilary was exiled for his orthodoxy and became one of the chief defenders of the Nicene faith in Gaul. His feast day is kept on January 13¹.

The second is Saint Hilary of Arles (c. 403–449), bishop, monk, and reformer. Known for his humility and care for the poor, Hilary succeeded his relative Honoratus as Bishop of Arles and was active in ecclesiastical administration across southern Gaul. He died at age 46 and is commemorated on May 5².

Given that the relic was discovered in a school, some believe the saint in question may be Hilary of Poitiers, who is sometimes invoked as the patron of scholars. However, both are pre-congregation saints—canonised by acclamation before the formal processes of the Roman Curia existed.

Faith Rekindled in an Unexpected Place
Students, parents, and staff alike have been deeply moved by the discovery. “The students feel a particular attachment,” said Quinn, “not just because it happened to them, but because it has become an anchor for their graduation—and their faith.” Despite Ireland’s ongoing secularisation, Quinn insists that the Catholic faith remains “alive and well” and that the students have been “very respectful” in response.

The school has established a dedicated email address (relic@stvincentsd11.ie) for those with knowledge of the relic’s history and has launched a fundraising campaign to enable its preservation and display for ongoing faith formation.

Whether the relic proves to be of Hilary the theologian or Hilary the ascetic, it has already performed its first miracle: stirring reverence, wonder, and hope in a new generation of Irish youth. 🔝

¹ St Hilary of Poitiers, Doctor of the Church, Feast Day: January 13. See: Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910; Butler’s Lives of the Saints, January Volume.
² St Hilary of Arles, Bishop of Arles, Feast Day: May 5. See: Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910; Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum.

---

Leo XIV, Pius X, and the Autocrat: Doctrinal Continuity or Modernist Drift?

In the early days of his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV has made headlines with appeals to “synodality,” the “sensus fidelium,” and the image of a listening Church. Yet among traditional Catholics, his remarks have raised concern: do they represent a return to doctrinal clarity, or a deeper entrenchment of post-conciliar modernism? A recent essay in The WM Review offers a sharp critique, framing Leo XIV’s rhetoric as dangerously close to the doctrinal evolutionism condemned by Pope St Pius X.

Doctrinal Development or Construction?
Leo XIV’s first public gestures and statements have emphasized the idea that doctrine “develops” through communal discernment and historical sensitivity. While not unprecedented, this emphasis diverges from the perennial magisterium’s understanding of doctrine as a depositum fidei—a sacred trust to be preserved and handed down.

This theological shift echoes the modernist proposition that dogma is not a fixed revelation but an evolving expression of religious sentiment. It was precisely this idea that Pope St Pius X condemned as the core of modernism: “the synthesis of all heresies.”¹

*“They assert… that the formulas which we call dogmas are subject to these vicissitudes and are, therefore, liable to change.”*²

Leo XIV’s appeal to the Holy Spirit working through the people of God risks being interpreted as subordinating apostolic teaching to democratic process—undermining the magisterial role of the episcopacy as witnesses, not inventors, of revealed truth.

The Paradox of the “Listening” Autocrat
While Leo XIV presents himself as a humble, collegial pontiff in contrast to earlier authoritarian models, The WM Review argues that his vision in fact centralizes more authority in the papal office—under the guise of openness.

By prioritizing synodal consensus and incremental change, Leo risks becoming what the author calls an “autocrat of doctrine.” In this vision, the Pope listens to voices from below not to reaffirm received teaching, but to construct new paradigms. This modern papal centralism, cloaked in pastoral language, ironically empowers the Vatican to bypass traditional checks—Scripture, Tradition, and prior magisterium.

Concrete Cases: From Death Penalty to Doctrinal Reversals
The article recalls specific precedents that deepen concern. The most striking is the 2018 revision of Catechism of the Catholic Church §2267 under Pope Francis, declaring the death penalty “inadmissible”—a position explicitly contradicted by centuries of theological consensus and papal teaching.³

Pius X foresaw such manoeuvres. In Lamentabili Sane, he condemned the claim that “the Church has erred in transmitting immutable doctrines”⁴—a view that lies beneath many “pastoral” adjustments today.

Pius X’s Warnings: Ever Relevant
Against this doctrinal fluidity, Pius X stands as a clear benchmark. In Pascendi, he exposed the modernist tendency to reinterpret doctrine as symbolic, evolving, and historically conditioned rather than divinely revealed and fixed.⁵

*“The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists.”*⁶

It is this fidelity to immutability—not theological evolution—that Pius X championed. The Church must not become a mirror of cultural shifts but remain a bulwark of revealed truth.

Conclusion: Discernment, Not Sentimentality
Catholics concerned with fidelity to the perennial magisterium must look beyond Leo XIV’s gestures and tone. If his theology reflects the very modernist premises condemned by his canonized predecessor, it must be assessed not by appearance but by substance. To quote the Apostle: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”⁷ 🔝

¹ Pascendi Dominici Gregis, §39.
² Pascendi Dominici Gregis, §13.
³ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2267 (revised 2018).
⁴ Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), Proposition 22.
⁵ Pascendi Dominici Gregis, §§6–13.
⁶ Pope Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique (1910).
⁷ Galatians 1:8.

---

A Diocese in Crisis: Bishop Martin’s Decree and the Future of the Latin Mass in Charlotte

Suppression by Decree
The Diocese of Charlotte, North Carolina, has become the latest flashpoint in the Church’s post-Conciliar liturgical wars. In a sweeping new decree issued under the banner Go in Peace, Glorifying the Lord By Your Life, Bishop Michael Martin OFM Conv. has effectively extinguished the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in nearly all diocesan parishes, allowing only one location to continue under restrictive terms.

More startlingly, his accompanying pastoral letter forbids numerous traditional elements in the Novus Ordo Missae as well. Among them:

• Latin responses, chants, and antiphons
• The use of altar rails and kneelers
• Distribution of Communion on the tongue from a kneeling posture (unless demanded by the communicant)
• Traditional vestments such as the fiddleback chasuble, biretta, and maniple
• The post-Mass recitation of the St. Michael prayer

Pastors and Faithful Appeal
Before the decree’s release, four pastors of TLM-celebrating parishes wrote a joint letter to Bishop Martin on May 27, pleading for reconsideration. Citing spiritual harmony, pastoral fruitfulness, and legitimate desires acknowledged by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II, they asked that the bishop’s implementation of Traditionis Custodes not exceed its own requirements.

They note that:

• No request was made to Rome for an extension of permissions
• Only one location is permitted
• No provision is made for a Latin Mass community

“We respectfully question any perceived need to interpret the document in the strictest possible manner or exceed its written requirements.”¹

Kevin Tierney: A Vibe Shift Misread
Kevin Tierney’s influential essay, The Vibe Shift Comes for Bishop Martin, argues that Bishop Martin’s decree represents a misreading of the present ecclesial moment. While a new pontificate under Pope Leo XIV shows signs of greater openness, Martin has doubled down on the Roche-Francis paradigm of central control and liturgical uniformity:

“Rather than trusting the good judgment of pastors and the proven fruit of tradition-minded communities, Bishop Martin chose to micromanage and extinguish. This is a strategy built for the 2010s, not the 2020s.”²

Tierney points out that the bishop’s aggressive implementation of Traditionis Custodes is particularly dissonant in a moment when global Catholic sentiment appears to be shifting toward greater tolerance of liturgical diversity and traditional piety.

The Pillar: A Broader Clash
In a broader analysis, The Pillar describes Charlotte’s conflict as part of “the Carolina Liturgy Wars,” reflecting a national divide between bishops who see traditional worship as a threat, and those who accommodate it as a sign of renewal. Notably, Bishop Martin acted nearly a year into his tenure, suggesting a calculated ideological move rather than a pastoral response to crisis.³

Hazell and the Hermeneutic of Rupture
Liturgical scholar Matthew Hazell publicly criticized the decree for banning practices explicitly permitted by the Church’s universal liturgical law. He writes:

“Several of the bishop’s prescriptions contradict the General Instruction of the Roman Missal and Vatican II itself. Banning Latin and kneeling Communion rails undercuts the Council’s own stated openness to tradition.”⁴

Hazell points especially to the removal of Latin—despite Sacrosanctum Concilium affirming it retains “pride of place” (SC §36.1)—and the forbidding of birettas and crossed stoles as examples of overreach.

The Broader Cultural Vibe Shift
The phrase “vibe shift,” borrowed from internet culture, has been used by authors like Stephen McAlpine and Christianity Today to describe a growing cultural reaction to progressive overreach and moral incoherence. McAlpine cautions, however, that this shift is not automatically a spiritual awakening:

“Just because a vibe shifts doesn’t mean revival has come. A backlash is not a Pentecost.”⁵

Still, the instinct to preserve tradition and rediscover rootedness—especially among younger Catholics—is real. The Charlotte decree may not quell it, but rather inflame it.

A Traditional Catholic Response
From a traditional Catholic perspective, Bishop Martin’s actions amount to a rupture—not merely with the past, but with reasoned ecclesial unity. The attempt to eliminate all visible signs of preconciliar reverence, even within the Novus Ordo, reflects a hermeneutic of rupture that Pope Benedict XVI spent his pontificate trying to heal.

As Benedict warned:

“The Church stands and falls with the liturgy.”⁶

Suppressing Latin chant, kneeling, and traditional vesture in the name of inclusivity only fosters new divisions. What Bishop Martin describes as “preference” is, for many faithful, a precious and time-tested pathway to sanctity.

Conclusion
Bishop Martin’s decree marks not just the restriction of the Latin Mass but the attempted eradication of liturgical tradition itself in the Diocese of Charlotte. It is a deliberate, ideological act—and it may yet backfire. As Kevin Tierney notes, the laity are not asking for privilege, but peace.

“They just want to raise their kids in the liturgy that formed the saints.”

Whether the “vibe shift” in Charlotte leads to reconciliation or revolt may depend on whether Rome—and the faithful—will demand more than the fading ideology of imposed conformity. 🔝

¹ Faithful Advocate, “Information Release: Letter from the Four Pastors,” May 27, 2025.
² Kevin Tierney, The Vibe Shift Comes for Bishop Martin, Substack, May 2025.
³ The Pillar, “The Blessed Code and the Carolina Liturgy Wars,” May 2025.
⁴ Matthew Hazell, Twitter/X post, @M_P_Hazell, May 2025.
⁵ Stephen McAlpine, “The Vibe Shift: What Does It Mean for the Gospel?”, stephenmcalpine.com, Feb 2025.
⁶ Benedict XVI, Milestones: Memoirs 1927–1977, 1998.

---

What God Has Joined Together: The Rite and the Eucharist Cannot Be Separated

The success of postconciliar brainwashing can be measured not by overt persecution of tradition but by the erasure of memory. Today, the vast majority of practicing Catholics—an ever-shrinking minority of the baptized—know nothing of the liturgy that nourished the Church for centuries prior to 1970. For them, “the Church’s liturgy” is simply what they experience on Sunday: brief, often casual, sometimes irreverent. When traditional Catholics speak of the riches of tradition, of all that has been lost, they are met not with curiosity but with anger. This is not the anger of those who have weighed both traditions and chosen; it is the defensiveness of those who have never been given the chance to know.

This ignorance is not accidental. It is the result of a rupture—engineered, justified, and then papered over with a rhetoric of “organic development” and “renewal.” It is a rupture not only of rite but of formation, spirituality, and even theological vision. Most Catholics today, formed solely within the parameters of the Novus Ordo and the shallow catechesis that often accompanies it, see no problem at all. “We have the Eucharist,” they say, “what more do we need?” This objection, now so common on social media and parish message boards, is not a straw man. It is a real pastoral phenomenon. And it is profoundly flawed.

For if the Eucharist alone were enough, there would be no reason not to consecrate vast quantities of hosts and schedule a series of five-minute communion services. Indeed, in some parishes, we are not far from this. But if such minimalism is rightly seen as inadequate, then it must be acknowledged that how the Eucharist is celebrated—the words, gestures, music, architecture, silence, vestments—matters deeply. The Church has always known this. Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi: as we worship, so we believe, and so we live. The rite forms the faithful.

And here lies the contradiction. The very people who insist that we must accept the post-Vatican II liturgy “in obedience” also insist that “the externals” don’t really matter, that what’s important is that Jesus is present. But if the externals are irrelevant, why did the Church so zealously preserve them for nearly two millennia? Why did she canonize saints who wrote tomes on rubrics, who died for the right to say the Mass of their fathers, who wept over profaned altars and broken tabernacles?

The traditional rites—Roman, Byzantine, Coptic, Armenian—were not arbitrary cultural artifacts. They were the fruit of centuries of faith, sacrifice, theological refinement, and divine providence. They formed saints, converted nations, and withstood empires. Their architecture of meaning—the readings, the prayers, the silence, the gestures—does not merely surround the Eucharist; it reveals and proclaims it. It makes the invisible mystery intelligible to the senses and formative for the soul.

The reformed liturgy, by contrast, too often seems designed to accommodate rather than transform. It flattens mystery into accessibility, reverence into relevance, and worship into communal self-expression. The shift was not only liturgical; it was anthropological. Man, not God, became the measure of the rite. What was once offered in awe and fear is now often presented as a therapeutic gathering.

And yet, by the grace of God, something unexpected is happening. All over the world, young Catholics are rediscovering the old rites. They are not clinging to the past; they are escaping the amnesia. They are finding in Gregorian chant and Roman silence not nostalgia but nourishment. They are not becoming rigid and bitter; they are becoming zealous and joyful. And the proof is in their vocations, their large families, their daily rosaries, their fidelity.

Traditional Catholics are not causing division. Division was caused when rupture was imposed and memory suppressed. We are merely remembering what the Church never had the right to forget.

This is not about Latin vs. vernacular, old vs. new, or even pre-Vatican II vs. post-Vatican II. It is about fidelity to what the Church herself once called sacred, reverent, and immemorial. As Pope Benedict XVI rightly asked: “What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us too.”

Living from and for the Mass, as the original Liturgical Movement envisioned, means being shaped by the liturgy—not shaping it to fit ourselves. And because the Eucharist is “the source and summit” of the Christian life, it matters how it is offered. God has joined together the sacrament and the rite. Let no man put them asunder. 🔝

¹ Lex orandi, lex credendi is a theological principle attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine and later formalized in Catholic teaching: “the law of prayer is the law of belief.” See Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1124.
² For statistics on belief in the Real Presence among Catholics, see the 2019 Pew Research Center study: “Just one-third of U.S. Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ.”
³ Pope Benedict XVI, *Letter to Bishops accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, 2007.

---

---

In Other News…

---

Whatever Happened to the Family Test? A Silent Casualty in Britain’s Policy Machine

Since its introduction in 2014, the UK Government’s Family Test was supposed to ensure that every new policy and piece of legislation would be weighed against its impact on families. But over a decade later, it has become largely ceremonial — a policy without teeth, and more often than not, without mention. The result? A wave of legislation and reform that has undermined family life in areas as diverse as housing, education, taxation, and the safeguarding of children.

Five Questions, Rarely Asked
The Family Test posed five simple but important questions, including: Will this policy support strong and stable family relationships? Will it help families to nurture children? Will it reduce or exacerbate family breakdown? But in practice, Whitehall departments were neither compelled to publish their answers nor incentivised to take them seriously. In the years since, multiple laws and initiatives have proceeded with little regard to their potential consequences on parents and children¹.

Housing Policy: Designed for Individuals, Not Families
One of the most obvious casualties has been housing. Across the UK, housing policy increasingly favours high-density, one- and two-bedroom flats that may suit transient urban professionals — but not growing families. Family-sized homes with gardens are out of reach for many couples with children, especially in London and the South East². The absence of a Family Test has allowed the dominance of policies that reward developers for quantity over suitability, failing to address the social need for homes that enable long-term stability, hospitality, and multigenerational living.

Welfare Reform: Penalising Marriage and Parenthood
Several welfare changes since 2014 have actively penalised married couples and large families. The Two-Child Benefit Cap, introduced in 2017, is perhaps the most egregious example: a measure that financially punishes families for welcoming a third child — unless they can prove the child was conceived through rape or exceptional circumstances³. Had a robust Family Test been applied and published, it would have flagged the incoherence of a policy that discourages fertility in a nation facing demographic decline and an ageing population⁴.

Likewise, the Marriage Allowance remains underused and poorly advertised, providing a paltry benefit that does little to incentivise or reward marital stability⁵, even though decades of evidence show that children raised in married households fare better across almost every social metric⁶.

Education: Undermining Parents and Erasing Innocence
In the field of education, the absence of the Family Test is acutely felt in policies surrounding Relationships and Sex Education (RSE). Despite widespread parental concern, schools are encouraged — sometimes pressured — to deliver ideologically driven content on gender and sexuality that often undermines the moral authority of parents and introduces young children to concepts for which they are unprepared⁷. A genuine Family Test would require policymakers to ask: Does this strengthen the parent-child bond or place the State between them?

Instead, Catholic and other religious families are often marginalised or ignored in the consultation process. The result is a growing crisis of trust between parents and schools — one which drives many families out of the public system entirely⁸.

Taxation and Work: Making Motherhood Unaffordable
Modern tax and employment structures continue to incentivise dual-income households while disincentivising stay-at-home parenting. In the name of gender equality, little attention is paid to those families who choose a more traditional arrangement — often at great financial sacrifice⁹. Without applying the Family Test, policymakers fail to reckon with the long-term benefits of children being raised by their own parents in a secure and nurturing home — a value that cannot be easily replaced by subsidised childcare¹⁰.

Safeguarding and Culture: A Failure to Protect
Finally, in areas of safeguarding and cultural policy, the neglect of family-centred analysis has contributed to some of the most disturbing failures in modern Britain. From the grooming gang scandals, where authorities failed to act to protect vulnerable girls out of fear of being labelled racist¹¹, to the erosion of parental rights in gender-transition cases involving children¹² — the absence of a consistent and binding Family Test has left children at risk and parents powerless.

A Call to Restore the Primacy of the Family
From a Catholic perspective, the family is not one stakeholder among many — it is the foundational cell of society willed by God and sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony. Pope Leo XIII wrote in Rerum Novarum that “the family … is a society very small … but nonetheless a true society, and one older than any State.”¹³ Any just social order must begin by protecting and empowering families, not undermining them through neglect or ideology.

The time has come for Parliament to revisit the Family Test — not as a bureaucratic formality, but as a moral imperative. Every piece of legislation should be scrutinised for its impact on family life. And when it fails that test, it should not proceed.

We urge readers to write to their MP and demand not only the restoration of a binding Family Test but also a cultural shift in public life: to see families not as problems to be managed, but as gifts to be supported — the very bedrock of a renewed and moral society. 🔝

¹ House of Commons Library, The Family Test, Briefing Paper Number 07252, 2018.
² Centre for Social Justice, Close to Home: Delivering a National Housing Strategy for Families, 2021.
³ Child Poverty Action Group, Two-Child Limit Policy Briefing, April 2023.
⁴ ONS, Births by parents’ characteristics in England and Wales: 2021, published July 2023.
⁵ HMRC, Take-up of the Marriage Allowance, 2022; only about 30% of eligible couples claim it.
⁶ Institute for Family Studies, The Strength of the Two-Parent Home, 2020.
⁷ Safe Schools Alliance UK, Parental Concerns over RSE, 2023.
⁸ Civitas, The State of Education and Parental Trust, 2022.
⁹ Policy Exchange, Making Work Pay and Family Life Possible, 2021.
¹⁰ Miriam Cates MP, speech to Parliament on family taxation, March 2023.
¹¹ Quilliam Foundation, Group Based Child Sexual Exploitation: Dissecting Grooming Gangs, 2018.
¹² Daily Telegraph, “Parents kept in the dark as schools facilitate secret gender transitions,” May 2023.
¹³ Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, §12, 1891.
¹⁰ Commentary from Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr Claude Barthe, and anonymous sources cited in La Nef, April 2024.

---

A Policy Against the Future: The Two-Child Cap, Christian Values, and the Crisis of Britain’s Birthrate

The ongoing controversy surrounding the UK’s two-child benefit cap is not merely a question of fiscal arithmetic or party-political manoeuvring. It is a revealing symptom of a deeper malaise: a nation that has abandoned its Christian understanding of family, responsibility, and the common good—drifting into sterile utilitarianism while surrendering cultural ground to the aggressive advance of anti-Christian ideologies.

A Cold Policy in a Cold Culture
Introduced by the Conservative government in 2017, the two-child limit restricts child-related welfare benefits (including Universal Credit and tax credits) to the first two children in a family, except under narrow exemptions such as multiple births or adoption. While originally justified as a “fairness” measure—reflecting the notion that families on welfare should make the same choices as those in work—the cap has disproportionately affected low-income Christian and working-class families.

Every day the policy remains in place, an estimated 100–110 more children are pushed into poverty. Over 400,000 families have been impacted, with the Child Poverty Action Group attributing record levels of child poverty—4.3 million children as of 2023—directly to this measure¹.

Yet the moral issue runs deeper than material deprivation. The cap communicates something about the very purpose of family, children, and society. It implies that the birth of a third or fourth child is an economic burden rather than a blessing, a liability rather than a life.

Demographic Reality and the Decline of Britain
Britain faces a demographic winter. In 2023, the UK’s total fertility rate fell to 1.49—the lowest since records began². At current rates, Britain will not be able to replace its population, let alone maintain the workforce necessary to support pensions, healthcare, and civil society. In the absence of native births, successive governments have turned to mass immigration, further fracturing social cohesion and accelerating cultural disintegration.

One consequence has been the rise of Islam as a socio-political force within Britain. Muslim birth rates remain significantly higher than the national average, and the 2021 census revealed that in cities such as Birmingham and Bradford, Muslim populations now form the plurality. The long-term implications are undeniable: as the Muslim population grows, the ideological balance of the nation will shift further away from its Christian roots.

Without a coherent, positive vision of the Christian family—encouraged, supported, and defended by policy—Britain is not simply shrinking. It is being replaced.

The Role of the State: Render unto Caesar
A rightly ordered state, as understood in the Catholic tradition, serves the family—not the reverse. Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum taught that the family is the “society of a man’s house,” prior to and more fundamental than the state itself³. Pope Pius XI reaffirmed in Casti Connubii that the state must not violate the sanctity and rights of the family in its efforts at social regulation.

Thus, any policy that penalises families for welcoming new life is not merely unwise but unjust. The two-child cap does precisely that. Rather than promoting virtue, it punishes fruitfulness. Rather than incentivising stable, loving families, it penalises parents who embody the courage and hope that modern Britain so desperately lacks.

A Christian Alternative
It is not enough for Catholics merely to oppose the cap. We must articulate a bold alternative grounded in the Gospel of Life and the dignity of human beings made in God’s image. The Church has always affirmed that children are a supreme gift of marriage—not a financial inconvenience, but a vocation, a sign of trust in divine Providence and a witness to Christian hope.

As Hungary’s pro-family policies have shown—including tax breaks for large families and housing support—governments can, if they choose, encourage native birth rates while renewing national morale. In contrast, Britain currently subsidises its own extinction.

The answer is not only financial. It is spiritual. Catholic social teaching calls us to reorder society to the primacy of God’s law. We must call for the repeal of the two-child cap—but more than that, we must work to re-evangelise Britain, to recover the beauty of Christian family life, and to remind our country that every child is not a cost but a call: to love, to sacrifice, and to build the Kingdom. 🔝

¹ Child Poverty Action Group, The Cost of the Cap, 2024.
² Office for National Statistics (ONS), Births in England and Wales: 2023.
³ Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891), §12.

---

Foreign Drug Dealers Evade Deportation on Human Rights Grounds: A Crisis in Justice and Public Confidence

A Pakistani heroin dealer with 21 convictions, including serious drug trafficking offences, has been permitted to remain in the United Kingdom after judges ruled that deportation would be “unduly harsh” on his British-born son. The tribunal cited the father’s role in the boy’s upbringing, including their conversations about Islam and personal grooming such as shaving, as justification for the decision under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to family life¹.

This ruling, one in a growing list of similar cases, has provoked outrage across the political spectrum and among members of the public who view it as a fundamental failure of justice. The case of Muhammad Asif Karim joins a litany of judgments in which foreign criminals—including heroin and cocaine traffickers—have successfully resisted deportation on the grounds of their alleged importance to family life or inability to integrate into their country of origin.

A Pattern of Judicial Leniency
Examples abound. An Albanian man, Xhoni Leka, avoided deportation after being convicted for running a cannabis farm containing over 1,300 plants. Judges ruled that deportation would deprive his daughter of a male role model. In another case, Jamaican national Shawn Rickford McLeod, jailed for dealing Class A drugs, promised only to smoke cannabis in the future and won his appeal, again due to concerns for his children².

Similar decisions have shielded a Kosovan cocaine dealer from removal because his infant daughter was deemed too young for video calls, and a Polish drug offender claimed he could not speak his native language, making reintegration “unduly harsh.”³

These cases illustrate the broad and often controversial interpretation of Article 8 by immigration tribunals. Originally intended to protect family unity and private life, Article 8 is now increasingly perceived as a legal shield for serious criminals who have long flouted UK laws.

Parliamentary Concern and Political Fallout
The implications of these judgments have not gone unnoticed in Westminster. In March 2025, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill debates featured direct reference to such cases. MPs criticised how Article 8 is used to subvert public safety concerns, citing examples of convicted drug dealers returning to the UK or avoiding removal despite extensive criminal records⁴.

In February 2024, MP Rachel Maclean warned the Commons that over 12,000 foreign national offenders remained in the UK despite being subject to deportation orders. The Home Secretary at the time, Yvette Cooper, acknowledged the difficulty of enforcing removals when European laws, particularly Article 8, were interpreted so expansively⁵.

The Government has since indicated it is reviewing the domestic application of Article 8, aiming to introduce stricter legal tests and “very compelling circumstances” thresholds to ensure the public interest in deporting foreign criminals is not so easily overridden.

A Crisis of Public Trust and Moral Clarity
Commentators across mainstream and alternative media have voiced alarm. The Times editorial board has warned that such legal leniency risks undermining confidence in the justice system, particularly when the public sees dangerous criminals prioritised over victims and communities. Social critics like James Bush have called the decisions “woke madness,” noting the absurdity of granting rights to violent offenders that ordinary citizens would not enjoy under the same logic.

From a traditional Catholic perspective, the issue reflects a deeper malaise. A just society must balance mercy with the demands of justice. True family values require upholding the good of the family and the common good of society. When the state protects fatherhood in the abstract while excusing fathers who poison communities with heroin, it betrays both the child and the nation.

The Old Roman Apostolate has long warned of the consequences of deracinated humanitarianism that exalts rights without duties. Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that the common good must guide civil law, and that justice involves proportionate punishment and the removal of threats to social order. The Catechism of the Catholic Church confirms the state’s responsibility to protect citizens and enforce just penalties (CCC 2266–2267).

What Must Be Done
Britain faces a demographic and cultural crisis. Indigenous birth rates are below replacement levels; family formation is in decline; and the rule of law is increasingly mocked by a legal system in thrall to abstract rights theory rather than concrete moral order. To recover, the nation must:

• Reform the application of Article 8 in deportation cases, giving clear precedence to public safety and criminal history.
• Reassert the moral priority of justice and the common good in immigration and family policy.
• Encourage a revival of authentic family values, rooted in Christian principles of virtue, responsibility, and repentance.

The Gospel offers mercy for the repentant — but it never confuses mercy with permissiveness. Justice without truth is tyranny; compassion without order is chaos. Britain must choose between being a society governed by law, morality, and common sense — or one ruled by judicial relativism, where even drug lords are treated as moral exemplars because they teach their sons to shave. 🔝

¹ Yahoo News, Pakistani drug dealer allowed to stay in UK due to family life claims, May 2025.
² Independent UK, Albanian cannabis farmer avoids deportation due to daughter’s needs, April 2025.
³ The Sun, Kosovan drug dealer spared deportation as baby too young for video calls, March 2025.
⁴ Hansard, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Debate, House of Commons, 18 March 2025.
⁵ Hansard, Deportation of Foreign National Offenders, House of Commons, 7 February 2024.

---

Charlie Kirk at the Cambridge Union: Confrontation, Conviction, and Cultural Clash

On 19 May 2025, American conservative activist Charlie Kirk delivered a high-profile and combative address at the Cambridge Union, defending a comprehensive vision of traditional values before a largely oppositional student audience. The event—part debate, part cultural flashpoint—offered not only an insight into the transatlantic fault lines in political ideology but also a glimpse into the generational crisis gripping Western civilisation.

A Mission to Defend the West
Kirk opened with a sweeping defence of Turning Point USA’s mission: to fortify the Judeo-Christian foundations of the West and to resist the erosion of cultural and moral coherence by progressive ideologies. He portrayed his role as that of a restorer, not a revolutionary.

“At some point, the purpose of education is not to have an endless buffet line for students to sample every bad idea in the world. It’s to point them to the good, the true, and the beautiful.”¹

He condemned the transformation of elite universities into vehicles of ideological uniformity, accusing them of training “managerial elites” in moral relativism while alienating students from their own civilisational inheritance.

COVID-19 and the Politics of Control
Kirk recounted what he described as the moral failure of the West’s pandemic response. He denounced lockdowns as catastrophic to the psychological health of young people and described mandates for mRNA vaccines as coercive and unnecessary for the healthy majority.

“The young people of the West lost proms, graduations—for no good reason whatsoever… Suicide rates of young people in the West went up after COVID.”²

He accused medical and political authorities of substituting ideology for science, of suppressing early treatment options, and of pushing pharmaceutical dependency under the guise of public safety.

Life, Sexuality, and the Nature of Truth
A central thread in Kirk’s defence of conservatism was the metaphysical claim that truth is objective, moral order is knowable, and the human person possesses intrinsic value from conception. In a charged exchange with a medical student, he refused to concede to the view that human life begins only after birth or viability.

“When those two cells fuse together… that is when your journey as a human being begins.”³

On the question of marriage, Kirk contended that Christian teaching remains clear and unambiguous: it is a covenant between one man and one woman, designed for the begetting and raising of children and the sanctification of spouses. He invoked Scripture, Church tradition, and classical anthropology against revisionist interpretations of Christian doctrine.

Feminism and the Decline of Family Life
In a controversial yet candid segment, Kirk argued that modern feminism had failed to deliver on its promises. Instead of empowerment, he said, it had led to a collapse in marriage, an epidemic of loneliness, and a crisis of purpose among young women.

“The women of the West have it the best in the world—and yet they’re miserable.”⁴

He praised Hungary’s pro-natalist policies as a model for other Western nations and condemned the deliberate severing of femininity from motherhood, presenting the family as the primary cell of resistance to state overreach and civilisational decline.

January 6, Trump, and Foreign Policy
When asked about his support for former President Donald Trump, Kirk defended Trump’s foreign policy record, especially in relation to the Abraham Accords and Ukraine. He denied that his rhetoric contributed to the January 6 Capitol events, describing the majority of protestors as peaceful and the media narrative as politically weaponised.

“He has already ended a war between two nuclear conflicts… and I believe we will see an end to the Russian-Ukrainian war.”⁵

Gaza and the Crisis of Moral Equivalence
The most passionate moments of the debate came during exchanges over the Israel–Hamas conflict. Kirk strongly defended Israel’s right to defend itself, denounced Hamas for its brutality and manipulation of civilians, and challenged the moral relativism that seeks to blame both sides equally.

“You must understand who started the conflict so that you can end it correctly.”⁶

He accused the left of inverting justice by refusing to name evil, and by tolerating ideologies that weaponise victimhood rather than uphold virtue.

Reception and Repercussions
The debate sparked fierce online reactions. Critics accused Kirk of simplification, while supporters hailed his clarity and conviction. Reddit forums mocked him as “unprepared” and “embarrassed,”⁷ but conservative commentators praised his ability to remain composed and to defend deeply unpopular views with confidence. In his own words following the event, Kirk noted that Cambridge students seemed more obsessed with American culture wars than with Britain’s own crises.

“The students at Cambridge were more concerned with the George Floyd narrative than they were about knife crime in London.”⁸

The appearance formed part of Kirk’s broader strategy to confront secular liberalism on its home turf and to assert traditional moral truth as not only viable but necessary for civilisational renewal.

Conclusion
The Cambridge Union appearance of Charlie Kirk was not simply a public debate—it was a microcosm of the cultural and spiritual struggle facing the West. At its core was a simple question: can a civilisation survive without truth? For Kirk and those who cheered him on, the answer lies not in a return to the past for its own sake, but in recovering the principles that made the West worth preserving in the first place. 🔝

¹ Kirk, Charlie. Cambridge Union Debate, 19 May 2025, 5:00.
² Ibid., 9:15.
³ Ibid., 34:46.
⁴ Ibid., 1:13:05.
⁵ Ibid., 1:22:04.
⁶ Ibid., 1:31:00.
⁷ Reddit: “Charlie got absolutely annihilated at Cambridge.” r/ToiletPaperUSA, May 2025.
⁸ Charlie Kirk, The Spectator, “Why I debated the woke at Cambridge,” May 25, 2025.

---

Britain’s Leftward Drift and the Feminisation of Institutions

Annabel Denham’s critique of HR dominance, progressive politics, and workplace ideology

Annabel Denham, writing in The Telegraph (27 May 2025), offers a pointed thesis: that Britain’s ideological drift to the Left is not simply electoral—it is cultural, institutional, and demographic. Central to this trend, she argues, is the feminisation of the workforce, particularly in Human Resources, the public sector, and ideological policymaking roles.

Falling Fertility and Rising Autonomy
Denham begins with a demographic reality: Britain’s total fertility rate has dropped from 2.57 children per woman in 1970 to just 1.44 in 2023, far below the replacement threshold of 2.1¹. While pro-natalist policies like marriage tax breaks have been proposed (notably by Nigel Farage), Denham highlights global evidence—from Hungary to South Korea—suggesting that such incentives have limited effectiveness when women have been socially conditioned to prioritise career over family.

The Catholic Church has long upheld the importance of marriage and family as the foundation of society, warning against economic and ideological pressures that distort their natural ends². Saint John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio reminds us that “the future of humanity passes by way of the family”³.

Education, Employment, and Institutional Capture
Women now make up 57% of UK university students⁴. Their dominance in fields like teaching, nursing, social work, local government, and particularly HR—where they comprise 75% of professionals and 91% of administrators—is reshaping the policy norms and moral ethos of major institutions.

Denham contends that HR has become the primary vector for progressive ideology, especially around issues like flexible working, “equal pay for equal work,” and DEI mandates. These are not merely neutral reforms; they reflect and reinforce preferences more commonly held by women, and often ignore their impact on productivity or male well-being.

Indeed, Catholic teaching affirms the complementarity of men and women and warns against efforts to erase natural distinctions under the guise of equality⁵. Pope Pius XII cautioned that a society which “destroys the harmony between the duties of woman and those of man” undermines both family and civilisation⁶.

The Woker Sex and Institutional Ideology
Studies repeatedly show women are more likely than men to support Leftist politics, identity ideology, and censorship⁷. Denham argues that as women shape HR policy, these views are embedded in law firms, schools, banks, and charities. She points to executives like Amanda Blanc (Aviva) and Alison Rose (NatWest), whose tenure illustrates how companies now often prize virtue signalling over profitability.

This mirrors Pope Benedict XVI’s warning about the “dictatorship of relativism”—where institutions abandon objective truth and natural law in favour of politically constructed norms⁸.

Voting Gaps and Party Responses
Denham notes that women have only recently become more likely than men to vote Labour, but the trend is solidifying: public-sector employment, childcare support, and DEI initiatives are politically rewarded. In contrast, the Conservative Party’s record—despite fielding four female leaders—has failed to convert this demographic.

Catholic Analysis: Order and Identity Undermined
Denham’s conclusions, while provocative, echo concerns raised in traditional Catholic social thought. A society that reorients work and family around the preferences of one sex—especially under egalitarian ideologies—is not just unjust but unsustainable.

The Church defends women’s dignity and rights, but also recognises that the drive for total interchangeability is not liberty, but anthropological error. In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI warned that policies neglecting sexual difference “create a culture of death” by severing human identity from its natural ends⁹.

Conclusion
Denham does not advocate regression but reckoning. Britain’s institutional tilt toward the Left is not driven by party manifestos alone—it is being administered silently, “one woman at a time,” through HR departments, public-sector ideologies, and corporate compliance. The Church must respond not only in politics but in rebuilding family culture, reclaiming vocational distinctions, and restoring a rightly ordered anthropology. 🔝

¹ Office for National Statistics (ONS), UK Birth Rate 1970–2023
² Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II, §48; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church §2207
³ Familiaris Consortio, Apostolic Exhortation, 1981, §86
⁴ Universities UK, Higher Education Student Statistics 2023
⁵ Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, §224–229
⁶ Pope Pius XII, Address to the Congress of the Women’s International Union, 1957
⁷ British Social Attitudes Survey; Pew Research Center Global Values Data
⁸ Pope Benedict XVI, Homily at Mass Pro Eligendo Pontifice, 2005
⁹ Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, §15 not forbid the Church from exercising her rights, but must aid her in the discharge of her duties.”

---

Tommy Robinson Breaks Silence: Solitary Confinement, State Retaliation, and the Silence of the Press

Tommy Robinson has returned to public life with a renewed indictment of the British establishment, following seven months of segregation at HMP Woodhill. His first full interview, conducted by Ezra Levant of Rebel News and followed by commentary on Outspoken Live with Dan Wootton and Fr Calvin Robinson, lays out not only his harrowing prison experience but what he believes is a broader collapse of state integrity in modern Britain.

“They tried to break me”
Robinson alleges that his long-term isolation was part of a deliberate campaign to break his spirit and silence his activism. Describing sensory deprivation, restriction of human contact, and mental fatigue, he argued the experience constituted psychological torture.

These claims were not new; they had already been raised in open court. In March 2025, the High Court heard that prison officials had confined Robinson to a segregation unit because of multiple credible threats from inmates, including a “lifer” who had allegedly targeted him for murder . His legal team contended that this amounted to de facto solitary confinement, harming his mental health and violating his human rights.

The court accepted the factual basis of Robinson’s confinement but rejected the claim that it breached legal standards. It ruled that while Robinson was indeed held in a separate unit, he had access to communications, exercise, chaplaincy, medical support, and over 1,250 phone calls during his detention . The judge ruled that such conditions did not reach the threshold of “inhuman or degrading treatment” under domestic or international law .

Falsehoods and the Bailey Case
Robinson also renewed his accusations against Piers Morgan, who he claims misrepresented the circumstances surrounding the now-infamous Bailey incident, the subject of Robinson’s documentary Silenced. “Piers Morgan destroyed a child’s life to protect a narrative,” he said, demanding a public retraction. While Silenced was dismissed in some quarters as inflammatory, no mainstream outlet has yet directly rebutted the core evidence presented in the film, including first-hand testimony and supporting video footage.

Systemic Complicity in the Grooming Scandal
Robinson reiterated his claim—now substantiated by public inquiries—that police, local authorities, and journalists systematically downplayed or ignored grooming gang abuses for fear of being seen as racist. The 2022 Telford Inquiry confirmed that victims had been disbelieved, officials had failed to act on reports, and political sensitivities had overridden child protection .

🎙️ The Media: From Watchdog to Collaborator
Together with Ezra Levant and Fr Calvin Robinson, Robinson characterised Britain’s legacy media as a “regime apparatus,” more concerned with suppressing dissent than informing the public. “The media don’t make mistakes,” said Levant. “They enforce narratives.” Wootton added: “You can destroy a man’s reputation, gaslight a nation, and still get promoted in this industry.”

🛡️ “Unite the Kingdom”: A New Movement Emerges
Robinson announced plans for a mass rally later this year, titled Unite the Kingdom. The rally will centre on exposing state corruption, reasserting national identity, and resisting censorship. High-profile supporters include Elon Musk, who restored Robinson’s X account and shared Silenced, Jordan Peterson, who has publicly defended Robinson’s right to speak, and Steve Bannon, who has called him “a martyr of modern Britain.”

Robinson ended the interview with a call for resilience: “They thought they buried me. They didn’t know I was a seed.” 🔝

¹ The Guardian, “HMP Woodhill cleared segregation wing to isolate Tommy Robinson, court hears”, 20 March 2025.
² The Times, “Tommy Robinson made 1,250 phone calls from jail, court told”, 21 March 2025.
³ BBC News, “Tommy Robinson segregation at HMP Woodhill ruled lawful”, 21 March 2025.
⁴ Sky News, “Tommy Robinson loses High Court challenge over prison segregation”, 21 March 2025.
⁵ Independent Inquiry into Telford Child Sexual Exploitation, 2022 Summary Report.

---

---

🔝

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

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)

---

🔝