w/c 22/06/25

ORDO

Dies	22 SUN	23 MON	24 TUE	25 WED	26 THU	27 FRI	28 SAT	29 SUN
Officium	S. Paulini Episcopi et Confessoris	Feria II infra Octavam Corporis Christi	In Nativitate S. Joannis Baptistæ	S. Gulielmi Abbatis	In Octava Sanctissimi Corporis Christi	Sacratissimi Cordis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi	S. Leonis Papæ et Confessoris	SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli
CLASSIS	Duplex	Semiduplex	Duplex	Simplex	Duplex	Duplex majus	Semiduplex	Duplex I. classis
Color*	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Rubeum
MISSA	Sacerdotes tui	Cibávit	De ventre	Os justi	Cibávit	Miserebitur	Státuit	Nunc scio
Orationes	2a. Dominica II Post Pentecosten 3a. Octava SSmi. Corporis Christi	2a. In Vigilia S. Joannis Baptistæ	2a. Feria III infra Octavam Corporis Christi	2a. Feria IV infra Octavam Corporis Christi 3a. Die II infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ	2a. Ss. Joannis et Pauli Martyrum 3a. Die III infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ	2a. Die IV infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ	2a. In Vigilia Ss. Petri et Pauli Apostolorum 3a. Die V infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ	2a. Dominica III Post Pentecosten 3a. Die VI infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de sanctissima Trinitate	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Nativitate Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Nativitate Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Nativitate Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Nativitate Domini	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sacratissimo Cordis Iesu	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Apostolis
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva

Fidelis Restauratio

The motto Faithful Restoration encapsulates the mission of this edition, which seeks to restore and preserve the timeless truths of the Catholic faith in a world increasingly threatened by secularism and modernism. It emphasizes both the faithfulness to traditional doctrine and the active restoration of those values within the Church and society.

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

“And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.” (John 1:5)

We stand, once again, at a crossroads in the public and spiritual life of our nations. The events surveyed in this edition of Nuntiatoria paint a bleak but honest picture: the legalisation of assisted suicide and the decriminalisation of self-managed abortion to birth have enshrined a utilitarian view of life in law. The sacredness of the human person—created in the image of God and redeemed by Christ—has been reduced to a calculus of suffering, autonomy, and convenience.

Let us be absolutely clear: no civilisation can long endure once it denies the right to life. When human dignity is no longer rooted in objective truth but conditioned by ideology, circumstance, or whim, the very foundation of all human rights collapses. Without the sanctity of life, justice becomes selective, compassion becomes sentiment, and mercy is twisted into the mask of murder.

In the pages that follow, you will read of these unfolding tragedies—but also of resistance. Of fidelity. Of hope. Whether it be in the determined stand of those MPs and clergy who saw through the pretence of “compassion”; in the lonely yet courageous Eucharistic adorers in Asia; or in the laity grieving the theft of tradition in dioceses like Detroit—the faithful remnant has not disappeared. They pray. They fight. They persevere.

You will also read reflections on the nature of the parish, the limitations of modern Catholic social theory, and the failures of once-promising apostolates. These are not idle critiques, but calls to vigilance, repentance, and reform. They remind us that we cannot outsource the mission of the Church to structures alone. It must be lived—in your home, your chapel, your habits of prayer, and in your political conscience.

And in the midst of it all, this month’s liturgical season draws us to the very heart of divine life: the Most Holy Eucharist. “Today we celebrate what we could not celebrate with suitable joy during Holy Week,” I preached on Corpus Christi in 2021. “The sacrament of His love, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Saviour Jesus Christ, contained within the Holy Species of the Eucharist.”¹ It is here that the divine counters the darkness: Christ remains truly present—offered, adored, and received.

As your shepherd, I urge you: do not grow weary. The loss of truth in the public square is real. The distortion of the Gospel from within the Church herself is grievous. But Christ is not absent. He reigns from the tabernacle, from the altar, from His throne in heaven. And He calls us, even now, to stand with Him.

Where life is denied, let us affirm it.
Where truth is silenced, let us proclaim it.
Where the sacraments are neglected, let us revere them.
Where the Church is in ruins, let us rebuild from the altar outward.

May St John the Baptist—whose martyrdom for speaking the truth about life and marriage we soon commemorate—intercede for us. And may the Most Holy Virgin, Mater Misericordiae, defend her children in this hour of trial.

With paternal blessing and enduring affection, I remain 🔝

---

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

THE FEAST OF CORPUS CHRISTI (Thursday after Trinity Sunday)

I. Mass: Cibavit eos

• Gloria and Credo are said.
• Preface of the Nativity: Quia per incarnáti Verbi mystérium…
• Sequence: Lauda Sion Salvatorem is sung, standing, before the Gospel.
• Communicantes and Hanc igitur are from the Common.

II. Ceremonial Particularities for the Day

1. Consecration of a Second Host:
   During the Canon, the celebrant consecrates a second large host intended for exposition. This host is placed directly after the Communion of the celebrant into a prepared lunette and inserted into the monstrance, which is placed on the throne or the centre of the altar.
2. Conduct After Communion:
   After the Communion of the faithful, all in the sanctuary behave as in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed:
   • Double genuflections are made whenever crossing before the altar.
   • Ministers and servers never turn their back on the monstrance unnecessarily.
   • Silence and recollection are observed, with heads inclined toward the Blessed Sacrament.
3. Blessing and Dismissal:
   The celebrant gives the Blessing and Dismissal (Ite missa est) according to the rubrics for Mass celebrated in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed. The celebrant does not turn his back fully to the monstrance when giving the blessing.
4. Last Gospel:
   The celebrant reads the Last Gospel at the usual place at the Gospel side:
   • He inclines his head and shoulders toward the monstrance during the entire reading.
   • At Et Verbum caro factum est, he genuflects directly toward the exposed Blessed Sacrament.
5. Preparation for the Procession:
   After the Last Gospel, the celebrant removes the chasuble and puts on a cope, assisted by the ministers.
   • The celebrant also dons a humeral veil before taking the monstrance for the Eucharistic Procession.

III. The Eucharistic Procession

• The Blessed Sacrament, now exposed in the monstrance, is carried solemnly beneath a canopy.
• Incense is used, and candles are carried in procession.
• The faithful sing hymns, particularly Pange lingua and other Eucharistic chants.
• The procession concludes with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, following the usual ceremonial.

THE OCTAVE OF CORPUS CHRISTI (Friday to following Thursday)

Nature of the Octave: Privileged Octave of the First Class

• All days within the Octave use white vestments.
• Gloria is said each day.
• Credo is said on all days with solemnity or when required.
• Proper Preface of the Blessed Sacrament is said each day.

Office:

• The Divine Office includes proper antiphons and hymns throughout the Octave.
• Hymns composed by St. Thomas Aquinas (Verbum supernum, Sacris solemniis, Pange lingua, Adoro te devote) are appointed throughout.

Octave Day (following Thursday):

• The Mass of the Feast (Cibavit eos) is repeated in full, including the Sequence Lauda Sion.
• Another Eucharistic Procession may be held.

Other Liturgical Notes:

• A plenary indulgence is granted to the faithful who devoutly participate in the procession on the Feast or during the Octave.
• Sunday within the Octave, the Sunday Mass is celebrated, but the Mass of the Octave is commemorated (Collect, Secret, Postcommunion). 🔝

---

The Feast of St. Paulinus of Nola – June 22

Bishop, Confessor, and Poet of Charity
St. Paulinus of Nola (c. 354–431) is honoured in the Church as a model of episcopal virtue, monastic simplicity, and Christian charity. His feast is celebrated on June 22 in the traditional Roman calendar, commemorating a man who turned from worldly prestige to spiritual poverty in service to Christ.

From Senator to Saint
Born into a wealthy Roman senatorial family in Bordeaux, France, Paulinus received an excellent classical education under the famed poet Ausonius. He held high civil office under Emperor Theodosius I and was admired as a poet and rhetorician. After his baptism and the tragic death of his infant son, Paulinus renounced his wealth and status, giving generously to the poor and embracing a life of asceticism. He and his wife Therasia relocated to Nola in Campania, Italy, near the tomb of St. Felix the Martyr, where Paulinus built a monastic community and a shrine to the saint.

Bishop and Pastor
Despite his desire for a hidden life, the people of Nola pressed Paulinus into the episcopate around the year 409. As bishop, he continued to live simply, serve the poor, and guide souls with a deep sense of humility. He maintained friendships and correspondence with many eminent Fathers of the Church, including St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Martin of Tours. His letters, hymns, and poems—still extant—offer profound theological insight and an eloquent witness to the inner life of grace.

A Heart for the Poor
St. Paulinus’s love for the poor became legendary. One story recounts that when a widow’s son was taken captive, Paulinus offered himself in exchange and was taken into slavery. Through God’s providence, the boy was released, and Paulinus was later recognised and set free by the governor, who realised he had enslaved a bishop. Whether literal history or hagiographical embellishment, the story expresses the truth of Paulinus’s character: he counted no cost too high in service of charity.

Liturgical Significance
The Roman Martyrology commemorates him as a Confessor and Bishop of Nola, “who, having abandoned great riches and a distinguished position, embraced poverty and humility, and, adorned with virtues and miracles, went to his rest in the Lord.” His feast is a reminder of the Christian call to give all for Christ. In the pre-1955 Tridentine Missal, his liturgical commemoration would include readings and prayers that celebrate his charity, renunciation of the world, and faithfulness to episcopal duty.

Legacy
St. Paulinus’s life bridges the classical world and the Christian Church’s rise in the West. He is remembered as one who showed that literary brilliance and worldly power pale before the beauty of the Gospel. His motto might well have been: “Better to be the least in the house of God than the greatest in the courts of emperors.” 🔝

Footnotes
¹ Roman Martyrology, June 22 entry.
² St. Augustine, Epistulae ad Paulinum, and Confessions, Book VIII (mentions Paulinus by reputation).
³ Butler, Lives of the Saints, June 22.
⁴ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, June 22 (St. Paulinus).

---

Missalettes (Corpus Christi/Sacred Heart)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi

“He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood abideth in Me, and I in him.” (John 6:57)

The Feast Prolonged: A Week of Adoration
Holy Mother Church, in her wisdom, has not been content to assign a single day to the mystery of the Most Blessed Sacrament. As Dom Prosper Guéranger observes in his Liturgical Year, the Church, “in her maternal tenderness,” prolongs the joy of Corpus Christi through an entire octave, that the faithful may more deeply enter into the inexhaustible mystery of the Eucharistic Presence. This Sunday within the Octave serves not merely as an echo of Thursday’s solemnity, but as a further invitation to adore, to believe, and to conform our lives to this most sublime reality: that Christ our God is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, upon our altars and within our very selves.

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: Faith Formed by Worship
The traditional Roman liturgy shapes our belief with precision. The chants and collects of this Sunday speak not of vague symbolism but of the living Christ hidden under the veil of sacrament. The Sequence Lauda Sion—composed by St. Thomas Aquinas and repeated throughout the octave—calls us to proclaim with solemn joy that the Bread is His Flesh and the Wine is His Blood, “though senses fail to see,” for “faith alone suffices.”

Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., in Divine Intimacy, teaches that the Holy Eucharist is the most intimate union possible between the soul and God in this life. It is not a mere participation in a ritual, but an incorporation into Christ. “To receive Communion,” he writes, “is to be penetrated by the divine flame; it is to receive the Lord Himself who desires to transform us into Himself.”

Abide in Me: Eucharistic Communion as the Life of the Soul
The Gospel appointed for this day (John 6) returns us to the very discourse wherein Christ promises to give us His Flesh to eat. Here, the divine paradox confronts us: that eternal life is communicated through death; that the Bread of Heaven is given only through the Cross. As St. Leonard of Port Maurice affirms, “The Eucharist is the invention of Love, by which God gives Himself entirely to His creatures.” What greater proof of Christ’s promise—“Lo, I am with you all days”—than this abiding presence in every tabernacle of the world?

But this presence demands something of us. The early Fathers, such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, taught that sacramental reception must be joined to moral and spiritual preparation. The lex vivendi, the law of living, flows from the altar. A man who receives Christ into his soul while still clinging to sin receives not life but judgment. Thus, the Church bids us to examine ourselves, to confess, to purify our hearts, and to become fitting tabernacles of the Lord.

Corpus Christi: The Feast of the Church’s Heart
As the Eucharist is the heart of Christ, so it is also the heart of the Church. Bl. Ildefonso Schuster, writing as Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, reminds us that it is in the Mass that the Church is truly herself: worshipping the Father, offering the Son, and filled with the Spirit. This Sunday in the Octave stands as a miniature Summit of Summits, a reminder that the life of every Christian—indeed, of the entire world—finds its centre and source in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Let us, then, with renewed fervour, kneel before the Sacred Host this day. Let our thanksgiving not be fleeting, but habitual. Let our lives be shaped by what we receive. And let us plead with the Lord to increase our faith, so that, as Aquinas prayed, “the taste of the Sacred Banquet may be to us a pledge of future glory.”

Adoro Te devote, latens Deitas,
Quae sub his figuris vere latitas…
— St. Thomas Aquinas 🔝

1. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year: Time after Pentecost, Vol. III.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas, Lauda Sion and Adoro Te Devote.
3. Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., Divine Intimacy.
4. Bl. Ildefonso Schuster, The Sacramentary (Liber Sacramentorum).
5. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures.
6. St. Leonard of Port Maurice, The Hidden Treasure of the Holy Mass.

---

“Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread”: A Patristic Meditation

The fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer—“Give us this day our daily bread”—is far richer than a simple request for sustenance. The Church Fathers perceived in this phrase a mystery that touches on the material, the moral, and above all the sacramental life of the Christian. What is “daily bread” but Christ Himself, the Bread of Life, given to us in the Eucharist and in the Word?

St Jerome: Supersubstantial Bread
St Jerome draws attention to the rare Greek word ἐπιούσιον (epiousion), rendered in the Latin Vulgate as supersubstantialem—“supersubstantial.” He argues this indicates a bread beyond ordinary substance, a heavenly bread: “In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, instead of epiousios it reads mahar, which means ‘of the morrow.’ Hence, we understand that the faithful ask for the Bread of the world to come. In my opinion, however, the supersubstantial bread refers to the Eucharist.”¹

This “bread of tomorrow” is none other than the eternal food of the Kingdom, made present now in the Sacrament of the Altar. Jerome also equates the Word of God with this daily nourishment: “Let the Word of God be your bread; the Word of God is not less than the Body of Christ.”²

Here, Scripture and Sacrament are united as the twofold table from which the faithful are fed.

St Augustine: Temporal and Eternal Bread
St Augustine, ever the master of spiritual interpretation, affirms both the literal and mystical senses of the petition. First, he allows for the plain meaning: we pray for our material needs. But then he ascends: “What is that daily bread? It is necessary for this life, but also for the life to come. The Body of Christ is the daily Bread: let us receive it daily, that it may profit us eternally.”³

Augustine warns that a soul fed on earthly food but not heavenly food is famished. Thus, the petition becomes a plea for Christ Himself, received in Holy Communion.

St Cyprian: A Eucharistic Appeal
In his treatise On the Lord’s Prayer, St Cyprian of Carthage shows how this petition binds the believer daily to the altar: “We ask that this bread be given to us daily, lest we, who are in Christ and receive the Eucharist daily as food for salvation, should by any grave sin be separated from the heavenly Bread and be forbidden to communicate.”⁴

The petition expresses not only desire for Christ in the Eucharist, but a longing to remain in a state of grace so as to receive Him worthily. It is a moral cry for perseverance and purity.

Origen and the Bread of the Age to Come
Origen, the Alexandrian master of allegory, also interprets “epiousion” eschatologically: “This is not ordinary bread, but the bread of the coming age (tou mellontos aionos).”⁵

To pray for this Bread is to ask even now for a foretaste of the heavenly banquet—a mystagogical anticipation of the marriage supper of the Lamb.

A Communal Petition
The Fathers unanimously stress the communal dimension of this phrase. We do not pray, “give me,” but “give us.” As Tertullian writes: “He who prays must not think only of himself. We are all one body in Christ. Thus our prayer is always for the Church.”⁶

This petition is a reminder that the Eucharist makes the Church and that we are fed together as one family from the altar.

Conclusion: Christ, Our Daily Bread
This simple petition, then, is a daily liturgical theology. It teaches:

• That we rely on God for our bodily needs;
• That we need spiritual nourishment in Word and Sacrament;
• That we must remain in a state of grace to receive Christ worthily;
• That we anticipate heaven in every Mass;
• That we pray always with and for the Church.

In asking for “daily bread,” we are truly asking: “Lord, give us Yourself.” 🔝

¹ Jerome, Commentariorum in Evangelium Matthaei, Book I, on Matthew 6:11.
² Jerome, Epistula 22 ad Eustochium, §17: “Sit tibi cibus Scriptura divina; sacris te voluminibus oblecta.”
³ Augustine, Sermo 57, on the Lord’s Prayer.
⁴ Cyprian, De Oratione Dominica, §18.
⁵ Origen, De oratione, §27.
⁶ Tertullian, De oratione, §2.

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Second Sunday after Pentecost/Within the Octave of Corpus Christi

Dearly beloved, wonder not if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in himself.

Today is the Sunday within the Octave of the great feast of Corpus Christi, which we celebrated on Thursday, in which we give thanks for the great sacrament of the altar, the Eucharist, the Mass, in which we receive the gift of Christ himself in holy communion to be our spiritual food and sustenance. It is fitting, in this Octave when we remember especially the great gift of God’s sacrificial love to us in the Eucharist, that today’s Epistle from St. John reminds us that love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbour. We have known the charity of God in laying down his life for us. We ought also to show our thanksgiving for the divine charity towards us in living sacrificially for one another, not only in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth.

But what was the context in which St. John first wrote these words? The Epistle was written by St. John to combat an early form of the Gnostic heresy. Gnosticism is the belief in salvation by means of esoteric knowledge rather than by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The developed form of this heresy was combated by St. Irenaeus in the second century, but an earlier form of this heresy was already developing in the apostolic age. St. Paul had combated those who prided themselves on their knowledge in Corinth and also in Colossae. St. John combated those who denied the historical reality of the incarnation and claimed to have access to the Father without the Son in an unmediated God mysticism. They claimed to be beyond law, beyond morality and beyond love of neighbour. He therefore wrote to recall them to the fundamentals of the faith which they claimed to have advanced beyond. Far from being a more advanced form of religion, the denial that Christ had come in the flesh was the very Antichrist, because it claimed to have the Father without the Son. The claim to be beyond morality was a form of self deception. It was necessary to confess sin and acknowledge that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but the sins of the whole world. The commandment to love one another was not a new commandment, but one that they had received from the beginning. Whoever does not love his brother whom he had seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

Most probably the adherents of this heresy had developed their false teaching through a misinterpretation of St. John’s Gospel. St. John had published his Gospel in Ephesus, but it was based on the eyewitness testimony of one who had beheld the glory of the incarnate Word made flesh. He had seen how the incarnate word had come to his own, but his own had not received him. He had written of how light had come into the world but men loved darkness because their deeds were evil.  The world refused to hear the truth because it was under the power of darkness, but those who did receive it were enabled to become the children of God. Unfortunately, this ethical dualism was distorted by the early Gnostics into a metaphysical dualism which claimed that men did not receive the truth not because their deeds were evil, but because they lacked esoteric knowledge. It was for this reason that St. John wrote to combat this misinterpretation of his teaching. For St. John there could be no distinction between being and doing, or between knowing and loving. The message of salvation was for all, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. This was the Gospel which they had received from the beginning. Since the divine charity had been shown in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus so we too ought to live sacrificially for one another.

Despite this clear teaching about love for one another, St. John has sometimes been accused of narrowing the message of Jesus from one of love to the loveless and enemies to a narrow in group of believers. It is said that the denunciations of the denial that Christ had come in the flesh as antichrist is incompatible with the claim to love one another. On the contrary, adherence to the Gospel of love should actually make us more, not less concerned to denounce false teaching. It was precisely because the Gnostic belief in esoteric knowledge undermined the gospel message of love that it had to be denounced. While it is true that the theme of love for social outcasts is less prominent in St. John’s Gospel than in the other gospels, it is still shown in Jesus’s encounter with the adulterous Samaritan woman at the well, in the healing of the paralysed man and the man born blind. What St. John is doing is not simply describing the breath of the love of God in Christ, but also the depth of the love of God in Christ. This depth was shown in the love of Jesus for his disciples on the night on which he was betrayed when he washed his disciples feet and told them to love one another as he had loved them. By this all men would know that they were his disciples if they loved one another. The Gospel message is not simply about abstract philanthropy, but is expressed practically in the love of Jesus’ followers for one another. As St. Paul put it they are to do good to all, especially those of the household of faith. The love that they showed for one another in the Church would be a sign to the world of the message of God’s salvation not for them only, but also for the whole world.

In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him, how doth the charity of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word nor in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 🔝

Nativity of St. John the Baptist

Today we celebrate the great feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. St. John the Baptist was the son of a priest named Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth. Though they were faithful to God they had no son. Elizabeth was barren and already well advanced in years. The time eventually arrived when Zechariah was due to execute his priestly function to offer the incense that accompanied every morning and evening sacrifice in the temple. Due to the number of priests this was something that would only happen once in a priest’s life. While he was standing before the altar of incense an angel appeared to him, assuring him that his prayers had been heard and that his wife Elizabeth would bear him a son who was to be called John. He would be great before God and would drink no wine or strong drink. He would be a prophet in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the incredulous to the wisdom of the just. Zechariah was amazed by this promise, given that he was an old man and his wife Elizabeth was already well advanced in years. He was so astonished by what had happened that he was unable to speak when he finally emerged from the sanctuary. The people who had been waiting outside and wondering what had happened then realised that he had seen a vision.

His wife Elizabeth conceived and eventually gave birth to a son. On the eighth day when they came to circumcise the child the kinsfolk were going to call him by his father’s name Zechariah. But his mother Elizabeth said that he should be called John. When they said that there were none of his kindred that were called by that name they asked his father what he wished the name to be. He asked for a writing tablet and wrote down that the child was to be called John. At this point his tongue was finally loosed (he had been struck dumb with shock and amazement since his vision in the temple) and he praised God in the words of the canticle that we now sing at Lauds, the Benedictus. He praised the God of Israel because he had visited and wrought the redemption of his people. Just as Isaac had been born to his mother Sarah, a previously barren women, and the prophet Samuel to another previously childless woman, Hannah, so now Elizabeth had given birth to John. He grew and became strong in the spirit until the time came when he began his ministry of summoning the nation to return to God, repent of their sins and be baptised.

It is clear that John stood in the tradition of the great Hebrew prophets. The prophets were the conscience of the nation and spoke truth to power. The Old Testament narrative draws a distinction between the kings who exercised power and the prophets who preached righteousness. The prophet spoke truth to power, whether they will hear of whether they will forbear, as Ezekiel put it. The prophet Nathan criticised King David for his adultery with Bathsheba. The prophet Elijah criticised King Ahab for the seizure of Naboth’s vineyard and the subsequent murder of Naboth. John’s condemnation of Herod Antipas’ marriage to his brother’s wife clearly stood in this tradition. In his appearance John resembled Elijah, in his message he resembled Amos, a blunt, outspoken, fearless man. The times were evil, he told his hearers, and they needed to repent and be baptised in the face of divine judgment on their sins. The axe was laid at the root of the tree, and every tree that did not bring forth good fruit would be cast down and thrown into the fire. A mightier one would come after him, indeed who was already among them, who would baptise them with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Some responded to John’s preaching. Most did not. Many were scandalised by his message and Herod Antipas saw his message as potentially so dangerous in terms of his criticism of his marital affairs and the social order in general that he put him to death.

Clearly John, like the Hebrew prophets before him, was no diplomat or soft courtier. He refused to prophesy smooth things or follow the multitude to do evil. He simply spoke truth to power and was prepared to suffer and ultimately die for it. He was an uncomfortable and disturbing figure. He was one of those whom Jesus in the beatitudes described as being persecuted and suffering for righteousness sake.

There is much that we can learn from the life and witness of St. John the Baptist today. All of us are constantly tempted to water down the message of the Gospel to make it more palatable to our audience. We are told that people find the Christian message and our preaching of it offensive. If we proclaim that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and need to repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of our sins we will be told that our message is too much for people today to accept. We live in an age in which people are encouraged at every available opportunity to cultivate their own sense of worth and self esteem. People get offended if you tell them that they are less than perfect or that they should consider the needs of others as well as themselves. Pride was once said to be the cardinal sin and to come before a fall, but it is now seen as the cardinal virtue, for we live in age in which we are all encouraged to believe not in God and objective moral standards, but only in ourselves. We have all followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts and would rather feel good about ourselves than repent of our sins and be forgiven.

But the message of St. John the Baptist is that the truth is more important than diplomacy, and that the truth will out in the end. Let us pray that we will follow his example in our own time by preaching the Gospel in season and out of season, constantly speaking the truth to power, boldly rebuking vice, and patiently suffering for truth’s sake. 🔝

Sacred Heart

Today we celebrate the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. This devotion is of medieval rather than ancient origin. It ultimately derives from the experiences of medieval mystics such as St. Gertrude and St. Mechtilde. It was then popularised in the seventeenth century by St. John Eudes and St. Margaret Mary Alacoque and became a feast day, though it was not included in the universal calendar until the nineteenth century. It is important to emphasise that the mystical experiences of particular saints are not part of the public revelation of the faith once delivered to the saints. They are not dogmas that it is necessary to believe because they explicate the faith that has been upheld everywhere, always and by all. Rather, they belong to the realm of pious opinion and edifying devotion. If the mystical experiences of a particular saint deepen our understanding of the faith once  delivered to the saints we may reasonably accept them. But if they in some way contradict or undermine fundamental dogmas then it may be necessary to question and even reject the validity of the mystical experience that has been claimed.

What may be reasonably said about devotion to the Sacred Heart? It was a relatively late flowering of a devotional shift that occurred fairly early on in the second millennium. In the early centuries of the history of the Church the focus of Christian devotion had been on the Christus Rex, who triumphed over the forces of darkness, sin and death that seem to enslave this world by his Cross and Resurrection. It was classically expressed in the great Passiontide hymns, “Sing my tongue the glorious battle” and the “Royal Banners forward go”. Comparatively little emphasis was placed on the pathos of the scene. This changed in the eleventh century, especially through the writings and influence of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. He placed a great emphasis on the sacred humanity of the one who was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. This development has often been criticised as the intrusion of a sentimental pietism that has distracted the faithful from the dignity and sobriety of the liturgy. It has been equally vigorously defended as a healthy expression of a greater realism that does not equivocate over the grim reality of the sufferings and torments that the Saviour underwent for our sake, for the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him and by his stripes we are healed. The devotion to the Sacred Heart was a late flowering of this new emphasis.

Though the devotion may not be ancient in origin, it does draw our attention to one very important biblical theme. Whereas the ancient Greeks disparaged emotion and emphasised the intellectual or cerebral aspects of humanity, the Jews placed the heart at the centre of the human personality. They had a more holistic understanding of the human person than the ancient Greek philosophers. They knew that people are not always as rational or cerebral as they like to think. They did not disparage the intellect, but rather emphasised that it could not be viewed in isolation from the whole person. The heart of man, the prophet Jeremiah had said, was deceitful above all things and desperately corrupt. The Israelites so often failed to repent because their hearts were hardened. They needed not  simply good advice of the type provided by the philosophers but new, restored and contrite hearts.

The coming of the Saviour into the world to suffer and to die and rise again was necessary to bring into being the age of the new covenant that Jeremiah had looked forward to, when sins would finally be forgiven and the love of God would be poured into our hearts to enable us to think, will and do the good that we could not do by ourselves due to our hardened and sinful hearts.

St. Paul summed up this theme writing to the Ephesians when he spoke of the coming of Christ into the world as providing the key to understanding human history. This had been hidden from eternity in God, but was now made known through the Church’s preaching of the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen. St. Paul prayed that the faithful would be “strengthened by His spirit with might unto the inward man, that Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and grounded in charity, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length and height and depth: to know also the charity of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God.” This was the divine charity that flowed from the heart of the Saviour, that suffereth long and is kind, that vaunteth not itself, that rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.

Today’s Gospel from St. John, of the account of the piercing of the side of the Saviour by the soldiers after his death on the cross, reminds us that our faith is not about the denial of the grim realities of human sin and suffering in a fallen world, but rather about redemption through suffering.

C. S. Lewis once said that we can either remained detached and uninvolved or we can love and be involved and that will involve suffering, for true love is inseparable from suffering. The Risen Christ who appeared to the apostle Thomas still bore the scars of his passion on his risen and glorified body.  It is very different from the impassive serenity of the Buddha, serene and detached from the world. It is not simply good advice of the type provided by philosophers, whether ancient or modern, but good news, the good news of salvation through the life, death and resurrection of the Saviour. Our ultimate hope is not in the dissolution of our personalities into an impersonal absolute, but rather that our own scars will too ultimately be healed through the saving work of him who first suffered pain before he entered into his risen and glorified state and still bears the marks of those wounds.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux stated: “To this end was thy side pierced, that we might find a wide entrance there. To this end was thine heart wounded, that we might be able to dwell in it and in thee, “hidden in the secret of thy presence from the troubling of men.” Nevertheless it was pierced to this end also, that behind that bodily wound which we see, we may perceive that wound of love which is not bodily. And how could that love be more strikingly shown that it is by him who has given, not his body only, but his very heart, to be pierced for us? The bodily wound showeth the spiritual. Who is there that will not love that wounded heart? Who would not return love for love to him that has loved so well? Who would not embrace him that standeth so pure? While, therefore, we yet linger here in this body, let us love and love again him who hath first loved us, let us lay hold on that wounded one, wounded for us, whose hands and feet, whose side and heart, the wicked husbandmen have so pierced. Let us stand waiting till he be pleased to constrain with the bond, and pierce with the spear of his love, these hearts of ours that still are so hard and unrepentant.”

Let us pray that the divine charity of the Saviour will be poured into our hearts, and give us grace to strengthen us amidst the trials and tribulations of this life. 🔝

---

The Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist

The Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist, celebrated on June 24, is one of the most ancient and solemn feasts in the Christian liturgical calendar. Unique among the saints, John the Baptist is honoured with a feast commemorating his birth, not just his martyrdom — a distinction shared only with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Lord Jesus Himself. This is a mark of his exceptional role in salvation history, as the divinely appointed Forerunner who prepared the way for the coming of Christ.

“He shall be great before the Lord” (Luke 1:15). John was sanctified in the womb, leaping with joy at the presence of the unborn Jesus during the Visitation. His birth, foretold by the angel Gabriel to Zechariah, was a miracle in itself, to elderly and barren parents, and marked a turning point in the unfolding of God’s plan of redemption.

Celebrated six months before Christmas, this feast is rich in symbolic significance. Just as the sun begins to decrease after John’s birth (near the summer solstice), so Christ, the Light of the World, increases from His birth at the winter solstice. As John himself said, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

Traditionally, this feast was marked by processions, bonfires, and vigils, especially in rural Europe. The liturgy of the day is jubilant, echoing the Benedictus — the canticle of Zechariah — praising the mercy of God and the dawning of salvation.

In the Old Roman liturgy, the Nativity of St John the Baptist ranks as a first-class feast with a Vigil and an Octave. The Church honours him as the bridge between the Old and New Covenants — “a prophet, and more than a prophet” (Luke 7:26). He is the final voice of the prophets and the first witness of Christ, the one who points and says: “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29).

Let us ask the Baptist’s intercession, that we too may prepare the way for the Lord in our hearts and in our world, with courage, humility, and unwavering fidelity to truth. 🔝

---

The Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus — Friday After the Octave of Corpus Christi

The Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus is a profound celebration of divine love—God’s love made visible and incarnate in the Heart of Christ. Observed on the Friday following the Octave of Corpus Christi, this feast draws us into the mystery of the Redeemer’s pierced Heart, from which flowed blood and water—symbols of the Eucharist and Baptism, and the birth of the Church.

While devotion to the Sacred Heart has ancient roots in Scripture and the Church Fathers, its liturgical solemnity was formally established in the 17th century, following the revelations granted to St Margaret Mary Alacoque in France. In these visions, Our Lord revealed His Heart as “burning with love for men,” wounded by indifference, sacrilege, and ingratitude, especially toward the Blessed Sacrament.

“Behold this Heart which has so loved men.” With these words, Christ invited the faithful to respond with reparation, adoration, and love. Pope Pius IX extended the feast to the universal Church in 1856, and successive popes—especially Leo XIII and Pius XI—deepened the theology of the Sacred Heart as both a symbol and reality of Christ’s infinite charity and mercy.

Liturgically, the feast is rich with themes of atonement and invitation. The Collect pleads that we may be inflamed with the love of the Sacred Heart and conformed to His image. The Epistle (Ephesians 3:8–19) speaks of the breadth and length and height and depth of Christ’s love. The Gospel (John 19:31–37) recounts the piercing of His side—a key event from which the Church mystically draws her life.

The Heart of Jesus is not a poetic metaphor but the real human Heart of the Incarnate Word, united hypostatically to His divine nature. In this Heart, we see not only tenderness, but kingship; not only sentiment, but sacrifice. The Sacred Heart is the seat of both mercy and justice, from which flows grace for the conversion of sinners, consolation for the afflicted, and courage for the faithful.

This feast calls each of us to enthrone Christ in our homes and hearts, to return love for love, and to unite our sufferings with His. In the words of Pope Pius XII: “The Sacred Heart of Jesus is the principal sign and symbol of that threefold love with which the divine Redeemer unceasingly loves His eternal Father and all mankind.”

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! 🔝

---

---

Forgotten Rubrics: The Pinched Fingers of the Priest

Among the many rubrics of the traditional Roman Rite that have fallen into obscurity or been widely neglected since the liturgical reforms of the twentieth century is the simple but profound gesture of the priest keeping his thumb and forefinger joined after the consecration. This small act—so easily overlooked—is a powerful expression of reverence for the sacred and of Catholic faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Meaning of the Gesture
In the traditional Latin Mass, once the priest has pronounced the words of consecration over the bread and wine, transubstantiation has taken place: the bread is no longer bread but the true Body of Christ, and the wine is no longer wine but His Precious Blood. From that moment, every particle of the Sacred Host must be treated with the utmost reverence.

To guard against the loss of even the smallest fragment of the consecrated Host, the rubrics prescribe that the priest keep the thumb and forefinger of each hand joined—coniungit pollices et indices—from the moment of the consecration until the purification of the fingers after Holy Communion. This is a visible reminder to himself and the faithful that those fingers have touched the Body of God. It is a gesture of awe, caution, and love.

Liturgical Witness
This rubric is not only an ancient custom but one enshrined in the Missale Romanum. For centuries, it was universally observed by priests of the Latin Church. The pinched fingers became one of the hallmarks of Eucharistic devotion, forming part of a larger tradition of liturgical reverence—including the use of the paten and pall, the meticulous purification of vessels, and the covering of the altar with multiple linens to catch any fragments.

The Loss and Its Consequences
With the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969, this rubric was omitted from the new Missal and fell quickly into disuse. Its absence reflects a wider de-emphasis on rubrics that emphasize Eucharistic realism. While the Church’s doctrine has not formally changed, the loss of such gestures has led, in practice, to a weakening of belief among the faithful. Surveys consistently show that belief in the Real Presence has declined drastically in recent decades.

A Call to Restoration
In movements of liturgical renewal and traditionalism, there has been a growing awareness of the value of these forgotten rubrics. Many young priests trained in the Tridentine Mass have rediscovered the spiritual depth these practices embody. The pinched fingers are no mere aesthetic flourish: they are acts of worship.

The restoration of such practices is not nostalgia. It is a reawakening of the Catholic instinct that worship should be filled with reverence and exactitude—ars celebrandi flowing from lex credendi. As Pope Benedict XVI noted in Sacramentum Caritatis, “the way we celebrate the liturgy influences the way we believe.”

Conclusion
The joining of the thumb and forefinger may seem a small thing, but in the liturgy, small things signify great mysteries. In that simple gesture lies a profound theology of the Eucharist, a quiet homage to the majesty of Christ hidden under the veil of bread. To remember such forgotten rubrics is not merely to restore tradition, but to rekindle faith. 🔝

---

5 Holy Doors: What Every Catholic Should Know Ahead of Jubilee 2025

As the Church prepares to enter the 2025 Jubilee Year—the Jubilee of Hope—the faithful are being invited once again to pass through the Holy Doors of Rome, a rich and symbolic tradition signifying repentance, grace, and new life in Christ. This Jubilee, proclaimed by Pope Francis in his bull Spes Non Confundit (“Hope Does Not Disappoint”) on the feast of the Ascension, will begin on Christmas Eve, 2024, and conclude on the Epiphany, January 6, 2026.

The Five Holy Doors of Jubilee 2025
For this extraordinary Holy Year, five Holy Doors will be opened:

1. St. Peter’s Basilica – opened by Pope Francis on Christmas Eve; it will also be the last to close on the Epiphany 2026.
2. St. John Lateran – opened on Dec. 29, the feast of the Holy Family.
3. St. Mary Major – opened on Jan. 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God.
4. St. Paul Outside the Walls – opened on Jan. 5.
5. Rebibbia Prison Chapel – a Jubilee innovation: a Holy Door among the incarcerated, opened personally by the Pope.

The three major basilicas after St. Peter’s will close their Holy Doors on December 28, 2025, a week before the Jubilee ends.

What Is a Holy Door?
As Spes Non Confundit affirms, the Holy Door is a symbol of Christ Himself—“the door” (John 10:7) by which we enter into salvation. Pilgrims who pass through these doors with faith and contrition express their desire to leave behind sin and enter more deeply into communion with the Church.

St. John Paul II, in his own Jubilee bull Incarnationis Mysterium (1998), powerfully taught that the Holy Door “evokes the passage from sin to grace,” reminding the faithful that to pass through it is to “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” and commit to the “new life” He offers.

Scriptural Roots and Patristic Imagery
The symbolism of the Holy Door is deeply scriptural:

• “Knock, and the door shall be opened” (Luke 11:9)
• “Behold, I stand at the door and knock” (Rev 3:20)
• “I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved” (John 10:9)

These verses are not mere metaphors but truths fulfilled in Christ, echoed by the Fathers of the Church. St. Augustine sees Christ as “the door by which the shepherds and sheep enter” (In Io. Ev. Tract. 47), while St. Gregory the Great writes, “He is the door because He opens the way to eternal life.”

A Tradition Rooted in History
The tradition of the Jubilee Year began with Pope Boniface VIII in 1300, though the practice of opening a Holy Door came later, first recorded in 1423 at St. John Lateran. In 1499, Pope Alexander VI extended the practice to the other three major basilicas of Rome. By the 16th century, Jubilee Years were fixed every 25 years—with extraordinary Jubilees proclaimed at the Pope’s discretion, such as 1933 (the 1900th anniversary of Redemption) and 2000.

Ritual and Symbolism
From 1525 to 1950, the Holy Door of St. Peter’s was walled up and ceremonially broken open with a silver hammer by the Pope. Since the Jubilee of 1975 and especially in 2000, greater emphasis has been placed on the door itself—now cast in bronze with 16 biblical bas-reliefs depicting the history of sin and redemption, from Adam and the Angel to the Good Thief, Thomas’ doubt, and the opening of the Holy Door itself.

As Cardinal Virgilio Noè once wrote: “The sixteen panels of the door are like the verses of a hymn, which sing of God’s infinite mercy.”

Mercy for the Incarcerated
In a striking gesture, Pope Francis has chosen to open one of the five Holy Doors at Rebibbia Prison, inviting prisoners to experience the mercy and hope of the Jubilee. In Spes Non Confundit, he urges that all prisoners “look to the future with hope and a renewed sense of confidence.” This aligns with his vision of a Church that reaches to the peripheries, a theme he consistently returns to in his pontificate.

Pastoral Significance
The Holy Doors are not talismans, but sacramental signs calling the faithful to conversion, penance, and spiritual renewal. They offer an opportunity for indulgences, as per the ordinary conditions: sacramental confession, reception of the Eucharist, and prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father.

As the master of papal liturgical celebrations has noted, the prayer used before opening the Holy Door is drawn from Luke 4:18, where Christ proclaims “a year of favor from the Lord.” The Church, continuing His mission, invites all to encounter the “Door of Hope” (Hosea 2:15) and to rediscover the promise of mercy and transformation.

Conclusion: The Door Is Open—But Must Be Crossed
Ultimately, the Holy Door confronts each Catholic with a decision. As John Paul II said, “To pass through that door means to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” It is an act of hope, an embrace of divine mercy, and a step toward renewal. As the 2025 Jubilee of Hope approaches, Catholics are called not merely to admire the door—but to walk through it. 🔝

1. Spes Non Confundit, Bull of Indiction of the Jubilee Year 2025, Pope Francis, May 9, 2024.
2. Incarnationis Mysterium, Bull of Indiction of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000, Pope John Paul II, Nov 29, 1998.
3. St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 47.
4. St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, Homily 19.
5. Cardinal Virgilio Noè, The Holy Door in St. Peter’s, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§1471–1479, on indulgences and Jubilee participation.

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

Not Made by Human Hands: A New Docuseries on Our Lady of Guadalupe Weaves Science, History, and Faith into a Living Witness

On December 12, 2025—the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe—a new seven-part docuseries titled Not Made by Human Hands is set to premiere, offering a compelling cinematic exploration of the most scientifically studied and symbolically rich Marian apparition in Catholic history. The production, directed by Zach Breakfield and Whitney Hzel in collaboration with Good Catholic, aims to present the miracle of the tilma not simply as an historical relic, but as a living testimony to divine intervention and maternal evangelization still relevant for the modern world.

An Image Beyond Human Skill
The central focus of the series is the tilma of St Juan Diego, the cactus-fibre cloak upon which the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary miraculously appeared in 1531. The docuseries takes its title from the claim long held by the Church and increasingly supported by scientists: this image was “not made by human hands”¹.

First examined seriously in 1921 and again throughout the 20th century, the tilma has baffled ophthalmologists who observed in the Virgin’s eyes not only reflected figures—such as Juan Diego, Bishop Zumárraga, and others—but a triple reflection, corresponding precisely with the optical phenomenon seen in a living human eye². This phenomenon, unknown to science until the modern era, is now understood as the Samson-Purkinje effect—a sequence of corneal, aqueous, and inverted reflections impossible for a 16th-century artist to replicate³.

No brushstrokes or underdrawings are detectable on the fabric. High-magnification studies reveal that the colouration is not on the surface of the tilma, nor absorbed into the fibres with any known pigment. Instead, each fibre appears naturally to bear its colour, forming what scientists describe as a “pixelation” effect akin to a digital mosaic—centuries before such technology existed⁴.

Miraculous Preservation and Cosmic Imagery
Even more startling is the tilma’s resilience. Composed of coarse agave fibre—normally expected to decay within thirty years—the image remains intact after nearly five centuries, surviving exposure to heat, humidity, and even a bomb attack in 1921. While a bronze crucifix nearby was twisted and shattered, the image on the tilma remained untouched⁵.

Infrared and astronomical studies have revealed that the stars on the Virgin’s mantle align with constellations visible in the Mexican sky on the morning of December 12, 1531—seen not from earth but as if viewed from the heavens⁶. These cosmic details would have held profound meaning for the indigenous Mexicans, whose religious calendar was governed by celestial movements⁷.

Historical Catalyst for Conversion
The appearance of Our Lady to Juan Diego occurred at a time of profound crisis. Though the Spanish had conquered Mexico in 1521, the indigenous peoples remained largely unconvinced by the Christian faith. The brutal practice of human sacrifice had not entirely disappeared, and fear of the old gods still gripped many hearts⁸.

Despite the efforts of missionaries—particularly the Franciscans—conversion was slow and conflict rife. Bishop Zumárraga himself had written to Emperor Charles V despairing of the mission’s fruitfulness and pleading for divine aid⁹.

The Blessed Virgin’s apparition, recorded in the Nican Mopohua (a Nahuatl-language text written by Antonio Valeriano in the mid-16th century), was the answer to that prayer. Dressed in the manner of a Mestiza woman, speaking gently in the local tongue, and conveying both maternal tenderness and theological clarity, Our Lady of Guadalupe presented herself as the mother of the true God¹⁰. The image on the tilma—clothed in constellations, standing on the moon, and eclipsing the sun—visually displaced the Aztec deities and proclaimed her Son as the one and final sacrifice¹¹.

Within a decade, over nine million conversions to Catholicism occurred—a number unparalleled in Church history and seen by many as the definitive end to ritual sacrifice in Mesoamerica¹².

A Marian Method of Evangelization
The series pays particular attention to the manner of Our Lady’s approach—what the filmmakers call her “evangelization through gentleness.” Her words to Juan Diego are recorded with tenderness and dignity: *“Am I not here, I who am your mother? Are you not under my shadow and my protection?”*¹³

By speaking in Juan Diego’s language, presenting herself in mixed cultural attire, and evoking familial affection rather than imperial command, the Blessed Virgin modeled an evangelistic approach rooted not in coercion, but in personal love. This approach, the filmmakers suggest, holds vital lessons for evangelization today—particularly in a world torn by spiritual confusion, loneliness, and violence.

A Series for Believers and Skeptics Alike
The project’s uniqueness lies not only in its layered treatment of science, history, and theology, but in its structure: a seven-part cinematic documentary filmed on location in Mexico, narrated through the Nican Mopohua, and including commentary from leading experts such as Fr Robert Spitzer SJ and scientists with ophthalmological, iconographic, and astrophysical expertise¹⁴.

Breakfield himself began the project with only a cradle-Catholic’s superficial knowledge of the apparition, which became a strength. “I came in skeptical,” he says, “and every time I thought I found one explanation, I uncovered twenty more mysteries. The evidence is overwhelming.”¹⁵

Not Just for Mexico, But for the World
In recent decades, Our Lady of Guadalupe has become a global symbol—not only for Mexican Catholics, but for pro-life advocates, Marian devotees, and those seeking comfort in a troubled world. Her image appears on candles, murals, tattoos, and devotional art far beyond Latin America.

Yet, as Hzel notes, many people view her as “the Mexican Mary” without understanding the depth and universality of her message. Not Made by Human Hands seeks to restore that understanding. “This isn’t just for Mexico,” she says. “It’s for the world. Our Lady came to heal the divisions of a broken society—and she still does.”¹⁶

Conclusion: The Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ
As Pope Pius XI wrote in Quas Primas, “Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.”¹⁷ The filmmakers close the series with that hope: that devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe will once again lead individuals and nations to submit to the loving reign of her Son.

Our Lady of Guadalupe is not a relic of the past. She is the Queen of the Americas, the Mother of the Church, and, even now, a herald of conversion and peace. Not Made by Human Hands promises to be more than a documentary. It is an invitation—to believe, to trust, and to return to the Mother who leads us to her Son. 🔝

1. The phrase non facta manu humana has long been used in Marian devotion, especially in reference to the tilma. Cf. P. López, The Wonder of Guadalupe (Tan, 1981).
2. Dr. Rafael Torija Lavoignet and later ophthalmologists including Dr. José Aste Tonsmann documented these findings from 1951 onward.
3. Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ, has publicly spoken on the presence of the Purkinje-Sanson images in the tilma’s eyes.
4. NASA researchers and other scientific panels have observed that the colour is embedded in the fibres without pigment or dye.
5. The 1921 bomb incident is well documented; a brass crucifix nearby was mangled, while the image was untouched.
6. Astronomical correlation of the tilma’s stars with the 1531 winter solstice sky has been reported by scholars including Juan Hernández Illescas.
7. Aztec priests governed ritual calendars using stellar constellations and planetary alignments.
8. Bernardino de Sahagún, Florentine Codex, Book 2, records the persistence of sacrificial rites post-conquest.
9. Letter of Zumárraga to Charles V, cited in historical summaries of the Franciscan mission.
10. Nican Mopohua, trans. Miguel León-Portilla, is regarded as an authoritative Nahuatl-language record of the apparition.
11. Cf. Carl Anderson & Msgr. Eduardo Chávez, Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love (Doubleday, 2009).
12. Estimated conversion numbers cited by the Acta Ecclesiastica Mexicana and later confirmed in Vatican missionary records.
13. Nican Mopohua, section 119–122.
14. The series includes interviews with Fr. Spitzer, theologians, and scientists in Mexico and the U.S.
15. Zach Breakfield, LSNTV interview, 2025.
16. Whitney Hzel, LSNTV interview, 2025.
17. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, §1–2, 1925.

---

When Human Dignity Becomes Conditional: The Collapse of Rights in a Post-Christian Order

“The very notion of universal human rights is grounded in the premise that life has intrinsic value—value not conferred by health, autonomy, or utility, but by the simple fact of our shared humanity. When society begins to assign worth based on perceived quality of life, it begins to dismantle the foundation of justice itself.”¹

So wrote the Titular Archbishop of Selsey in a pastoral letter to Sussex MPs ahead of the vote on the Assisted Dying Bill. Beneath this statement lies a stark warning—one that legislators and moral philosophers alike would do well to heed. For when the right to life is made conditional, all other rights inevitably collapse.

The Metaphysical Basis of Rights
Human rights are not free-floating moral claims, disconnected from any ontological foundation. They derive their coherence and force from the premise that every human being possesses inherent dignity. This, in turn, rests on a theological and philosophical anthropology: that man is made in the image of God (imago Dei), endowed with reason, will, and an immortal soul. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights presupposed this Christian moral vision, even if it did not state it openly.

The Fathers of the Church affirmed this vision as early as the fourth century. St. Gregory of Nyssa insists that “the image of God belongs equally to all… there is in us no difference, one from another, except what sin brings in”²—thus rejecting any notion of earned or conditional dignity. Likewise, St. Ambrose teaches that dignity resides not in appearance or capacity, but in the soul itself: “The image of God is not in the outward appearance, but in the soul’s inward faculties. He who cares for the sick honours God.”³

From Universality to Utilitarianism
But what happens when this foundation is denied? What happens when “dignity” is redefined in terms of autonomy, contribution, or comfort? It becomes subjective, and its application arbitrary. Some people—those who are elderly, disabled, terminally ill, or unborn—can be legally defined out of protection.

This is already visible in the growing acceptance of euthanasia and abortion under the guise of compassion. But who defines quality of life? Once the absolute value of life is rejected, justice becomes negotiable, and protection becomes preferential.

St. John Chrysostom warned of this danger in blunt terms: “The poor man is the altar of Christ. To despise him is to blaspheme the Lord.”⁴ In other words, Christ is present not only in the strong and successful, but most especially in the weak and vulnerable. To fail in justice toward them is to fail in justice altogether.

The Death of the Weak, the Death of Justice
Justice—iustitia—is the virtue that renders to each his due. It presupposes that each person has something due to him by nature, not by consensus or calculation. St. Thomas Aquinas affirms that “all men are equal in nature, though not in condition. By nature all men are equal.”⁵ From this flows the Scholastic understanding of natural right, which requires the State to uphold what is due to man by virtue of his being.

To abandon this is to unmoor justice from reality. Francisco de Vitoria, writing in the 16th century against the abuse of indigenous peoples, stated plainly that “even the barbarians are not excluded from the right of dominion and property. They possess true dominion and jurisdiction by natural law.”⁶ It is not civilisation, usefulness, or consent that confers rights—but nature, and the Creator who authored it.

The Restoration of a Civilisation of Life
The alternative is clear: a re-grounding of human rights in metaphysical truth. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae, “the value of life can never be made subject to any judgement of its quality.”⁷ In a truly just society, it is precisely the weakest—the unborn, the disabled, the dying—who receive the strongest protections.

Blessed John Duns Scotus affirms this eternal dignity, teaching that “the human soul is of such dignity that it cannot be created for any end other than God Himself.”⁸ This is the Christian understanding of man: not a thing to be managed, but a person to be reverenced.

We are at a crossroads. The Archbishop’s letter reminds us that this is not merely a political debate—it is a civilisational decision. Either we reaffirm the sanctity of life as the foundation of justice, or we descend into a technocratic barbarism where rights are stripped from the voiceless, and justice becomes a mask for violence.

Let us choose life, and in doing so, choose to remain human. 🔝

¹ Pastoral Letter of the Titular Archbishop of Selsey to Sussex Members of Parliament, June 2025.
² St. Gregory of Nyssa, De Hominis Opificio, ch. 16.
³ St. Ambrose, De Officiis, II.140.
⁴ St. John Chrysostom, Homily 50 on Matthew.
⁵ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 66, a.2, ad 1.
⁶ Francisco de Vitoria, Relectio de Indis, 1539.
⁷ Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995, §63.
⁸ Blessed John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, IV, dist. 49.

---

A Grave Moment for Life — Reflections on This Week’s UK Parliamentary Votes

This week, the United Kingdom witnessed the passage of two profoundly consequential pieces of legislation that strike at the heart of society’s commitment to the dignity of human life. The Assisted Dying Bill, permitting medical assistance to end the lives of terminally ill adults, and the sweeping decriminalisation of abortion together mark a watershed moment in the moral and legal framework of the nation.

Background: The Assisted Dying Bill and Abortion Decriminalisation
On June 20, 2025, the House of Commons approved the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by a narrow margin of 314 to 291. This legislation allows adults with a terminal diagnosis and a prognosis of six months or less to request assistance from medical professionals to end their lives, subject to approvals by two doctors and a multidisciplinary panel. While proponents present this as a compassionate choice for those suffering, the Bill has been met with widespread criticism from medical professionals, disability advocates, and ethicists who warn of inadequate safeguards and the risk of coercion¹.

Just days earlier, on June 17, Parliament voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion across England and Wales. This amendment removes criminal penalties for terminating pregnancies at any stage, including beyond the existing 24-week threshold, provided certain medical protocols are met. The move has been hailed by supporters as a victory for reproductive rights but condemned by opponents who fear it opens the door to increased terminations and diminished protections for vulnerable women and unborn children².

Archbishop Jerome Lloyd’s Response
The Most Reverend Dr Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, has been a vociferous and principled voice opposing both measures. His pastoral office and public statements have emphasised the profound moral challenges these votes pose.

Shortly after the abortion vote, Archbishop Lloyd declared:

“You have stripped human life of its inherent dignity, reducing it to a commodity—valued only when subjectively desired, not for its innate and unrepeatable worth. Without the right to life—the most basic, foundational human right—no other rights can stand. These votes sever the very root of justice.”³

On the Assisted Dying Bill’s passage, he remarked:

“Permitting the state’s involvement in ending life diminishes the inherent worth of each individual and risks pressuring the vulnerable to choose death over care. True compassion demands better palliative care and accompaniment, not facilitated death.”⁴

The Archbishop also expressed his deep disappointment that Parliament appears to have turned away from its duty to protect the weakest members of society, warning of a “troubling shift away from protecting the most vulnerable—unborn children, the terminally ill, the disabled, and the elderly—and toward a society that places subjective judgments of suffering above the intrinsic dignity of every human person.”⁵

Broader Concerns and Criticisms
Archbishop Lloyd’s concerns echo a broader coalition of medical professionals, disability rights organizations, ethicists, and faith leaders who have repeatedly warned that these laws risk undermining the sanctity of human life by allowing it to be ended based on subjective assessments of suffering or “quality of life.” They highlight the risks of coercion, inadequate safeguards, and a cultural shift toward judging life’s value by subjective criteria⁶.

Disability advocacy groups, including Disability Rights UK, have specifically highlighted the dangers of normalising assisted dying, fearing it sends the message that lives lived with disability or chronic illness are less worth protecting⁷.

A Call to Conscience and Action
In the wake of these votes, Archbishop Lloyd calls on all faithful and people of goodwill to deepen their commitment to the protection of life in all its stages and circumstances. He exhorts society to prioritise care, support, and accompaniment over legalised death.

“In the days and years ahead, we must renew our commitment to uphold every life as sacred and inviolable, to support the vulnerable, and to advocate for care that affirms life at all stages.”⁸

Conclusion
These legislative decisions are more than legal changes; they signal a profound cultural shift. As the Assisted Dying Bill moves to the House of Lords and the implications of abortion decriminalisation unfold, the Church remains steadfast in its mission to defend the dignity of every human person, promote life-affirming care, and offer a voice to those most vulnerable.

For more on Archbishop Jerome Lloyd’s reflections and the Church’s ongoing response, visit selsey.org. 🔝

1. The Guardian, “Assisted dying law England and Wales bill passed,” 20 June 2025
2. The Guardian, “Decriminalisation abortion vote MPs,” 17 June 2025
3. Archbishop Jerome Lloyd, selsey.org, June 17, 2025.
4. Archbishop Jerome Lloyd, selsey.org, June 20, 2025.
5. Archbishop Jerome Lloyd, selsey.org, June 2025.
6. Disability Rights UK, disabilityrightsuk.org
7. Ibid.
8. Archbishop Jerome Lloyd, selsey.org, June 2025.

---

Pope Leo XIV Revives Papal Summer Tradition with Castel Gandolfo Retreat

Pope Leo XIV will reintroduce a centuries-old tradition this July by retreating to the papal villa at Castel Gandolfo, marking a notable departure from his predecessor’s practice. The Vatican confirmed that the Holy Father will take a two-week period of rest in the papal summer residence, resuming a custom that dates back to Pope Urban VIII in 1626 but which Pope Francis had suspended in favour of remaining in Rome year-round.

The Prefecture of the Papal Household announced on June 17 that Pope Leo will reside in the Villa Barberini from July 6 to July 20, with all private and general audiences suspended during this time. The Holy Father will celebrate Sunday Mass on July 13 at St. Thomas of Villanova, the parish church in Castel Gandolfo’s main square, followed by the traditional Angelus. The following Sunday, July 20, he will celebrate Mass in Albano Laziale Cathedral before offering the Angelus again in Castel Gandolfo and returning to the Vatican that afternoon.

In a further nod to tradition, Pope Leo will return to the papal villa from August 15 to 17, presiding at Mass for the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15 — long the spiritual high point of the papal summer retreat. He will once again lead the Angelus in the square on both August 15 and 17 before concluding his visit.

The papal estate in Castel Gandolfo is expansive, covering 135 acres, surpassing Vatican City itself. It comprises 74 acres of gardens, 62 acres of farmland, and multiple residences. A small farm continues to operate there, producing dairy and other goods for papal use, while fruit orchards, vineyards, and flowerbeds contribute to the beauty and sustainability of the estate.

In May 2025, Pope Leo visited the Borgo Laudato Si’, an ecological education initiative launched by Pope Francis in 2023 within the villa’s grounds. While Pope Francis transformed the main papal palace into a museum and opened the grounds to the public, he never used it as a residence during his pontificate.

With this return to Castel Gandolfo, Pope Leo XIV signals a continuity with historical papal customs while also reaffirming the value of rest, prayer, and public pastoral presence beyond Vatican walls. For the local townspeople and pilgrims, it represents a welcome renewal of a beloved summer rhythm — one which once brought thousands of visitors and a uniquely Marian liturgical festivity to the Alban Hills each August. 🔝

¹ Prefecture of the Papal Household Communiqué, June 17, 2025
² Vatican Press Office, Matteo Bruni, official confirmation of July residence, June 17, 2025
³ CNS Report by Carol Glatz, June 17, 2025
⁴ History of the papal use of Castel Gandolfo, Vatican archives
⁵ Papal visit to Borgo Laudato Si’, May 29, 2025, Vatican News
⁶ Castel Gandolfo property description, Vatican Museums guide, 2024 edition

---

Léon of Peru: Vatican Media Releases Documentary Honouring Missionary Bishop

Vatican Media has announced the release of a new documentary film titled Léon de Pérou: Shepherd and Servant, chronicling the life and apostolic witness of Bishop David William Valencia Antonio, affectionately known among the indigenous peoples of the Peruvian Amazon as “Léon.”

The film is scheduled to premiere in Rome on 28 June 2025, with global distribution to follow on Vatican News and official YouTube channels. Produced in collaboration with the Dicastery for Evangelisation and the Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial Network (REPAM), the documentary is intended to celebrate what Vatican sources describe as a “life lived in the peripheries” in the spirit of Evangelii Gaudium.

A Missionary of the Margins
Bishop Antonio, originally from the Philippines, was appointed Apostolic Administrator of the Vicariate of Puerto Maldonado in 2018. He is widely credited with revitalising pastoral outreach to the Amazonian poor and bringing sacramental presence to regions long neglected by the institutional Church. The documentary highlights his commitment to indigenous accompaniment, environmental protection, and evangelisation marked by what Pope Francis has called a “synodal” approach to listening and service.

The title Léon de Pérou reflects the affectionate name given to him by local communities—“the Lion of Peru”—not only for his courage in confronting illegal mining and deforestation, but also for his fierce fidelity to the Gospel in a region plagued by exploitation and neglect.

A Papal Endorsement
Pope Francis reportedly praised the film in a private screening, commending Bishop Antonio’s life as “a witness of the Gospel that gives voice to the voiceless.” In keeping with Francis’ consistent emphasis on the margins, the documentary portrays Bishop Antonio as a model of the Church “going forth”—though some traditional commentators may question the lack of attention given to doctrinal and liturgical integrity in these mission contexts.

Production and Perspective
The film incorporates previously unreleased footage from the vicariate, personal testimonies from clergy and lay leaders, and commentary from key voices in the Amazon Synod process. While the documentary foregrounds themes of accompaniment and inculturation, it also subtly raises tensions about the shape of Catholic identity in remote missions—a question increasingly urgent in an age marked by doctrinal confusion and liturgical experimentation.

A Moment for Reflection
For traditional Catholics, Léon de Pérou may serve both as a moving testimony to heroic pastoral charity and as a point of critical reflection. What does missionary fidelity look like when detachment from Rome often coincides with a detachment from Tradition? Can synodality and sacramental orthodoxy coexist in the Amazon?

The documentary, for all its limitations, brings these questions to the fore. It deserves not only to be watched, but thoughtfully discerned. 🔝

¹ Vatican News, “Léon de Pérou: Vatican Media to Release Documentary on Bishop David Antonio,” 20 June 2025.
² Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, 20–24.
³ Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region, Instrumentum Laboris, 2019.
⁴ For commentary on doctrinal fidelity in mission contexts, see Fr. Thomas Crean OP and Fr. Nicholas Bux, The Missionary Mandate and the Crisis of Inculturation (2021).

---

Detroit’s Decree: Targeting Tradition in the Name of Unity

On June 12, 2025, Archbishop Edward Weisenburger of Detroit issued a formal decree implementing new norms under Traditionis Custodes. The decree, couched in bureaucratic language and framed as a service to “unity,” represents yet another step in the progressive restriction of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM)—not merely as a pastoral adjustment, but as a calculated dismantling of the Church’s liturgical continuity.

One Shrine, One Exception
At the heart of the decree is the designation of St. Joseph Shrine—entrusted to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICKSP)—as the sole location within the Archdiocese of Detroit where the TLM may continue to be celebrated publicly. Even this exception is granted conditionally, not as a recognition of right or spiritual necessity, but by way of institutional toleration. The decree makes clear that St. Joseph’s is permitted to function under the 1962 Missal due to historical arrangements, not because the ancient rite holds any enduring place in the liturgical life of the Church.

No provision is made for other parishes to adopt the TLM, and no new initiatives will be approved. The decree essentially locks the faithful into a liturgical reservation, a walled compound for tradition within a broader ecclesial landscape now dominated by uniform Novus Ordo celebration.

This aligns with a Vatican-wide strategy now visible across dioceses: isolate traditional liturgy in one or two enclaves, deny diocesan clergy the means to access it freely, and cultivate a mindset that regards tradition as an awkward relic of the past rather than a living source of grace.

Bureaucracy Over Piety
For diocesan priests who seek to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass, the decree imposes a series of requirements that go beyond pastoral prudence into the realm of ideological conformity. Priests must:

1. Demonstrate rubrical competence.
2. Sign a testamentary written statement affirming the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy as the normative expression of the Roman Rite.
3. Agree not to celebrate the TLM when it would constitute bination (i.e., offering a second Mass on the same day) or when no faithful are present.

This procedure resembles a loyalty oath more than a pastoral discernment. It presumes guilt—namely, disobedience or doctrinal deviation—on the part of traditionalist clergy and imposes conditions alien to the Church’s tradition. For centuries, the Church presumed a priest’s right to celebrate the Roman Rite once duly ordained and formed. But now, many must beg to celebrate the very Mass canonized by the Council of Trent and offered by countless saints.

Unity or Uniformity?
Archbishop Weisenburger, like others implementing Traditionis Custodes, frames the decree as a means of “promoting unity.” But what kind of unity is achieved by alienating faithful families, marginalizing tradition-minded clergy, and nullifying organic expressions of Catholic life?

This selective concern for unity is conspicuously absent in other contexts. German bishops continue to promote same-sex blessings, deny central truths of the faith, and remain in full communion without Vatican sanction¹. Liturgical abuses—from clown Masses to syncretistic rituals such as the Pachamama ceremonies—receive, at most, indulgent silence.

The truth is that unity in this context means uniformity in rupture. The continuity of worship with the Church’s past is seen not as an enrichment but as a liability to the postconciliar liturgical project.

As Pope Benedict XVI once warned, “what was sacred for prior generations remains sacred and great for us too”². Yet current decrees suggest the opposite: that what was once held as sacred may now be restricted, diminished, or even extinguished.

The Forgotten Faithful
Most alarming in the Detroit decree is the omission of any meaningful reference to the laity. No consideration is given to the demographics of the TLM’s adherents: the young families, vocations, and converts whose spiritual lives are nourished by the reverent and transcendent celebration of the ancient rite.

Statistical studies, such as those published by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, have consistently shown that traditional parishes yield more frequent Confession, stronger family structures, and greater openness to religious vocations³. These signs of vitality are nowhere acknowledged.

Instead, the unspoken presumption is that the laity can be reprogrammed—transitioned painlessly to the Novus Ordo as though the liturgy were an app to be updated. But the human soul is not software, and attachment to the sacred is not sentimentalism. It is love.

A Template for Suppression
Detroit’s decree is not an isolated case. It is a model. A playbook. One already executed in Chicago, San Diego, Arlington, and Paris. The core strategy is consistent:

• Designate a single “authorized” location for the TLM.
• Forbid or discourage diocesan priests from offering it.
• Require affirmations of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo.
• Suppress the Sunday celebration of the TLM where possible.
• Ignore the pleas of the faithful and the fruit borne by tradition.

The aim is not reconciliation but reformation—not a return to unity, but the imposition of liturgical amnesia.

The Faithful Response: Memory and Fidelity
The Catholic faithful who love the TLM do so not because of ideology but because of inheritance. They are not rebels, but heirs. The Mass they defend is not a museum piece but the living worship of the Mystical Body.

As St. Basil the Great observed during the Arian crisis, “The doctrines of the Fathers are despised, apostolic traditions set at naught… the laity keep silence, but the people lament”⁴. His words ring true again.

But history, too, offers hope. The Traditional Mass has survived emperors, heretics, revolutions, and schisms. It will survive this bureaucratic persecution. The faithful will continue to gather—where they can, how they can—to offer the Holy Sacrifice in the rite hallowed by saints, affirmed by councils, and guarded by the Holy Spirit through centuries of suffering.

Final Thought
Let Detroit stand as both a milestone and a warning. The milestone marks the point at which coercive uniformity is now the law in many dioceses. The warning is this: that unity divorced from tradition is an illusion, and the attempt to erase the sacred memory of the Church will only produce deeper division.

But the memory of the Church is resilient. And the Mass of Ages, born in the catacombs and renewed in every age by fidelity and sacrifice, will endure. 🔝

1. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum to a dubium on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex (15 March 2021). Despite this ruling, multiple German bishops have conducted such blessings publicly without canonical consequence.
2. Benedict XVI, Letter to the Bishops Accompanying the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (7 July 2007).
3. Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Report on Traditional Latin Mass Attendees, 2019. See also: Angelico Press, The Case for the Latin Mass: Documents and Data, ed. Peter A. Kwasniewski, 2021.
4. St. Basil the Great, Epistulae, 90 (To the Western Bishops), ca. 372 A.D.

---

Controversy and Reform: The Appointment of Archbishop Shane Mackinlay to Brisbane

Pope Leo XIV’s first major episcopal appointment in Australia has triggered a wave of commentary, both jubilant and alarmed. On 18 June 2025, the Holy Father named Bishop Shane Mackinlay of Sandhurst as the new Metropolitan Archbishop of Brisbane. His installation is scheduled for 11 September 2025. While supporters praise Mackinlay as a pastorally astute intellectual with deep synodal credentials, critics argue that his views on women’s roles in the Church risk theological confusion and division.

A Profile in Synodality
Bishop Mackinlay, born in 1965 in Victoria, Australia, is widely regarded as a calm, thoughtful leader. He holds advanced degrees in philosophy and theology and was rector of Corpus Christi College, the regional seminary for Victoria and Tasmania, before his episcopal appointment in 2019. More significantly, he served as the spokesperson for the Australian Catholic Bishops during the country’s Plenary Council, and later took part in the Synod on Synodality in Rome. His reputation as an effective communicator and administrator earned him the respect of many within the Australian hierarchy and beyond.

In announcing the appointment, the Archdiocese of Brisbane emphasized his “intellectual firepower” and steady leadership style, hailing him as “well-suited to guide synodality into the future.”¹ The Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Adrian Schrinner, also welcomed the appointment, commending Mackinlay’s “wealth of experience and dedication.”²

The Controversial Element: Women Deacons
Yet it is precisely his involvement in synodal processes that has raised alarm among more traditional sectors of the Church. Mackinlay has openly expressed support for the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate—an issue that, though subject to ongoing Vatican study, remains theologically fraught and ecclesiologically sensitive. In previous interviews and interventions, Mackinlay affirmed his belief that the Church could revisit its understanding of female diaconal ministry.³

This position is at odds with longstanding Catholic teaching. While Pope Francis has instituted commissions to study the history and theology of women deacons, the consistent judgment of previous Roman documents—such as Inter Insigniores (1976) and the Responsum ad Dubium from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1995)—is that sacramental ordination, even to the diaconate, belongs essentially to the male priesthood and is not open to change by ecclesiastical decree alone.⁴

Traditionalist Reaction
The sharpest rebuke came from American bishop Joseph Strickland, a vocal defender of traditional doctrine. Writing on Substack, he accused the Vatican of “appointing bishops who promote ambiguity and experiment,” calling Mackinlay’s stance on the diaconate “a direct challenge to the consistent teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church.”⁵ Strickland continued:

“The faithful deserve clarity, not ambiguity; fidelity, not experimentation. Appointing a bishop who holds such views at a time of confusion is a source of scandal and division.”⁶

Such concerns echo a broader unease among traditional Catholics about the trajectory of Church leadership under the current pontificate—particularly in relation to the role of synodality, the status of doctrinal development, and the erosion of theological clarity.

A Larger Battle over the Church’s Direction
Mackinlay’s appointment thus represents more than a change of leadership in Brisbane. It reflects the ongoing contest over the future of the Church—between those who see synodality as a new Pentecost and those who view it as a capitulation to modernist relativism.⁷ His leadership will be closely watched, not just for administrative competence but for how he navigates these ideological waters.

Will he moderate his views in light of magisterial teaching, or will he use his platform to advocate for a more expansive understanding of ministry? Will his tenure unite a divided Church in Brisbane, or deepen existing rifts? For now, the answer remains uncertain.

What is clear, however, is that the debate over the Church’s identity—over who may serve, teach, and sanctify—continues to unfold not just in Rome, but now on the banks of the Brisbane River. 🔝

1. Archdiocese of Brisbane Press Statement, 18 June 2025.
2. Statement by Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner, Brisbane City Council, 19 June 2025.
3. Luke Coppen, “Will Brisbane’s New Archbishop Bring Change?” The Pillar, 18 June 2025.
4. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter Insigniores (1976); CDF Responsum ad Dubium on Women Deacons (1995).
5. Bishop Joseph Strickland, “When Bishops Undermine the Faith,” Strickland Substack, 19 June 2025.
6. Ibid.
7. See commentary by Fr. Gerald Murray, The World Over, EWTN, June 2025; and George Weigel, First Things, June 2025.

---

Lying Bishops and the Catholic Media
Cover-ups, clericalism, and the crisis of truth in the modern Church

A Culture of Denial
In a hard-hitting exposé, former Navy chaplain and Vatican-appointed monsignor Gene Thomas Gomulka critiques the ongoing duplicity of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy and affiliated media. Referencing a 2000 Kansas City Star investigation into AIDS-related deaths among clergy, Gomulka highlights the defensive denials of bishops such as Cardinal Roger Mahony, despite corroborating evidence from within the Jesuit order itself. This episode, he argues, inaugurated a culture of institutionalised deceit—a culture that persists into the present.

Promotion in Spite of Scandal
Gomulka points to the controversial rise of Cardinal Robert McElroy—now Archbishop of Washington—whose past involvement in covering up sexual and ritual abuse cases, including that of Rachel Mastrogiacomo, has drawn no meaningful Vatican response, despite a verified delivery of correspondence to Pope Leo XIV’s nunciature in May 2025¹.

A Deepening Crisis of Credibility
Referencing the 2004 John Jay College report and recent declarations by the Catholic League—such as the claim that clergy sex abuse has “virtually disappeared”²—Gomulka critiques the misuse of selective or delayed-reporting statistics to create a false impression of progress. As most victims report abuse only in middle age, the Church’s current data, he argues, underrepresents reality. The shrinking number of active priests (less than 20,000 U.S.-born and not retired)³ only compounds the problem.

Seminary Statistics and the Homosexual Subculture
Gomulka estimates that over half of American clergy are sexually active homosexuals, with many in hierarchical or seminary leadership roles. Reports on seminary life—such as the 2006 O’Brien-led visitation—are deemed whitewashed, failing to account for methods of concealment and cultural complicity⁴. Seminaries with growing enrolment often mask a wider pattern of closures and consolidations.

The Role of Catholic Media
Institutions like EWTN and the Catholic News Agency (CNA) are accused of downplaying systemic problems. CNA’s refusal to correct exaggerated claims about enrolment at the Pontifical North American College in Rome is given as one example⁵. Likewise, seminaries such as St. Mary’s Oscott in England are described as being dominated by homosexual cliques with episcopal protection.

A Path Forward—or Further Collapse
Gomulka closes by presenting two stark alternatives: a Pope willing to confront the “Lavender Mafia” and reform celibacy discipline—or continued decline, including the sexual abuse of minors, heterosexual vocations crisis, and mass defection of Catholics to evangelical Protestantism. He cites PRRI data suggesting over 10 million American evangelicals are former Catholics⁶.

Conclusion
Gene Gomulka’s analysis is not merely a jeremiad—it is a moral indictment of a clerical system that punishes truth-telling while rewarding secrecy. Until the episcopate demonstrates authentic reform and rejects the protection of vice, Gomulka warns, no claim of renewal can be trusted. 🔝

¹ Verified delivery of the Mastrogiacomo letter to the Apostolic Nunciature occurred on 22 May 2025 at 7:10 p.m.
² Catholic League statement, 13 June 2025: “Clergy Sex Abuse in U.S. Virtually Disappears.”
³ Based on CARA data: of 35,000 priests in the U.S., subtracting 12,250 retired and 3,100 foreign-born, fewer than 20,000 American-born priests remain in active ministry.
⁴ Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, later Cardinal, led the 2005–06 Vatican-commissioned seminary visitation, which critics say misrepresented the prevalence of homosexual activity.
⁵ CNA report on NAC seminary claimed “around 200 seminarians,” though photographic and other evidence shows fewer than 100.
⁶ 2023 PRRI survey: over one-third of white Evangelical Protestants in the U.S. are former Catholics.

---

“You Blind Guides”: Pornography and the Hidden Hypocrisy in the Church

“You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matt. 23:24). With these words, Our Lord condemned the Pharisees for their moral posturing, masking greater sins behind outward piety. Today, the same accusation could be levelled at many within the Church—laity and clergy alike—who profess orthodoxy and reverence but fall in secret to the pervasive sin of pornography.

Trent Horn’s recent commentary on The Counsel of Trent boldly confronts a reality often left unspoken in traditional Catholic circles: the sin of pornography is a hidden epidemic that infects even the most pious households and communities. Far from attacking traditionalism, Horn offers a serious challenge to examine whether outward religiosity is matched by interior conversion.

A Universal Problem That Knows No Liturgical Preference
Pornography is not a modern invention, but its accessibility and cultural normalization are unprecedented in human history. It is now literally in our hands: smartphones, apps, video platforms, and private browsers have made pornography as easy to access as water. Horn rightly notes that some devout traditional Catholics may assume they are immune—by virtue of attending Latin Mass, wearing veils, or holding orthodox moral views. But he quotes Fr. Chad Ripperger and others who confirm from pastoral experience that sins against the sixth commandment are at least as prevalent—if not more—among traditionalists.

Such behavior may be rooted in a kind of spiritual compensation: those addicted to lust may try to atone by cultivating exaggerated exterior piety—ultra-strict modesty rules, harsh condemnations of others, or moral one-upmanship. This is the danger of Pharisaical hypocrisy: “These people honour Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me” (Isa. 29:13; cf. Matt. 15:8).

Moral Absolutism and Personal Sin: A Cautionary Tale
Horn recounts a personal exchange with a Latin Mass Catholic who aggressively opposed COVID vaccines over concerns about remote cooperation with evil. The same man later confessed to an extramarital affair—ongoing at the very time he was publicly moralizing about minor material cooperation. This hypocrisy illustrates a deeper problem: some Catholics weaponize theology to signal virtue while ignoring their personal vices. They tithe mint and dill and cumin, while neglecting the greater matters of the law—faith, mercy, and chastity.

Pornography: The Spiritual and Social Scourge of Our Time
The Catechism of the Catholic Church unequivocally condemns pornography as a grave offense against chastity and human dignity:

“It perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants… It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world” (CCC §2354).

This is not mere private sin. Pornography corrupts marriages, distorts vocations, warps the imagination, and enslaves the soul. The Patristic tradition, though unaware of today’s technology, anticipated the dangers of unchaste fantasy and impure imagination. St. John Chrysostom warned:

“Do not gaze on the beauty of a woman lest you be caught by her snares; it is better to blind the eyes than to darken the soul” (cf. Homilies on Matthew).

The Rise of OnlyFans and AI-Generated Sin
Horn highlights how pornography’s modern evolution includes paid amateur content (e.g. OnlyFans) and AI-generated sexual imagery, allowing users to indulge in sin while rationalizing that no “real person” is involved. But the Church’s teaching holds firm: even simulated sexual acts, when consumed for arousal, are gravely sinful.

“Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.” (CCC §2354)

The new “AI porn” frontier doesn’t remove guilt—it amplifies the fantasy, deepens the isolation, and enshrines lust as a virtue of self-expression. Some Christians have already begun to argue that masturbation is not sinful unless done with lust. This betrays both biblical revelation and the traditional understanding of purity rooted in Christ’s own words:

“Everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).

The Clergy Are Not Exempt
Horn references Fr. James Jackson FSSP, a prominent traditionalist priest who pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography in 2023, shocking the faithful who had once declared his innocence solely based on his liturgical identity. Pope Francis himself acknowledged that many priests and nuns struggle with pornography, calling it a modern temptation that “enters through the eyes” and leads to the corruption of the heart.

It is a sobering reminder: traditional vestments do not sanctify the man; grace and virtue do.

Pastoral and Practical Steps: Healing and Accountability
Horn urges Catholics not only to be alert but to be armed. He proposes a series of steps that mirror traditional Catholic asceticism:

1. Avoid digital occasions of sin, especially late at night, when decision-making is compromised (“Mind After Midnight” phenomenon).
2. Use accountability software like Covenant Eyes, which can link your browsing history to a trusted friend or spiritual guide.
3. Seek real human relationships: the temptation to pornography often feeds on loneliness. Even small human interactions—conversation, phone calls—can provide relief and support.
4. Parents must talk openly to sons and daughters about pornography. The sin is not just visual; erotic novels and romantic media can ensnare young women just as easily.

Recommended resources include:

• Good Pictures, Bad Pictures (for children)
• Made This Way by Trent Horn and Leila Miller (for teens and parents)
• The Porn Myth by Matt Fradd (for adults)

The Economics of Sin and the Fantasy of Empowerment
Horn exposes the lie that OnlyFans and similar platforms empower women. Even when they control their content, these women remain economically dependent on pleasing an audience. Often, that means engaging in acts they never intended or escalating to match others. The illusion of control is, in fact, bondage.

Likewise, many men who pay for OnlyFans content are not simply indulging lust—they are seeking simulated intimacy, often with AI-generated messages. Deep down, the soul longs not for pleasure, but for love, union, and communion—desires that pornography mocks and distorts.

Pope Benedict XVI and the Truth About Love
Quoting Deus Caritas Est, Horn offers a final contrast:

“Love now becomes concern and care for the other… It seeks the good of the beloved.”

Pornography, by contrast, seeks possession, not union. It offers a counterfeit sacrament—immediate, pleasurable, but empty. Like all idols, it promises freedom and delivers slavery.

Conclusion: A Call to Purity, Not Pretence
The Church must not continue to “strain the gnat” of vaccine ethics or liturgical rubrics while “swallowing the camel” of unchecked impurity, lust, and moral rot. No one is exempt from this battle. No veil, cassock, or daily Rosary can replace true repentance and vigilance.

But neither is anyone beyond redemption. Grace is stronger than addiction. The mercy of Christ is greater than shame. And the Church, if she is to be renewed, must begin not with programs—but with purity. 🔝

“Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8)

¹ Fr. Chad Ripperger, quoted in The Counsel of Trent, June 2025.
² Pope Francis, Address to Seminarians and Priests, Oct 2022.
³ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2354.
⁴ St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Hom. 17.
⁵ Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est (2005), §§5–7.
⁶ Matt Fradd, The Porn Myth (Ignatius Press, 2017).
⁷ Horn & Miller, Made This Way: How to Prepare Kids to Face Today’s Tough Moral Issues (Catholic Answers, 2018).
⁸ Ashley Madison hack: 2015 data breach exposing adultery clients.

---

Mission Abandoned: The Troubled Path of the Coalition for Canceled Priests

The Coalition for Canceled Priests (CFCP), founded in 2021 amidst growing concerns for clergy unjustly sidelined from active ministry, promised robust advocacy, financial transparency, and unwavering spiritual support.¹ Recent disclosures, however, reveal deep-seated governance issues and financial irregularities that have led many to question the organization’s viability and fidelity to its initial purpose.²

A Promising Beginning
Originally established in the Diocese of Rockford, Illinois—a diocese noted for Bishop David Malloy’s frequent sidelining of orthodox priests—the CFCP rapidly gained substantial support from concerned laity.³ A notable early success was the “Breaking the Silence” fundraiser, held shortly after the group’s formation. The event prominently featured priests such as Fr. John Lovell and Fr. James Altman, raising over $20,000 from enthusiastic supporters in just a single evening.⁴ This financial achievement underscored significant grassroots support for the Coalition’s clearly articulated mission.

Mission Drift and Leadership Controversies
Despite this auspicious beginning, CFCP soon began experiencing internal conflicts that undermined its credibility and clarity of mission. Prominent theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski described the emerging issues as “one of the most troubling examples of mission drift” he had encountered in recent years.⁵ Dan Sevigny, critically assessing the organization’s trajectory, specifically cited poor governance practices, mismanaged finances, and a loss of clear strategic direction.⁶

Financial Mismanagement and Governance Failures
A closer look at CFCP’s finances revealed significant irregularities and poor oversight. Notably, an independent internal audit identified a disturbing lack of financial controls: for several years, the organization operated without appropriate accounting systems or sufficient documentation of disbursements.⁷

Most concerning was the revelation that co-founder Fr. John Lovell, then serving as CFCP’s president, had been receiving an annual salary totaling approximately $50,000, in addition to residing rent-free in Coalition-owned housing—benefits not initially disclosed to donors.⁸ The audit further highlighted that, despite his removal from leadership in late 2023, Fr. Lovell continued drawing funds from the organization and reportedly resisted cooperating fully with subsequent investigations into these financial matters.⁹

Attempting a Return to Founding Principles
Following the audit’s revelations, CFCP underwent substantial governance reforms. The restructured board implemented IRS-compliant oversight mechanisms, clearer accounting standards, and stricter financial accountability.¹⁰ Efforts to realign with the Coalition’s founding principles resulted in renewed distributions of aid; as of June 2025, CFCP reports financially assisting over thirty priests consistent with their original mission objectives.¹¹

Yet, despite these corrective measures, lingering doubts persist among former allies and supporters. Many express disappointment over past failures, questioning whether CFCP can fully recover lost trust and effectively resume its original advocacy role.¹²

Essential Lessons for Mission-Driven Organizations
The Coalition’s troubled trajectory provides critical insights into the necessity of robust governance, financial accountability, and leadership transparency—particularly in faith-based movements where integrity is paramount. Effective advocacy and sincere commitment must be supported by structured oversight and financial discipline to maintain both trust and efficacy.

While the Coalition for Canceled Priests’ initial purpose remains laudable, its future influence will depend significantly on demonstrating genuine reform. The CFCP’s experience stands as both cautionary tale and hopeful reminder that mission drift, while damaging, is not irreversible if met with honesty, humility, and determination. 🔝

¹ Coalition for Canceled Priests, Official Statement of Purpose and Mission (2021).
² Dan Sevigny, “Mission Abandoned: How the Coalition for Canceled Priests Failed Its Calling,” Crisis Magazine, June 2025.
³ Sevigny, “Mission Abandoned,” June 2025.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Peter Kwasniewski, commentary quoted by Sevigny, “Mission Abandoned,” June 2025.
⁶ Sevigny, “Mission Abandoned,” June 2025.
⁷ Coalition for Canceled Priests, Internal Audit and Governance Report (2024).
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Sevigny, “Mission Abandoned,” June 2025.
¹⁰ Coalition for Canceled Priests, “Governance Reforms and Financial Oversight Statement,” official CFCP website, accessed June 2025.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Sevigny, “Mission Abandoned,” June 2025.

---

A False Grace and a Real Crisis: Cardinal Grech’s Vision Undermines the Catholic Priesthood

On 30 May 2025, The Times of Malta published a revealing interview with Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, under the headline: “Cardinal Mario Grech: Lay people could run parishes instead of priests.” While few would be surprised to find such sentiments among the more progressive corners of the post-conciliar Church, the brazenness and theological confusion displayed in this interview nonetheless demand a sober and traditional Catholic response.

Redefining the Priesthood?
According to The Times of Malta, Grech stated that one of the “main aims” of the Synod is “to shift the Church away from clergy-heavy leadership and start to give lay people more say in decision-making in their parishes, dioceses and even in the Holy See.” More alarming still, Grech suggested that the laity might “take over some rituals and sacraments” and cited as an example a Swiss parish where a couple, rather than a priest, presides over baptisms, funerals, and weddings.

This is not mere speculation. Grech appears to be openly proposing a restructuring of the Church’s sacramental and hierarchical order—one that leans toward functionalism, clerical dilution, and ultimately, Protestant ecclesiology. He further declared that the shortage of priestly vocations “can be a grace from God,” because it might allow the Church to “recognize and utilize the diverse gifts present among all Christians.”

This view is not only pastorally unwise, but theologically catastrophic.

The Priesthood: Ontology, Not Function
The Catholic Church has never understood the priesthood as a managerial function that can be distributed to whoever is willing to take up the task. Rather, it is a divinely instituted sacramental order conferred by the laying on of hands in apostolic succession. It imparts an indelible character to the soul, enabling the priest to act in persona Christi—particularly in the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the absolution of sins.

This doctrine has been solemnly taught across centuries of magisterial teaching. Pope Pius XII, in Mediator Dei (1947), insisted on the uniqueness of the priest’s role in the liturgy and warned against reforms that “compromise the unity of the Church and the dignity of the priesthood”¹. Pope Leo XIII, in Apostolicae Curae (1896), declared invalid the Anglican orders precisely because the sacramental form and intent had been changed, reaffirming that sacramental acts performed by the unordained are neither licit nor effective².

To suggest that laypeople can validly or licitly perform sacramental acts or serve as de facto pastors is to dismantle the very structure Christ gave His Church.

Crisis as Grace?
To interpret the shortage of priestly vocations as a providential “grace” is equally disturbing. The Church has consistently viewed such shortages as a cause for lament and an urgent call to prayer and renewal. Pope Pius XI, in Ad Catholici Sacerdotii (1935), recognized the problem in his own day and called for intensified formation and sanctification of priests—not their replacement³.

Vocations do not flourish in an atmosphere of compromise or novelty. They flourish where the faith is taught clearly, the sacraments are celebrated reverently, and the priesthood is presented as a sacred calling—not a community assignment. It is no coincidence that traditional communities which celebrate the Mass of the Ages—such as those of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, or diocesan communities faithful to the usus antiquior—are seeing a steady increase in vocations.

Hierarchical by Divine Right
Grech’s model reflects an egalitarian ecclesiology that has no foundation in Catholic tradition. The Church is not a democracy. As Pope Pius X taught in Vehementer Nos (1906), the Church’s structure is hierarchical by divine right. “The Church is essentially an unequal society,” he wrote, “comprising two categories of persons, the pastors and the flock… those who occupy a rank in the various degrees of the hierarchy, and the multitude of the faithful”⁴.

This hierarchy is not an historical accident. It is a reflection of Christ’s own priesthood, conferred on His Apostles and transmitted through valid ordination. To allow the laity to usurp clerical functions is to unravel the apostolic foundation of the Church itself.

The Illusion of Synodality
The invocation of “synodality” as a justification for these revolutionary proposals is a smokescreen. Properly understood, synodality is a collegial exercise of episcopal and papal governance under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not a euphemism for lay governance, nor an excuse for upending the sacramental constitution of the Church.

The early Church, so often romanticised by modernist reformers, never confused the roles of clergy and laity. The Acts of the Apostles is clear: the Apostles laid hands on their successors, who alone had the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify.

Lessons from History
We have been here before. The Protestant reformers also justified their innovations by pointing to empty seminaries, bad priests, and lax parishes. Their “solution” was to dissolve the priesthood and democratize the Church. The Catholic response was the Council of Trent: dogmatic clarity, liturgical unity, and priestly renewal.

What we need today is not deconstruction but restoration.

Conclusion: Restore All Things in Christ
Cardinal Grech’s comments represent not a “development of doctrine” but a deformation of the priesthood. They reflect a crisis of faith in the supernatural order of the Church. This is not fidelity to Vatican II—it is fidelity to a failed ecclesiology that places managerial convenience above sacramental truth.

The future of the Church lies not in Swiss experiments, lay-led rituals, or hollow parish structures. It lies in a return to the sources: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Fathers and Councils, and the perennial Magisterium.

Pope Benedict XV warned of such times in Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (1914): “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but men of tradition.”⁵

Let us then be true friends of the Church—not by surrendering to innovations that threaten her integrity, but by reclaiming the sacred dignity of the priesthood and the supernatural identity of the Church of Christ. 🔝

¹ Mediator Dei, Pius XII, 1947, §§29–31.
² Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII, 1896, §§36–39.
³ Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, Pius XI, 1935, §§16–18.
⁴ Vehementer Nos, Pius X, 1906, §8.
⁵ Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Benedict XV, 1914, §24.

---

The Political Limits of Catholic Social Teaching: A Call for Clarity and Convergence with Natural Law

Catholic Social Teaching (CST), with its broad scope on human dignity, economic justice, and social order, has long been a cornerstone of the Church’s engagement with the modern world. However, as the political landscape becomes increasingly polarized, the application of CST faces several challenges. While many adherents view it as a guide for addressing societal issues, its political use has often become blurred, leading to competing interpretations and, in some cases, undermining the natural law foundations upon which it rests.

The central flaw in current CST discourse lies in the absence of clarity regarding the limits of state intervention, personal liberty, and the common good. This lack of precision has allowed secular and political ideologies to co-opt the principles of social justice, often twisting them to fit agendas that diverge significantly from Catholic moral and social doctrine. As Pope Pius XII writes in Humani Generis, “It is not enough for social justice to be promoted through human effort; it must be guided by the natural law, which upholds the dignity of the human person and the common good.”¹

Catholic Social Teaching as a Political Tool
Over the past few decades, CST has been invoked in political discourse by both liberal and conservative factions, often selectively emphasizing its elements that support their respective platforms. However, this politicization of CST detracts from its original, timeless purpose: to guide the faithful toward a just and moral society grounded in the objective truths of the natural law and divine revelation.

At the heart of CST is the notion of subsidiarity—the principle that social issues should be addressed by the smallest competent authority. This principle, often overlooked, is essential in evaluating the role of the state within society. While the state has a legitimate role in protecting the common good, its interventions must not usurp the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families, and local communities. Pope Pius XI emphasizes this in Quadragesimo Anno: “In its essence, the principle of subsidiarity means that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization that can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.”²

Furthermore, the application of CST in political discussions must be grounded in the reality of human nature and society. While it is true that the Church calls for the promotion of justice and equity, it does so not through the lens of egalitarianism, but through the pursuit of the common good, which is rooted in the inherent dignity of the human person. Pope John Paul II in Centesimus Annus asserts, “The Church’s social doctrine has always had as its guiding principle the dignity of the person and the natural law, which must be respected in every economic, social, and political structure.”³

A focus on social equality that disregards human nature—whether by attempting to eliminate distinctions between the sexes or promoting the redefinition of marriage—diverts attention from true social justice and leads to societal disintegration. Pope Leo XIII, in Rerum Novarum, stresses that while social justice must guide human endeavors, it must also recognize the intrinsic order of the family, the dignity of labor, and the sanctity of private property: “The State must recognize and respect the dignity of the human person, fostering, but not replacing, individual enterprise and private property, which are necessary for the common good.”⁴

The Church’s Role in Political Life
A major challenge in the political application of CST is the Church’s reluctance to engage explicitly in political life. Though the Church cannot endorse particular political parties, its teachings on human dignity, subsidiarity, and the common good should compel the faithful to engage in political life with clarity. When the Church fails to provide strong, principled guidance on political issues, secular ideologies fill the void, leading many Catholics to adopt positions that are incompatible with their faith.

This is particularly true in the case of economic systems. The Church does not support socialism or unchecked capitalism, but rather promotes a system where the state ensures justice, the protection of the poor, and the freedom of individuals to flourish in their economic endeavors. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Laborem Exercens, “A society is not truly just unless it recognizes the solidarity between individuals and groups, protecting the weakest members and promoting their integral development.”⁵

Catholic social teaching must challenge the ideological extremes of both left and right. On the left, it must call for the protection of human dignity in every social structure, ensuring that social programs do not become instruments of control, but rather, avenues for authentic human flourishing. On the right, it must warn against the idolization of market forces and the abandonment of the poor and vulnerable, urging Christians to recognize the interconnectedness of society and the moral responsibility each person holds for the other.

A Return to Natural Law
At the core of the political discussion within Catholic Social Teaching is the natural law, a philosophy deeply rooted in the Church’s moral tradition. Natural law, which recognizes the objective moral order embedded in human nature, should serve as the framework for the political applications of CST. In recent decades, the Church has often distanced itself from the robust natural law tradition, resulting in a weaker moral stance in political discussions. Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor stresses that the Church’s moral teachings must remain rooted in the natural law, “the light of reason placed in us by God,” which is available to all people and leads to truth through the exercise of human reason.⁶

The call for a return to natural law is not merely academic; it is a call for the political formation of societies that honor God’s law as reflected in the natural order. A politically effective CST requires the faithful to engage in political life with the understanding that human rights and social order are derived not from a human invention, but from the divine order of creation. Natural law recognizes that human dignity is not conferred by the state or by the economy, but by God, and any political system that seeks to protect this dignity must acknowledge this transcendence.

The Church must embrace its role in shaping political life, not through partisan politics, but by upholding the truths of the natural law and applying them to contemporary issues. This includes defending the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, promoting the family as the fundamental building block of society, and supporting economic and political systems that encourage the flourishing of individuals within a just and moral order.

Conclusion: A Call for Clarity in Catholic Social Teaching
Catholic Social Teaching has much to offer the modern world, but it must be reclaimed from the clutches of political ideologies that distort its true purpose. If CST is to remain a beacon of hope and justice for society, it must be understood and applied in light of the natural law, human dignity, and the common good. Political engagement grounded in these principles will help Catholics discern the proper role of the state, the family, and the individual in the pursuit of a just society.

In this way, the Church can lead the faithful into political life not with the aim of political triumph, but with the aim of ensuring that the civil order reflects the divine order, where each person is respected, and the common good is pursued in alignment with the eternal truths of our faith. 🔝

1. Pius XII, Humani Generis, 36: “It is not enough for social justice to be promoted through human effort; it must be guided by the natural law, which upholds the dignity of the human person and the common good.”
2. Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79: “In its essence, the principle of subsidiarity means that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization that can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.”
3. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 10: “The Church’s social doctrine has always had as its guiding principle the dignity of the person and the natural law, which must be respected in every economic, social, and political structure.”
4. Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 17: “The State must recognize and respect the dignity of the human person, fostering, but not replacing, individual enterprise and private property, which are necessary for the common good.”
5. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 20: “A society is not truly just unless it recognizes the solidarity between individuals and groups, protecting the weakest members and promoting their integral development.”
6. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 46: “The natural law is nothing else than the light of reason placed in us by God, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil.”

---

---

In Other News…

---

---

---

Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation: A National Disgrace Exposed Key Findings from the Casey Audit

The National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, published in June 2025 under the direction of Baroness Casey of Blackstock, constitutes one of the most searing indictments of institutional failure in modern British public life. Despite over a decade of reports, inquiries, and policy initiatives, children—primarily adolescent girls—continue to be targeted, abused, and discarded by networks of predatory men, while public authorities fail to act with the seriousness or transparency the crimes demand.

Brutality behind the bureaucratic language
Group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE), often obscured under clinical terminology, involves coordinated sexual abuse of children by multiple men, frequently involving trafficking, rape, coercion, and violence. The victims, overwhelmingly girls from vulnerable backgrounds, are deceived into believing they are in loving relationships, only to be shared among abusers, controlled with drugs and alcohol, and threatened into silence. Some are forced into abortions; others are criminalised for crimes committed while under coercion. The long-term damage includes trauma, shattered trust, and public neglect.

The scale: vast, yet hidden
The audit estimates that as many as 500,000 children each year experience some form of sexual abuse. Yet only ~100,000 offences were recorded by police in 2024, of which about 17,100 were identified as CSE. Of these, just ~700 offences were classified as group-based CSE in the police’s new dataset (COCAD)—a figure universally acknowledged to be a significant undercount¹.

Victims and perpetrators
According to 2023 police data, 78% of CSE victims are girls, and 57% are aged between 10 and 15. Offenders are predominantly male (76%), though the growing prevalence of online abuse has shifted age and gender profiles in some areas. Notably, 39% of suspects were aged 10–15, and 18% aged 18–29, reflecting both the involvement of older men and younger offenders in digital spaces¹.

The ethnic question: facts denied, victims abandoned
One of the most contentious aspects of the audit is its assessment of the ethnicity of perpetrators. National data is missing for over two-thirds of cases, a failure of documentation widely attributed to institutional discomfort and political pressure. Yet the evidence from local police forces is consistent: a disproportionate number of offenders in group-based CSE cases are of South Asian—particularly Pakistani Muslim—background².

In Rotherham, 64% of 323 suspects were Pakistani, despite making up only 4% of the population. In Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, Asian men were overrepresented by a factor of two to three relative to their population share². Baroness Casey is blunt: the refusal to investigate this disproportion has fuelled public distrust, undermined policing, and betrayed victims.

A failed system: inquiries without change
The audit identifies over 100 major inquiries, reports, and strategies since 2009. Yet they form a cycle: scandal, inquiry, recommendations—and then institutional stasis. Public services remain fragmented; data systems don’t talk to one another; lessons are forgotten. Police focus on criminal exploitation but overlook sexual indicators. Councils continue to view traumatised girls as “problematic” rather than abused.

Failures in justice and law
Despite the statutory age of consent being 16, the audit highlights repeated failures to prosecute clear cases of statutory rape. Crown prosecutors often downgrade charges or drop cases where a child aged 13–15 is perceived to have “consented.” Baroness Casey calls for legislative reform: all penetrative sex between an adult and a child under 16 should be automatically classified as rape, with no defence of mistaken belief³.

Enabling environments: taxis and local gaps
Taxis remain a key enabler of CSE. Yet drivers can obtain licenses in one area and operate in another with laxer safeguarding. The Department for Transport is urged to close this loophole. Vape shops, hotels with anonymous check-in, and online platforms now form part of the grooming ecosystem.

Survivors betrayed—again
Perhaps most harrowing is the audit’s testimony from survivors. Many, now adults, continue to suffer. Some still lack criminal record expungement for acts committed under grooming. Others are re-traumatised by reopened investigations that yield no progress, no justice, and no explanation. Anonymity breaches by perpetrators go unpunished, and meetings with prosecutors are promised but never materialise⁴.

Recommendations
The audit offers twelve primary recommendations, including:

• A statutory redefinition of rape for all adult-child penetrative acts under age 16
• Retrospective justice for victims, with reopened investigations and record-clearing
• Mandatory ethnicity data collection in all CSE cases
• Stricter national licensing standards for taxi drivers
• A national safeguarding strategy grounded in truth, justice, and accountability

A final warning
Baroness Casey closes with a stark judgment: the system is still failing, and the survivors are still suffering. “We as a society owe these women a debt,” she writes. The question remains: will this audit be yet another report to gather dust—or the beginning of a national moral reckoning? 🔝

¹ Baroness Casey, National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, June 2025.
² Local force data from Rotherham, Greater Manchester, and West Yorkshire; see pp. 8–9, 164ff.
³ Ibid., pp. 142–145, on legal grey areas around age of consent.
⁴ Testimonies collected via Maggie Oliver Foundation, summarised in pp. 11–12 of the audit.

---

Grooming Gang Deniers Did More Damage Than a Thousand Tommy Robinsons

Why the Casey Report marks a watershed moment in Britain’s reckoning with race, justice, and truth

Baroness Louise Casey’s damning intervention has triggered a political and moral reckoning that many believed might never come. The Labour government’s decision to launch a full-scale national inquiry into the industrial-scale abuse of white working-class girls by predominantly Pakistani-heritage Muslim men is not just a dramatic U-turn. It is a long-overdue confrontation with one of the most grotesque failures of the British state in modern history.

This scandal first came to light thanks to the tireless efforts of The Times journalist Andrew Norfolk, who exposed the extent of grooming gang operations in towns like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford. His passing just weeks before this national inquiry was announced only deepens the significance of this moment. What Norfolk revealed was not a one-off failure, but a systematic betrayal: girls as young as 12 were abused while social services, police, and politicians looked the other way—paralysed by fear of being accused of racism.

The Failure of the Political Class
Keir Starmer’s change of heart is as politically significant as it is morally necessary. Only months ago, he dismissed calls for a national inquiry as “far-right bandwagon-jumping.” But the pressure—especially from new opposition leader Kemi Badenoch—has been unrelenting. As she pointed out, many of the worst abuses took place in safe Labour seats, where MPs were allegedly reluctant to challenge their core Muslim voting blocs.

While some see this accusation as cynical, it reflects a broader malaise: across the political spectrum, uncomfortable truths about ethnicity and abuse were buried in favour of multicultural dogma and electoral calculation. The Conservatives had 14 years to act and failed. Labour actively opposed inquiries it now champions. Both parties allowed an ideological paralysis to override justice for vulnerable children.

A New Kind of Institutional Racism
The Casey findings represent a historic moment of clarity. The abuse was not just tolerated; it was facilitated by a culture of fear. Institutions refused to act because of the racial identity of the perpetrators, a shocking inversion of the “institutional racism” paradigm made famous by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

Casey explicitly states that Pakistani-heritage men are over-represented in grooming gang convictions and that dismissing this as a “far-right trope” is itself misleading and harmful. Her words directly contradict narratives pushed by public broadcasters and progressive commentators like Emily Maitlis, who have claimed that most grooming gangs are white. As Casey notes, such comparisons obfuscate rather than illuminate, undermining the specificity of the cultural and social dynamics at play.

The Damage Done by Denial
The real danger, Casey suggests, is not the rhetoric of fringe voices like Tommy Robinson, but the elite consensus that ignored or silenced legitimate concerns. Grooming gang deniers—those who refused to accept uncomfortable demographic realities—have done more damage to inter-community trust and race relations than any one man with a smartphone and a slogan. They undermined justice, sacrificed the innocent, and allowed grievance to fester. As Iain Macwhirter aptly puts it, “If this is a dog whistle, it is going to be heard the length and breadth of the UK.”

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Truth and Reconciliation
This inquiry is not simply about retrospective justice. It is a test of whether Britain can recover a moral compass—one that values truth over tribalism, and justice over political risk. For too long, an ideological commitment to a selective anti-racism has produced grotesque inequalities and silences. The Casey report offers an opportunity to tell the truth—about the victims, the perpetrators, and the institutions that failed them.

If handled with courage and integrity, this could become a moment of national repentance and renewal. But if again buried under fear and obfuscation, the consequences—for victims, communities, and public trust—will be deeper still. 🔝

1. Louise Casey, Case Review into Grooming Gangs and Institutional Failures, 2025.
2. Andrew Norfolk, The Times coverage from 2011–2023.
3. BBC Any Questions, Lucy Powell remarks, May 2025.
4. Kemi Badenoch, House of Commons debate transcript, June 2025.
5. Matthew Goodwin, Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, Penguin, 2023.

---

Labour’s Record on Grooming Gangs Under Fire: Ethnicity Data Suppressed Across Councils and Government

In the wake of the 2025 Baroness Casey audit into grooming gang scandals, fresh scrutiny has been levelled at Labour administrations—both local and national—for their role in the systematic suppression of ethnicity data relating to child sexual exploitation cases. The findings confirm what whistleblowers and victims have long alleged: that political considerations and fear of accusations of racism led to a refusal to record, report, or act upon patterns of abuse perpetrated by men of predominantly South Asian—particularly Pakistani—backgrounds.

A Culture of Suppression
Baroness Casey’s review reveals that in two-thirds of grooming gang cases, ethnicity was not recorded by police or local authority safeguarding teams. The pattern was most visible in areas dominated by Labour-run councils, such as Rotherham, Rochdale, and Oxford, where fears of community backlash and accusations of racism were cited internally as reasons for avoiding proper documentation of perpetrators’ backgrounds¹.

Casey writes:

“The systemic failure to record ethnicity data—driven by institutional anxiety and political pressure—resulted in a decades-long failure to confront the reality of group-based child sexual exploitation.”²

The DPP Years: Starmer’s Watch
Keir Starmer, now Labour Party leader, served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2008 to 2013, a critical period during which police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) officials were aware of but slow to act on intelligence regarding grooming networks. Critics argue that under Starmer’s watch, the CPS also failed to press for the recording and analysis of offender ethnicity, despite mounting evidence of cultural targeting.

During this time, the CPS was involved in controversial decisions not to proceed with prosecutions in high-profile grooming cases, citing victim credibility issues—decisions later overturned by senior prosecutors like Nazir Afzal.

Gaslighting the Nation
Despite this documented history, Labour politicians have recently accused the Conservative Party of “doing nothing” to address the grooming scandal—an assertion that has sparked outrage among victims’ advocates and those familiar with the facts. Not only did the Conservatives establish the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in 2014, chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, but they also launched the Post Office Horizon Inquiry, which addresses decades of wrongful prosecutions—many of which occurred under Labour’s last government³.

As Maggie Oliver, former detective and whistleblower in the Rochdale case, has said:

“The Jay Inquiry was a whitewash. But it wasn’t blocked by the Tories—it was defanged by the system. And for Labour to pretend they’ve led the charge on grooming is both false and disgraceful.”⁴

The Need for Honesty and Accountability
The Casey report makes clear that the grooming scandal was not simply a failure of individuals, but of entire systems. But more than that, it was a failure compounded by partisan denial, political self-interest, and a wilful suppression of truth—particularly on the part of Labour-led institutions. To now weaponise this tragedy against political opponents, while refusing to acknowledge their own role in silencing victims, is a form of historical revisionism that further betrays the very people they claim to defend.

As one MP stated this week:

“This is not about race. It’s about truth. And until the truth is faced without fear or favour, justice remains unfinished.” 🔝

¹ Casey Review, 2025 Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation.
² Ibid.
³ IICSA was established in 2014 under the Conservative-led government, with independent statutory powers.
⁴ Statement by Maggie Oliver, June 2025.

---

The Public Authorities Fraud Bill: Authoritarian Overreach or Necessary Reform?

Analysis of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Debt Recovery) Bill currently under scrutiny in the House of Lords

The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Debt Recovery) Bill is quietly advancing through Parliament with remarkably little media attention—yet if passed without significant amendment, it would mark one of the most sweeping extensions of state power in recent British legislative history. While framed as a tool to recover lost public funds and crack down on fraud, the bill’s mechanisms introduce serious risks to due process, privacy, and the basic protections of innocent citizens.

Scope and Intent of the Bill
The legislation empowers the Minister for the Cabinet Office with new functions to investigate, recover, and enforce debts or overpayments resulting from fraud or error against public authorities. These new powers span departments, with particular focus on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and support wider government goals of reclaiming an estimated £8.6 billion in overpaid or misallocated benefits by 2030¹.

Crucially, the bill does not confine itself to cases of proven fraud. Its powers may be triggered simply by “reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing—even in the case of administrative error.

Extraordinary Powers Without Judicial Safeguards
The bill enables the government to access and freeze an individual’s bank account—without prior court order and without the individual being informed in advance. Under Section 3, financial institutions can be compelled to provide up to three months of bank statements (or more) where there are grounds to suspect fraud or overpayment.

From there, the government may issue a Direct Deduction Order (Section 17), instructing the bank to extract funds either as a lump sum or through recurring payments. Critically, these deductions can apply not only to the individual suspected, but to joint accounts shared with spouses or unrelated parties, so long as the liable person has a “beneficial interest” and no suitable sole account².

Schedule 6 introduces the power to suspend driving licences where more than £1,000 remains unrecovered. The state may apply for a Suspended Disqualification Order, enforceable not upon conviction but upon non-compliance with debt recovery terms. If repayment falters, an Immediate Disqualification Order may follow—removing a person’s legal ability to drive for up to two years³.

Errors, Not Just Fraud
While the bill ostensibly targets fraud, its wording consistently refers to fraud or error. In practice, this means that innocent individuals—those who may have received overpayments due to DWP error—are treated identically to fraudsters. The burden falls entirely on the individual to correct the record.

The bill provides a right to request a review (Section 34) and subsequently appeal to a First-tier Tribunal (Section 35), but these processes must be initiated within narrow timeframes—28 days for each step. In the interim, the account may be frozen or deductions initiated, even if the claim is later found to be unfounded⁴.

Case Examples and Hypothetical Harms

• Sarah, a single mother with a joint account shared with her partner, may find her funds frozen due to an overpayment made solely to him. She is given no advance notice, and must act rapidly to recover access.
• Phil, a self-employed driver, may face an 18-month driving ban due to missing a repayment plan—despite the original debt arising from a departmental miscalculation.

These examples are not fanciful. Data errors, mistaken identities, and system misallocations are well-documented within HMRC and DWP. The bill does not distinguish in its practical mechanisms between malice and misadventure.

Civil Liberties Concerns
Peers including Lord Vaux, Lord Sikka, Baroness Fox and Baroness Palmer have raised robust objections in committee, warning that the bill may reverse the presumption of innocence. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has also expressed concern about the disproportionate intrusion into financial privacy⁵.

Advocacy groups for disabled people and carers, including Disability Rights UK and the Public Law Project, warn that the bill risks targeting the most vulnerable, especially where bank accounts are shared or where the ability to navigate complex appeals processes is limited⁶.

Government’s Justification
The Cabinet Office defends the bill as a necessary measure to tackle a surge in public sector fraud, particularly following pandemic-related schemes. They estimate that the powers could recoup £1.5 billion for DWP alone over five years⁷. Ministers have promised “training, proportionality, and vulnerability assessments” in implementation—but these are policy pledges, not statutory safeguards.

Conclusion
The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Debt Recovery) Bill exposes a dangerous trend in governance: the displacement of judicial oversight in favour of bureaucratic efficiency. While reclaiming public funds is a legitimate aim, doing so by eroding long-standing protections risks transforming error into injustice. It is incumbent upon Parliament to amend the bill to ensure robust safeguards, clear redress procedures, and the protection of innocent parties from draconian enforcement mechanisms.

If it is not heavily amended, the bill will not merely catch fraudsters. It will catch families, the disabled, the poor, and the innocent—without notice, without trial, and without due defence. 🔝

¹ HM Government, Impact Assessment: Public Sector Fraud Bill, Cabinet Office, 2025.
² Clause 18, Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Debt Recovery) Bill, HL Bill 23.
³ Schedule 6, Paragraph 2(4), ibid.
⁴ Clauses 34–35, ibid.
⁵ ICO Parliamentary Evidence Submission, April 2025.
⁶ Public Law Project Briefing, May 2025.
⁷ Cabinet Office Press Release, 22 January 2025.

---

Help Stop the ‘Banter Ban’ from Breaking the Tribunal System

Britain’s Employment Tribunal system is already under immense strain, with unresolved cases spiralling out of control. As of December 2024, more than 43,000 single claims and 424,000 multiple claims remained open, with the total backlog rising 23% in just twelve months¹. The burden on this system threatens not only justice but economic stability.

Now, business groups are sounding the alarm over Angela Rayner’s Employment Rights Bill, warning it could tip the system into outright collapse. The Deputy Prime Minister’s proposed reforms include:

• Unfair dismissal claims after just one day of employment (instead of the current two years),
• Doubling the time limit for harassment claims from three months to six,
• And perhaps most dangerously, Clause 20 – the so-called “banter ban”.

What is Clause 20?
This clause would make employers legally liable for “non-sexual harassment” of their staff by third parties – including customers, clients, and even members of the public².

Under this provision, a single overheard remark – even one not directed at anyone – could trigger a harassment claim. If the Tribunal decides the comment meets its extremely broad criteria for harassment, the employer may be liable unless they can prove they took “all reasonable steps” to prevent such remarks from occurring³.

This sets an extraordinarily high legal bar. Currently, employers are expected to prevent harassment within their workforce, typically by requiring employees to complete EDI (Equality, Diversity, Inclusion) training. Clause 20 extends this duty to speech from the general public – something no employer can meaningfully control⁴.

A Looming Crisis
Legal experts and business leaders fear this will flood the Tribunal system with speculative or trivial claims. A system already buckling under nearly half a million unresolved cases cannot survive the added pressure. Worse, it incentivises a culture of hypersensitivity and legal risk aversion in public-facing roles⁵.

Clause 20 may have been intended to ensure dignity in the workplace, but its overreach threatens to criminalise everyday speech, eroding both common sense and free expression. The line between genuine harassment and awkward banter will be redrawn in the courtroom – at great cost to employers, taxpayers, and ultimately, workers themselves.

A Glimmer of Hope
All is not lost. A group of peers led by Lord Young is preparing a series of targeted amendments to Clause 20 ahead of the Employment Rights Bill’s Report Stage in the House of Lords. These amendments aim to preserve core protections for employees while defanging the most unworkable parts of the clause⁶.

In the meantime, concerned citizens and employers must act. Peers are more likely to support these amendments if they hear clearly and firmly from the public.

You can use a quick-write tool to contact members of the House of Lords and urge them to support balanced, proportionate reform that protects free speech, due process, and judicial sustainability.

Now is the time to stop a well-intentioned but reckless piece of legislation from crippling the employment justice system and curtailing public liberty. 🔝

¹ Ministry of Justice Tribunal Statistics, Q4 2024: Employment Tribunal receipts and backlog figures.
² Employment Rights Bill (2025), Clause 20: Proposed addition to Equality Act 2010 regarding third-party harassment.
³ Equality Act 2010, s.26(1)–(4), “Harassment” defined as conduct with the purpose or effect of violating dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
⁴ House of Commons Library Briefing Paper: “Workplace harassment and employer liability,” January 2025.
⁵ Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Legal and Regulatory Policy Response to Employment Rights Bill, March 2025.
⁶ House of Lords Debate Record, forthcoming amendments tabled by Lord Young and supporting peers (expected July 2025 Report Stage).

---

Universities Ordered to Defend Free Speech: A Turning Point in the Fight Against Ideological Censorship

The Office for Students (OfS), the regulator of higher education in England, has published legally binding guidance requiring universities and colleges to prioritise free speech over ideological conformity, signalling what Director for Freedom of Speech Arif Ahmed called “a new era for higher education.”¹

The finalised guidance, issued under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, will come into full force on 1 August 2025. Institutions will be legally bound to protect the speech rights of students, staff, and visiting speakers — even when that speech is controversial, unpopular, or deemed “offensive.”

The End of Woke Gatekeeping?
At the heart of the OfS guidance is a long-fought principle: speech is presumed lawful unless it is explicitly prohibited by statute or common law. This means that universities can no longer suppress or penalise lawful opinions using internal values, reputational concerns, or equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) codes.

The OfS is clear: internal policies “do not have the force of law” and cannot override free speech rights. This includes:

• Prohibiting political litmus tests, such as requiring job applicants to write EDI loyalty statements;
• Rejecting bans or penalties on speech that merely offends or contradicts institutional values;
• Rejecting blanket rules against misgendering or unpopular political positions;
• Scrutinising foreign partnerships (e.g. Confucius Institutes) that may demand surveillance or censorship.²

Toby Young of the Free Speech Union welcomed the development as a “landmark moment”:

“For too long, ideological conformity has been enforced on campuses through soft power and HR policy. This guidance exposes those tactics as legally indefensible.”

Academics Are Already Self-Censoring
The OfS also released polling results showing that 1 in 5 academics do not feel free to express controversial opinions in their subject area. Among women, that figure rises to 26%, and among ethnic minority staff, 33%.³ This culture of self-censorship is, according to Ahmed, “palpable and persistent,” and has left a generation of lecturers and researchers silenced.

In response, the OfS urges universities to foster intellectual resilience by:

• Encouraging exposure to opposing views;
• Training students in civil disagreement;
• Assigning argumentation tasks from viewpoints students may find offensive.⁴

The Coming Fight: Complaints and Enforcement
A statutory complaints scheme, launching in tandem with the new duties, will allow staff and visiting speakers (but not students) to report breaches of their speech rights directly to the regulator. The OfS has power to investigate and fine institutions found in breach.

However, free speech advocates warn that the sector’s powerful lobby groups may now seek to undermine or delay the scheme’s implementation. Universities UK has already expressed concerns about the administrative burden of aligning all internal codes with the new law.

Yet Ahmed remains firm:

“It is not the job of universities to shield students from ideas — even shocking, disturbing, or offensive ones. It is their duty to prepare them for democratic life.”

Conclusion: The Restoration of Intellectual Freedom?
This regulatory shake-up follows years of controversy over speaker cancellations, academic dismissals, and student protests against perceived heresies to progressive orthodoxy. Under Labour’s Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, the Act’s implementation was nearly shelved — and only saved by a threatened judicial review from the Free Speech Union.

Now, with enforcement mechanisms in place, universities will be held to account if they allow ideological codes to silence lawful speech. Whether this leads to cultural transformation, or just legal compliance, remains to be seen. But as the OfS concludes, “freedom of speech is not a privilege to be granted by those in authority — it is a foundational liberty to be defended.” 🔝

¹ Office for Students, Press and Media Statement, 18 June 2025
² OfS Guidance, §§ 21–23, 47–51, 64–70
³ OfS/YouGov Poll, June 2025
⁴ Arif Ahmed, quoted in The Times, 19 June 2025

---

King’s College London Mathematics School Under Scrutiny for Political and Sexualised Teaching

King’s College London Mathematics School (KCLMS), a state-funded institution frequently celebrated for its academic excellence and ranked by The Times as the top sixth form in the UK, is now at the centre of a serious controversy. According to whistleblower testimony and leaked teaching materials obtained by barrister and commentator James Esses, the school has embedded radical ideological content throughout its curriculum, particularly in its personal development, history, mathematics, and sex education programmes¹.

An Environment of Enforced Conformity
At the heart of the controversy is the claim that students are compelled to adopt ideological positions under the guise of personal development. One such document lists “house rules” that students must agree to, including such statements as “stay sensitive, avoid academisation” and “accept that sometimes things are valid that are not rational”². The same list includes a requirement to “Love Lady Fluffy von Mcfluffy”—a stuffed toy purportedly used in class. Critics argue that this infantilises students on the cusp of adulthood and sets a tone of ideological compliance, not intellectual maturity.

Mathematics Recast Through Critical Race Theory
Among the most concerning revelations is the use of mathematics lessons to push critical race narratives. One lesson plan tells students that mathematics operates “with unearned privilege in society, just like Whiteness,” and that traditional terms such as “Pythagorean Theorem” and “Pi” contribute to the perception of mathematics as a white European domain³. This approach, far from promoting mathematical understanding, appears to denigrate foundational concepts based on the perceived race of their originators.

In a lesson on the Endeavour space mission, students are told that “some arrogance is necessary for women and minorities to be successful in a white male dominated society”⁴. Meanwhile, a history lesson on the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh massacre instructs students to compare the British Empire to Nazi Germany and consider “reparations”⁵.

Whiteness Pathologised, Speech Restricted
Students are also taught that saying “I’m not racist” is “not useful,” and that “we all have racial biases” regardless of individual behaviour⁶. Microaggressions include statements like “I don’t see colour, just people.” Students are encouraged—indeed expected—to become “anti-racism advocates,” complete with badges and lanyards. They are required annually to draft “anti-racist New Year’s Resolutions,” and are warned that simply remaining neutral makes them complicit in racism⁷.

One document describes white society as inherently supremacist and instructs white students to “shut up, already,” warning them not to “invent white suffering”⁸. French students are told that mocking French culture is never acceptable, while affirming Ramadan fasting is only “sometimes acceptable,” demonstrating the school’s erratic and ideological application of cultural sensitivity.

Whistleblowers also report that the Poppy Appeal was banned at the school on grounds of “cultural insensitivity”⁹.

Gender Ideology Entrenched in Policy and Culture
KCLMS reportedly promotes radical gender theory in ways that critics argue endanger child safeguarding. Students are told that “sex and gender are separate” and discouraged from raising objections to medical transitioning, being instead urged to “show compassion”¹⁰. Teaching materials cite “transgender lions” and “Balkan sworn virgins” as proof of gender fluidity, alongside diagrams attempting to visualise “genderfluid” identities¹¹.

Following the UK government’s veto of Scotland’s self-ID legislation, a school assembly was held in which students lamented the decision and criticised the Prime Minister, accusing him of denying their existence¹².

More troubling still, school officials have reportedly invited students to use one set of names and pronouns at school, and another when communicating with parents—effectively enabling the concealment of a child’s gender transition from their family¹³. Students are instructed to “correct” others who use biologically accurate pronouns and “not question the validity” of a peer’s gender identity. Concerns about safeguarding in single-sex spaces are dismissed with the slogan “we just want to pee”¹⁴.

Sex Education or Pornographic Influence?
The school’s sex education materials are similarly troubling. Students are exposed to vulgar and explicit content including questions such as “should I spit or swallow?” and discussions on what virginity means in “queer relationships”¹⁵. Materials promote “sex positivity” by equating polyamory, BDSM, and casual sex with traditional monogamy, as long as they are “consensual.” Visual materials include images of the “Great Wall of Vagina,” accompanied by the caption “all genitalia are beautiful”¹⁶.

A recommended video titled Masturbation: It’s Good For You features a woman who introduces herself with the line: “Hi, my name is Stephanie and I really like to masturbate,” before instructing students to do so “if you’re feeling horny”¹⁷.

Promoting Activism Over Education
The politicisation does not stop at race and gender. Students were emailed Marxist commentary during teacher strikes, with staff writing that “a refusal to perform labour is ultimately the only true meaningful leverage” for workers under the UK’s “profoundly unrepresentative” electoral system¹⁸. Students were invited to join picket lines and offer support to striking teachers with snacks and posters. Participation in “social justice” actions is reportedly a requirement to pass the year¹⁹.

Conclusion: Indoctrination, Not Education
According to one former student: “If you say anything challenging to the group, then you are immediately ostracised and excluded.” A current parent echoes this concern: “They do not foster an open environment of discussion but present their views to the students as facts.”

The situation at KCLMS highlights an alarming development in British education: the weaponisation of the classroom for ideological purposes. That this is taking place at a school considered the best in the country raises serious questions about oversight, parental rights, and the future of public education in the UK. 🔝

Footnotes
¹ James Esses, “Indoctrination At The Best Sixth Form In The UK,” Substack, 12 June 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ Ibid.
¹⁷ Ibid.
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ Ibid.

---

The Genocide Lie: Misuse of Language and the Betrayal of Victims

Recent demonstrations accusing Israel of genocide dangerously distort the meaning of the term, undermining genuine victims and moral clarity. Activists, including prominent figures like Greta Thunberg, have increasingly levied the charge of genocide against Israel’s military actions in Gaza—charges which are as irresponsible as they are inaccurate.¹

The concept of genocide is legally precise, originating from the groundbreaking work of Polish-Jewish jurist Raphael Lemkin, who meticulously documented Nazi extermination policies and introduced the term in 1944. Lemkin’s work culminated in the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention, which defines genocide explicitly as the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.²

Against this strict standard, accusations that Israel is committing genocide fail to hold up to scrutiny. Gaza’s population, far from diminishing, has multiplied dramatically since 1948. Palestinian society retains active media outlets, schools, and political representation—including Arab participation in Israel’s own parliament. Such circumstances clearly demonstrate the absence of genocidal intent.³

Contrastingly, Hamas, Gaza’s governing entity, openly articulates genocidal intent in its foundational charter, advocating explicitly for the annihilation of Jews globally. The attacks of October 7, 2024, exemplified Hamas’s genocidal aims, including targeted civilian massacres and egregious atrocities against families and vulnerable populations.⁴

The question arises: how did such a moral inversion become widespread in public discourse?

Firstly, ideological capture of key societal institutions has replaced critical examination with predetermined narratives. Academia, media, and international bodies increasingly prioritize political advocacy over empirical truth, thereby corrupting public understanding.⁵

Secondly, Western attitudes towards groups like Hamas exhibit what can be termed “the racism of reduced expectations,” excusing severe atrocities as mere expressions of “resistance” or “desperation.”⁶ Conversely, democratic Israel faces unrealistic expectations—required impossibly to defend itself without causing casualties, offense, or inconvenience.⁷

Thirdly, the enduring adaptability of antisemitism allows hatred to persist under varying guises, now masquerading as critiques of Zionism or Israeli policy.⁸ This phenomenon is not new but reflects historical continuities of antisemitic narratives blaming Jews for an array of societal ills.

Ultimately, linguistic irresponsibility carries severe consequences. When politically motivated accusations trivialize terms such as genocide, society loses the moral clarity essential for identifying and responding to real genocides—like those in Nazi-occupied Europe, Rwanda, and Cambodia, whose survivors continue to bear profound trauma.⁹

At this critical juncture, society must reclaim moral seriousness and clarity. Upholding rigorous standards of truth is essential to prevent genuine atrocities from slipping unnoticed beneath a haze of manufactured outrage. Language must remain precise and truthful to safeguard justice and historical integrity.¹⁰ 🔝

¹ Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie: The Propaganda Machine Turning Victims into Villains,” June 19, 2025.
² Raphael Lemkin, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944); United Nations, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948, Article II.
³ Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
⁴ Hamas Charter (1988), Article 7; Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
⁵ Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
⁶ Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
⁷ Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
⁸ Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
⁹ Historical examples include the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide (1994), and the Cambodian genocide under the Khmer Rouge (1975–1979); Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”
¹⁰ Hirsi Ali, “The Genocide Lie.”

---

“Lucy’s Bill” and the Crisis of Trust in British Sentencing

Next Wednesday, 25 June 2025, Richard Tice MP will introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill in the House of Commons that could mark a significant shift in how sentencing decisions are scrutinised in the UK. The Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition) Bill, informally called “Lucy’s Bill,” would allow members of the public to petition the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to reconsider sentences deemed disproportionately harsh or inexplicably lenient. Crucially, this mechanism would bypass the need for expensive legal intervention—offering ordinary citizens a direct route to challenge justice that seems politically or ideologically distorted.

The Case That Sparked It
The Bill is named for Lucy Connolly, a mother and former childminder who is currently serving a 31-month prison sentence for a tweet posted in the immediate aftermath of the Southport triple murder, in which three young girls were killed. Connolly’s post, although offensive and inflammatory, did not advocate violence directly against individuals. Nonetheless, she was charged and convicted of inciting racial hatred under the Public Order Act 1986, with the judge citing “public harm” and “a risk of real-world incitement.” Her appeal was denied in May 2025.

However, comparisons quickly arose between Connolly’s sentence and those handed down for violent or sexual offences. One of the men involved in a mob attack on a mosque during the same Southport unrest received a shorter sentence. So too did Haris Ghaffar, convicted of violent disorder during last summer’s urban riots. More egregiously, Mohammed Islam Choudhrey, who paid for sex with a child trafficking victim in Telford, was sentenced more leniently than Connolly. The disparity has led many—including MPs, commentators, and legal observers—to question whether hate crime sentencing has drifted into an ideologically loaded territory, out of step with principles of proportionality and justice.

The Systemic Problem
At present, the CCRC operates under a narrow legal framework. Only certain categories of appeals are considered, and access typically depends on professional legal support. There is no pathway for the public to challenge sentences on the basis of fairness or perceived political influence. “Lucy’s Bill” would expand the CCRC’s remit, allowing direct public petitions, and, where the Commission deems appropriate, referrals to the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court.

This represents more than a procedural change. It is a reassertion of public conscience in the administration of justice. It also raises an essential constitutional question: should sentencing in a democratic society be so opaque that only those with significant resources or political leverage can contest it?

The Personal Cost
The Free Speech Union, which backed Connolly’s legal challenge, notes the devastating impact her imprisonment has had on her family. Her husband Ray is undergoing treatment for bone marrow failure, and their 12-year-old daughter is now without her mother. Whatever one thinks of Connolly’s tweet, many now ask whether imprisoning a non-violent first-time offender for more than two years serves justice—or merely political optics.

The broader concern is the appearance of a “two-tier” justice system, in which speech deemed offensive to the state’s preferred narratives is punished more harshly than acts of physical or sexual violence. This perception, whether accurate or not, is dangerous to the rule of law. Justice must not only be done—it must be seen to be done, and without ideological prejudice.

The Wider Implications
The Bill’s prospects remain uncertain. Ten-Minute Rule Bills rarely become law. Yet the symbolism is potent. Lucy’s case has attracted international attention, including monitoring from the U.S. State Department, and mobilised a significant grassroots campaign.

If the Bill gains traction, it could open the door to wider reforms in sentencing oversight, especially in cases involving hate crime legislation, public order offences, and online speech. The courts, Parliament, and the public must then confront the deeper tensions in a legal system increasingly caught between upholding order and defending liberty.

For traditional Catholics and others committed to natural law and the dignity of the human person, the implications are clear. A justice system that cannot distinguish between grave moral harm and digital hyperbole is one that no longer reflects the order of right reason. If we are to be a society governed by law, not ideology, Lucy’s Bill deserves our close attention—and our support. 🔝

¹ Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC): The independent body investigating potential miscarriages of justice in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
² Public Order Act 1986, Part III: Covers incitement to racial hatred, including material judged “threatening, abusive or insulting.”
³ See The Sun, “White House is ‘monitoring’ case of Tory councillor’s wife Lucy Connolly after she was jailed…” (June 2025).
⁴ The Times, “Are social media posts investigated more than physical crimes?” (May 2025).
⁵ Free Speech Union campaign statement, 10 June 2025.

---

Supreme Court Halts Youth Transitioning—A Providential Opening for the Church

On June 17, the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Skrmetti, ruled 6–3 in favour of the State of Tennessee, affirming the right of civil authorities to prohibit so-called “gender-affirming” medical interventions for minors. The decision comes amid growing concern—both legal and scientific—about the long-term harms of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical mutilation performed under the banner of “transitioning.”

For the Catholic faithful, especially those seeking to uphold the perennial doctrine of the Church, the significance of this ruling extends far beyond the legal sphere. It strikes at the core of what Pope Pius XII called “the order established by God,” which modern man seeks to subvert not only in society, but in the very structure of his own body and identity.

The Body as Given, Not Chosen
The contemporary ideology of gender self-determination is radically opposed to the Catholic understanding of man as a creature—not a self-fashioning will. As Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii (1930), “man has not over his body and its members full authority, but must use them in the natural order established by God.”¹ This truth refutes the notion that one may “reassign” sex or alter bodily integrity at will.

Likewise, Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas Praestantissimum (1888) that liberty does not consist in the power to do whatever one wills, but rather in the power to do what one ought. When children are taught that their bodies are mere instruments of self-expression, to be altered to match interior feelings, they are being formed not in freedom but in bondage to falsehood.

Gender Error as a Manifestation of Modernism
The prevailing gender ideology exemplifies what Pope St. Pius X condemned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907): a relativistic denial of objective truth and a subjectivism that collapses faith, reason, and nature into mere inner experience. “Modernism,” he wrote, “leads to the annihilation of all religion,” and indeed we now see that it leads to the annihilation of nature itself, beginning with the very idea of man and woman.

This is not merely philosophical error. It is rebellion against God, “the Author of nature and grace” (Humani Generis, Pius XII), and constitutes a moral perversion akin to what Pope Pius IX called “the revolt of man against God.”²

Parental Rights and the Role of the State
In upholding the authority of the state to restrict these interventions, the Supreme Court has—wittingly or not—affirmed a principle that Catholic tradition has long upheld: civil authority has a duty to uphold the natural moral law. As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “the power of the human law depends on the natural law… if in any point it deflects from the natural law, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law” (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.95, a.2).³

Where children are concerned, this duty is especially grave. The family is the primary educator, but the state is obligated to safeguard children from ideologies that destroy their souls and bodies. In the words of Pope Pius XI: “Every form of education directed against the natural and divine order, or subversive of parental rights, is an offence to the majesty of God and a violation of His law.”⁴

Pastoral Duty: Truth With Tenderness
While the legal decision in Skrmetti represents a turning point, it also poses a pastoral challenge. How shall the Church respond—not only to the error of transgender ideology—but to the wounded souls caught in its wake?

Catholic doctrine compels us to speak with the clarity of truth and the tenderness of Christ. Those suffering from gender dysphoria are not enemies to be mocked, but souls to be saved. The error must be refuted, but the person must be loved.

The Roman Catechism teaches that “the Christian should keep his body chaste and holy, as the temple of the Holy Ghost,”⁵ and this must include accompanying those who experience profound confusion about their embodied identity. That accompaniment, however, cannot affirm lies. It must always be ordered toward repentance, healing, and a right understanding of self as made in the image of God—male or female.

Practical Guidance for Catholics
In light of this ruling and the continued cultural confusion, the faithful must:

• Teach a sound Catholic anthropology: That man is body and soul, and his sex is not a social construct but a divine gift.
• Reject any use of puberty blockers or mutilating surgeries as “therapeutic.” They violate the natural order and the Fifth Commandment.
• Protect children and youth from ideological indoctrination in schools, media, and even Catholic institutions that compromise with modern error.
• Support families and individuals suffering from gender distress with genuine pastoral care, rooted in grace and the sacramental life—not pseudo-compassion that affirms disordered desires.
• Pray for the conversion of all who promote or profit from these lies, that they may, like St. Mary Magdalene, be healed by truth.

Conclusion: An Hour of Visitation
This is a moment of grace. The Supreme Court, through natural reason, has affirmed a truth the Church has proclaimed from the beginning: “male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). But this is not a moment for triumphalism. It is an hour of visitation, in which Christ calls His Church to witness—not only in doctrine, but in sanctity.

May we, like the saints before us, have the courage to speak when the world prefers silence, to heal when others wound, and to love not as the world loves, but as Christ Himself has loved us. 🔝

1. Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (1930), §70.
2. Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (1864), Introduction.
3. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.95, a.2.
4. Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), §32.
5. Catechism of the Council of Trent (Roman Catechism), Part III, The Sixth Commandment.

---

---

🔝

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)

---

🔝