w/c 13/07/25

ORDO

Dies	13 SUN	14 MON	15 TUE	16 WED	17 THU	18 FRI	19 SAT	20 SUN
Officium	Dominica V Post Pentecosten	S. Bonaventuræ Episcopi Confessoris et Ecclesiæ Doctoris	S. Henrici Imperatoris Confessoris	Beatæ Mariæ Virginis de Monte Carmelo	S. Alexii Confessoris	S. Camilli de Lellis Confessoris	S. Vincentii a Paulo Confessoris	S. Hieronymi Æmiliani Confessoris
CLASSIS	Semiduplex	Duplex	Semiduplex	Duplex majus	Semiduplex	Duplex	Duplex	Duplex
Color*	Viridis	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus
MISSA	Exáudi, Dómine	Gaudeamus	Os justi	Gaudeamus	Os justi	Majórem	Justus ut	Effúsum
Orationes	2a. S. Anacleti Papæ et Martyris 3a. A cunctis nos	NA	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro papa vel ad libitum	NA	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro papa vel ad libitum	2a. Ss. Symphorosæ et Septem Filiorum Martyrum	NA	2a. Dominica VI Post Pentecosten 3a. S. Margaritæ, VM
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva

Iustitia ex Corde

“Iustitia ex Corde” expresses the truth that true justice begins not with external observance, but with the interior transformation of the heart by divine charity. It recalls Christ’s teaching that reconciliation, mercy, and love are the foundation of righteousness in the Kingdom of God. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart… and thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang the whole law…” (Matt. 22:37–40)

In the midst of this summer’s political tempests, moral betrayals, and liturgical confusion, our eyes are drawn anew to the quiet flame that ought to burn at the centre of every Christian life: a heart conformed to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the only true source of justice. This is the foundation of this month’s Nuntiatoria: Iustitia ex Corde – Justice from the Heart.

This is not a sentimental phrase, nor a pious platitude. It is a challenge, and a judgment.

For too long, the Church’s voice in public life has oscillated between technocratic policy papers and ideological posturing. In her attempt to be heard in the public square, she has grown too much like it – anxious, politicised, and cautious to the point of complicity. The result is clear: when justice is severed from love, it becomes legalism; when love is divorced from truth, it becomes indulgence. The only path forward is to recover the unity of truth, love, and justice – not as abstract principles, but as habitus flowing from a heart remade by grace.

What does “justice from the heart” look like today?
It is the mother who refuses to celebrate the mutilation of her son’s body in the name of “identity,” not because she hates, but because she knows that love tells the truth.

It is the young man who stands alone at a Pride march with a placard that dares to connect delusion with dysfunction, because no one else will say what is plain to reason and confirmed by faith.

It is the priest who refuses to be silent about abortion, even when bishops equivocate or kneel to the regime, because he cannot betray either the unborn or the Gospel.

It is the convert to the Traditional Mass who, upon discovering the reverence and richness of the ancient rite, realises he must now live a life as serious and sacrificial as the liturgy he has inherited.

And it is, dare we say, the bishop who would rather suffer marginalisation and slander than confirm his flock in modernist error – because his own heart is pierced with the same love that pierces the Heart of Christ.

Justice from the heart is not mild. It is not moderate. It is not safe. It is cruciform.
This issue of Nuntiatoria gives voice to many such hearts. You will read of bishops in the Philippines denouncing online gambling as a spiritual virus; but you will also read how some of the same episcopates remain morally confused over Hamas and Gaza. You will encounter the irony of St Thomas Becket honoured by a rite in Canterbury that bears no resemblance to the Mass he died for. You will be confronted by the Vatican’s quiet admission that the global bishops never actually opposed Summorum Pontificum, and the implication that Traditionis Custodes was, in substance, a lie.

But beneath each of these stories is the same call: to be men and women of justice – not as the world defines it, but as God gives it. And He gives it not in policies or press releases, but in grace that reorders the affections. Hearts that burn with the justice of God act with truth, even when it is unpopular; with mercy, even when it is undeserved; and with courage, even when it is dangerous.

Let this be the hallmark of our apostolate, and of all who read and labour with us: not cowardice disguised as prudence, not compromise disguised as dialogue, not harshness disguised as orthodoxy. But hearts set ablaze with divine charity, speaking truth in season and out, for love of God and the salvation of souls.

As Our Lady of Mount Carmel reminds us in this month of July, we are clothed with a habit not for comfort, but for combat. And so we say with the Prophet: “I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord.” (Jer. 24:7)

In the Sacred Heart, source of all justice, I remain 🔝

---

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

The Time after Pentecost in the Tridentine Rite
The Time after Pentecost in the Tridentine liturgical calendar, sometimes called the “Season after Pentecost,” corresponds to what is now known in the modern Roman Rite as “Ordinary Time.” Yet unlike the postconciliar terminology, the Tridentine designation is not “ordinary” in tone or theology. It is profoundly mystical, drawing the Church into a deepening participation in the life of the Holy Ghost poured out upon the Mystical Body at Pentecost.

A Season of Fulfilment and Mission
The Time after Pentecost is the longest of the liturgical seasons, extending from the Monday after the Octave of Pentecost to the final Saturday before the First Sunday of Advent. It represents the age of the Church — the time between the descent of the Holy Ghost and the Second Coming of Christ. Where Advent looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and Easter celebrated His triumph, the Time after Pentecost lives out His indwelling. It is the season of sanctification, corresponding to the Holy Ghost in the economy of salvation, just as Advent and Christmas reflect the Father’s sending, and Lent and Easter the Son’s redeeming work.

Dom Prosper Guéranger writes that “the mystery of Pentecost embraces the whole duration of the Church’s existence” — a mystery of fruitfulness, guidance, and spiritual warfare. It is not a neutral stretch of ‘green vestments’ but a continuation of the supernatural drama of the Church militant, sustained by the fire of divine charity.

The Green of Growth — But Also of Struggle
Liturgically, green dominates this time, symbolising hope and spiritual renewal. Yet the Masses of the Sundays after Pentecost contain numerous reminders that the Christian life is not passive growth but an active battle. Readings from St. Paul’s epistles dominate, especially exhortations to moral purity, perseverance, and readiness for the day of judgment. The Gospels often feature Christ’s miracles, parables of the Kingdom, or calls to vigilance — all designed to awaken souls from spiritual sloth.

Fr. Pius Parsch notes that “the Sundays after Pentecost are dominated by two great thoughts: the growth of the Church and the interior life of the Christian.” These twin aspects — ecclesial expansion and individual sanctity — are ever present in the collects and readings, pointing to the fruit of Pentecost as the Church’s leavening power in the world.

The Numbering and Shape of the Season
In the Tridentine Missal, Sundays are numbered “after Pentecost,” beginning with the Sunday immediately following the octave day (Trinity Sunday stands apart). The exact number of these Sundays varies depending on the date of Easter. Since the final Sundays are taken from the “Sundays after Epiphany” not used earlier in the year, the readings and prayers of the last Sundays are drawn from both ends of the temporal cycle. This produces a subtle eschatological tone in the final weeks — especially from the 24th Sunday after Pentecost onward — anticipating the Second Coming and the Last Judgment.

In this way, the Time after Pentecost includes both the lived reality of the Church’s mission and the urgency of her final consummation. The Kingdom is already present, but not yet fully manifest.

The Role of Feasts and the Saints
The richness of the season is also punctuated by numerous feasts: of Our Lady (e.g., the Visitation, the Assumption), of the angels (e.g., St. Michael), of apostles and martyrs, confessors and virgins. Unlike Advent or Lent, which are penitential in tone, the Time after Pentecost includes joyful celebrations that model Christian holiness in diverse vocations. The saints are the mature fruit of Pentecost, witnesses to the Spirit’s indwelling.

As Dom Guéranger says, this season “is the longest of all in the liturgical year: its length admits of its being considered as the image of eternity.” It teaches that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not given for a moment, but for a lifetime of growth in grace — and for the eternal life to come.

Conclusion: A Time of Interiorisation and Apostolic Zeal
The Time after Pentecost is not a liturgical afterthought, but the climax of the year — the age of the Church, the time in which we now live. Every soul is invited to be a continuation of the Incarnation through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The sacraments, the Mass, and the feasts of the saints all nourish this divine life, which began in Baptism and is ordered to glory.

Thus, the Time after Pentecost is not simply the Church’s “green season,” but her most fruitful and missionary phase — a time of living in the Spirit, bearing His fruits, and hastening toward the return of the King. 🔝

---

Justice from the Heart: The Fifth Sunday after Pentecost

The Fifth Sunday after Pentecost continues the Church’s Pentecostal meditation on the interior life of grace. The green vestments symbolize spiritual growth, a theme expressed in the day’s liturgy, which focuses not on external observance but on the conversion of the heart. The lections and prayers instruct the faithful in the path of true charity—one that begins with mercy, humility, and the rejection of anger.

Apostolic Exhortation to Fraternal Charity
The epistle is drawn from St Peter’s First Letter (1 Peter 3:8–15), where he exhorts believers to unity of mind and mutual compassion: “Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble…” This is not a vague moralism. The call to unity and forgiveness is explicitly directed to a persecuted Church, living as a holy minority in a hostile world.

Fr Leonard Goffine emphasises that this passage echoes the Beatitudes and forms a summary of Christian moral life: “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil, avoid deceit, and turn from evil to do good.”¹ Fr Pius Parsch notes that this is not merely ethical instruction but mystagogical teaching for those who live from the grace of Pentecost: the Christian does not simply obey—he blesses, suffers willingly, and lives from the Spirit.

Justice That Surpasses the Pharisees
The Gospel (Matthew 5:20–24) presents a radicalisation of the Old Law. Jesus says: “Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” In this brief section from the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord warns against anger, insults, and hidden hatred: “Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment.”

Dom Guéranger sees this as a turning point in the liturgical catechesis of the season. “The divine Word shows us that His kingdom is not one of appearances or formalities, but of the heart.”² In other words, Pharisaic religiosity—though externally pious—fails to satisfy the demands of divine justice. Christ calls His disciples to reconciliation before sacrifice: “If thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there remember that thy brother hath anything against thee… first be reconciled.”

St Augustine draws out the Eucharistic implication: “He who comes to the altar while bearing hatred in his heart approaches not Christ but condemnation.”³ This command is both practical and mystical: fraternal peace is not a legal condition for worship—it is the very life of the Body of Christ.

The Orations: Love and Inheritance
The Collect petitions for supernatural love: “Pour into our hearts such love toward Thee, that loving Thee in all things and above all things, we may obtain Thy promises, which exceed all that we can desire.” This is a prayer for infused charity, not human sentiment. It reflects the teaching of St Thomas that charity is the form of all the virtues and the condition for eternal beatitude.⁴

The Secret prays that the offering might cleanse and sanctify both body and soul. This dual sanctification prepares the faithful to unite themselves inwardly to the Holy Sacrifice. It echoes St Paul’s call in Romans 12:1 to offer one’s body as a living sacrifice.

The Postcommunion closes the arc: “May the reception of this divine sacrament cleanse us from guilt, and make us heirs to the heavenly kingdom.” From reconciliation to inheritance, the day’s liturgy shows how divine justice is not merely satisfied by worship but fulfilled in the transformation of the person.

The Law of Charity and the Peace of the Altar
In summary, the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost presents a demanding image of Christian justice: one that begins in the heart, reforms our relationships, and reaches toward eternity. The Sacrifice of the Mass is not a sanctuary from human wounds but their remedy—so long as we approach the altar in peace, humility, and love.

As Dom Guéranger writes: *“God grants to His faithful not only the knowledge of His will but the love that makes obedience sweet. In the heart where this divine love reigns, no bitterness, no hatred can endure.”⁵ 🔝

¹ Fr Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year: A Practical Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, Fifth Sunday after Pentecost.
² Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Fifth Sunday after Pentecost.
³ St Augustine, Sermon on the Mount, Book I, ch. 9.
⁴ St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 23, a. 1.
⁵ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, ibid.

---

Missalettes (Sunday V Post Pentecost)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost
“Iustitia ex Corde” — Justice from the Heart

The Gospel of this Sunday, taken from the Sermon on the Mount, presents us with a divine standard that penetrates beyond outward action to the very motives of the soul: “Unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” This is not a rejection of the Law, but its fulfilment. Christ is not abolishing justice—He is transfiguring it. He calls us to a justice that arises not from legal compliance, but from love; not from fear of punishment, but from the heart transformed by grace.

What was lacking in the justice of the Pharisees? They knew the words of Scripture, they observed the external rites, they honoured the Law—but they remained closed to mercy. They offered sacrifices, but withheld forgiveness. Their zeal for righteousness became a cloak for pride, judgment, and hardness of heart. And so Jesus declares that unless our justice surpasses theirs, we remain outside the kingdom.

True Christian justice is not satisfied with mere appearances. It seeks reconciliation, healing, and peace. It refuses to tolerate the silent bitterness of anger, the quiet wound of insult, or the cold refusal to forgive. That is why Christ places reconciliation before worship: “If thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there remember that thy brother hath anything against thee… first go and be reconciled.” This is not a suggestion—it is a condition for the integrity of our sacrifice.

Here the teaching becomes liturgical, even Eucharistic. The altar is the place of union with God. Yet that union cannot be real if it excludes our brother. We cannot feast at the table of divine mercy while harbouring revenge or contempt in our hearts. Every Holy Mass calls us to bring not only our prayers and offerings, but also our relationships—to place them before the Lord in the light of His truth. Who is it that I must forgive? Whose forgiveness do I need? What grudges do I carry to the altar, like chains that bind my soul?

To forgive is not to forget injustice or to approve of sin. It is to surrender judgment to God and to desire the good of the other, even when they do not seek it. It is to will peace rather than revenge. This is the justice that flows from charity—the justice ex corde, from the heart.

The Collect today gives voice to this longing: “Pour into our hearts such love toward Thee, that loving Thee in all things and above all things, we may obtain Thy promises…” That is the secret: we do not attain this justice by our own effort, but by grace. Only divine charity can purify our hearts of hatred and fill them with peace. Only the love of God can break the cycle of resentment and make us ministers of mercy.

This is the justice that prepares us for the heavenly inheritance. It is not imposed from without—it is infused from above. It does not seek reparation through vengeance but finds joy in reconciliation. It is the very justice of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, who loved us while we were still His enemies, and who offered Himself upon the Cross not only for our sins, but for those of the whole world.

As we approach the altar today, let us do so in peace. If there is anyone we have not forgiven, let us forgive. If there is anyone we have injured, let us resolve to make amends. And if our own hearts are wounded, let us lay those wounds before the Divine Physician. Then our offering will be pleasing, our communion fruitful, and our hearts will beat more closely with the Heart of Christ—who alone is our peace. 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Fifth Sunday after Pentecost

Be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble; not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing: for unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing.

In today’s epistle we hear St. Peter’s exhortation to follow the path of not rendering evil for evil, but rather overcoming evil by good. The faithful are to have compassion for one another, to be merciful, modest and humble, not responding to railing with railing, but contrariwise blessing. They are to keep their tongues from evil and ensure that their lips speak no guile. They are to seek peace and pursue it. For “who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous for good? But if also you suffer anything for justice’ sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear, and be not troubled; but sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts.”

But what was the context in which St. Peter wrote these words? St. Peter wrote to Christians in Asia Minor from Rome. In the aftermath of a fire in Rome the Emperor Nero had launched a persecution against the Christians. Many had died as martyrs. Popular opinion not unreasonably suspected that the Emperor had started the fire himself in order to make easier his plans for rebuilding the city, and had therefore tried to make the Christians the scapegoat for his own actions. There was a fear that the persecution that Nero had started in Rome would spread to the provinces, and it seems that it was this that prompted St. Peter to write to the Christians of Asia Minor a letter exhorting them to persevere in the face of likely persecution. They were encouraged to follow the path of non-violence, as Jesus himself had fulfilled in his own life the role of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, who was despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

In teaching the way of non-violence Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount (part of which we heard in today’s Gospel from St. Matthew) had proclaimed a righteousness greater than that of the scribes. The learned teachers of the Law had sought to make it applicable to every aspect of life, by devising further laws in order to prevent faithful Israelites from transgressing. In so doing they made a fence around the Torah. But Jesus proclaimed that the time of the new covenant looked forward to by the prophet Jeremiah, when the law would finally be written on the hearts of men, had now dawned. He was himself the full, final and definitive revelation of God’s will. It was not enough to simply multiply outward observances like the scribes, but rather to live by a totally integrated unity of thought and act. The Law of Moses had commanded the people not to murder, but Jesus pointed out  that it was not enough simply to abstain from transgressing against the letter of the law, for the impulse to murder arose from deep seated anger within the human heart. The commandment to love  our neighbours as ourselves had sometimes been interpreted as still allowing hatred of enemies. But Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us and despitefully use us, to forgive, as we have been forgiven.

At the time St. Peter had understandably found this teaching difficult to accept. He had been hoping for a Messiah who would restore an independent kingdom of Israel by defeating the pagan hordes that surrounded it. Though Jesus had accepted Peter’s confession of faith as the rock on which the Church would be built, he had gone on to proclaim that his messianic destiny, enthronement and rule would come about not by violence, but by reversal, repudiation, suffering and death. The world could not be won by the world’s own methods. In the Garden of Gethsemane St. Peter had used violence against Malchus, the servant of the high priest, who had been among the assembled party that had come to arrest Jesus. But Jesus had told him to desist from violence, for all they that drew the sword would die by the sword. Like the other disciples he had fled. Despite his earlier protestations of loyalty he had denied he was among the followers of Jesus at his trial, though his Galilean accent gave him away. For all his fighting rhetoric, he had failed his Master at his greatest hour of need, when he no longer taught but acted and suffered.

But the good news of the Gospel is that this is not the end of the story. For Jesus rose from the dead, triumphing over death by death. In a resurrection appearance by the Sea of Galilee, Jesus reinstated St. Peter and commanded him to feed the flock, as well as foretelling that Peter himself would one day suffer martyrdom.

It seems that St. Peter had finally taken on board Jesus’ message about non-violence. He emerges as the leader of the early Church (which we can read about in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles), proclaiming that salvation had come through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, who had fulfilled the way of non-violence. He had borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. The chastisement of our peace was upon him and by his stripes we are healed.

It was with this message in mind that St. Peter wrote his great epistle. He was reflecting on the lessons that he had learned in his own life from the one who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, but entrusted himself to the one who judged justly. The Saviour had died not only as a sacrifice for sin, but also to give us an example of godly life. It was better to suffer for good, than for wrong. The faithful should persevere in the face of social ostracism and persecution. For this was the path of the one who had turned the other cheek, in his non-resistance at his arrest and trial, and had gone the second mile, when he had been compelled to carry his own cross. It was this path that St. Peter himself would follow, in his own martyrdom in Rome.

The message of Jesus has been described as the unattainable that we are yet bound to attain. But it is not simply an impossible and impractical utopian ideal, but one that has had effects in history. It is not something we can follow by our own strength, as St. Peter himself well knew, because he was by nature unstable and impetuous. It was rather the divine charity that suffereth long and is kind, that vaunteth not itself, that rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth that gave him the strength to overcome his weakness and be faithful at the last.

Let us pray for grace to strengthen us that we too may follow the path of non-violence in our own time and place. 🔝

Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel

Today we celebrate the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel. The Carmelite order is different from other religious communities in that it does not claim descent from a particular founder, but rather to a continuous witness of those who, since the apostolic age, had lived a life of withdrawal from the world on Mount Carmel in Palestine. This site was associated with the clash between the prophet Elijah and the false prophets of Baal, and consequently served through subsequent generations as a place for witnessing to the truth in the face of the false standards of this world. The Carmelite tradition of a continuous descent of witness on this site since the apostolic age has been strongly attacked and also vigorously defended. It is clear that by the time of the Crusades there was an order of hermits on this site. It is reasonable to suppose that they followed an earlier tradition of witness on the site of Mount Carmel, but this is too uncertain a matter to attempt to draw any definitive conclusions.

The earlier success of the Crusaders in Palestine soon faded and the Carmelites were eventually forced to leave Palestine and take refuge in Europe. Here they faced challenge from other religious orders that already existed in Europe. The Carmelites, despite their claims to be following an ancient tradition of witness in Palestine, were certainly a new order in Europe. A particular difficulty was that the Carmelites in Palestine were an order of hermits. Once established in Europe it was necessary for them to adapt to place greater emphasis on the communal life, especially in the face of challenge from the Augustinians, Franciscans and Dominicans. The constitution of the Carmelites was consequently adapted to bring them more into line with that of other orders of friars. Inevitably this led to the relaxation of many of the stricter practices of the original order of hermits in Palestine. In part this was necessary to be pragmatic in the existing circumstances, but it also led to a falling away from the original vision of the order. In the sixteenth century in Spain under the leadership of St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila an attempt was made to return to the original charism of the order. The followers of this stricter rule became known as the Discalced Carmelites. They were involved in a bitter controversy with their less observant brethren. The end result was the establishment of stricter and more relaxed orders of Carmelites.

The tradition which today’s feast celebrates is the giving of the scapular by the Blessed Virgin Mary to St. Simon Stock, an English saint especially associated with the establishment of the Carmelite order in Europe. The Scapular was seen as a sign of the heavenly protection of the order in the face of challenge from the existing ecclesiastical authorities and other religious orders. Like everything else connected with the history of the Carmelite order, the tradition surrounding the bestowal of the scapular has been strongly attacked and vigorously defended. The one thing that is clear is that the scapular is a sign of the distinctive witness of the Carmelite order to the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the life of contemplation and prayer in the face of the worldliness. This feast day, long associated with the Carmelite order, was finally placed on the universal calendar in the eighteenth century.

The Carmelites were thus distinct from other friars in that they placed more emphasis on the life of contemplation and less on mission to the world. On the other hand, they were no longer simply an order of hermits separated from the world on Mount Carmel, but had adopted a communal life like that of other friars. In a sense they combined the original charism of an order of hermits with a later more communal lifestyle like that of the Augustinians, Franciscans and Dominicans.

The history of the Carmelites shows how difficult it is to achieve the right balance between having clear principles and being pragmatic about what is realistically possible in a given situation. If we do not have clear principles we will have no clear vision or aim and will consequently find ourselves living lives in conformity with the false standards of the world rather than those of the Gospel. On the other hand, if we only focus on having clear principles without regard to the circumstances and times which we find ourselves living in we will establish systems that may look good in theory, but are impossible to operate in practice. If a religious order is to survive the test of time it must find a way of achieving the right balance between having a clear vision and being pragmatic about what is realistically possible. This will inevitably ensure that there is a constant tension between the ideal and the practical, but this tension can only be eliminated by neglecting one of these two necessary features.

The Carmelites had to find a way of balancing the aims of the original order of hermits in Palestine, with the more communal lifestyle of the friars that people in Europe had grown accustomed to. In so doing it would be fair to say that they lost sight of some of the original vision. It was this that led to the attempt to reform the order by St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila in the sixteenth century. This was an important return to the original vision of the order, even if it proved impossible to adopt for the order as a whole. It was necessary in practice to be pragmatic and recognise Carmelites of stricter and more relaxed observance.

Ultimately, a good tree is known by the fruits that it produces. The tree may need pruning in order to grow and flourish, but it can only do so if it is securely rooted in the Orthodox Christian faith. There are many uncertainties surrounding the history of the Carmelites, but what is clear is that the order has consistently produced great saints. The tree is shown to be good by the fruits that it has produced throughout the ages.

Let us pray for grace to discern the way for us to be faithful to the Gospel in our own time and place by both having clear principles and also being pragmatic about what is realistically possible in our situation. Let us take heed to the lessons that can be learned from the history of the Carmelite order and the great saints that it has produced and apply them to our own time and place. 🔝

---

The Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel: July 16

The Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, celebrated on July 16, honours the Blessed Virgin Mary as patroness of the Carmelite Order and commemorates her protection and maternal care for all who seek to follow Christ in the spirit of Carmel—through prayer, penance, and contemplative union with God.

Origins and Carmelite Tradition
The feast has its origins in the 13th century when a group of Latin hermits living on Mount Carmel in the Holy Land dedicated their oratory to the Blessed Virgin Mary. These men eventually became known as the Carmelites. They revered Mary as their “Lady of the Place,” a spiritual mother and exemplar of contemplative prayer. When the Saracens drove the hermits out, many resettled in Europe, bringing with them a strong Marian devotion that shaped the identity of the Carmelite Order.

The Brown Scapular and St. Simon Stock
A central devotion associated with this feast is the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, traditionally linked to an apparition to St. Simon Stock, an English Carmelite Prior General in 1251. According to Carmelite tradition, Our Lady appeared to him holding the scapular and promised:

“Whosoever dies wearing this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire.”

This promise, interpreted in the light of Catholic doctrine, signifies Mary’s special intercession for those clothed in her habit and striving to live in fidelity to Christ. The scapular became a sacramental—an outward sign of Mary’s maternal protection and of the wearer’s desire to imitate her virtues.

Theological Meaning and Universal Appeal
While the scapular and feast day are most closely associated with the Carmelite family, the Church extends the devotion to all the faithful. Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II encouraged the faithful to wear the scapular as a sign of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. John Paul II himself wore it from childhood.

Theologically, the feast reminds us of Mary’s role as Mother and Queen of Carmel, a model of interior silence, obedience, and union with God. In Mary, the contemplative sees the summit of the spiritual life; in her intercession, the pilgrim finds comfort and hope.

Liturgical Observance and Devotional Practice
In the traditional Roman calendar (pre-1970), July 16 is observed as a Double Major Feast, with its own proper Mass (“Gaudeamus omnes”) and Office. The readings and prayers reflect Mary’s singular privilege as the bearer of Christ and her role as intercessor and protector of the faithful.

On this day, many parishes—especially those under Carmelite patronage—celebrate solemn Masses, processions, and scapular enrollments. Devotees renew their commitment to Mary through the scapular and prayer, often reciting the Flos Carmeli, a beautiful hymn attributed to St. Simon Stock:

Flos Carmeli, vitis florigera,
Splendor caeli, Virgo puerpera,
Singularis…

Our Lady’s Promise and Our Response
While the scapular is not a magical charm, it is a powerful sign of Mary’s help in spiritual battle and her maternal concern for our salvation. To wear it worthily is to strive daily for purity, prayerfulness, and trust in her intercession. The Carmelite charism—rooted in the example of Elijah the Prophet and the Blessed Virgin—calls every Christian to deeper union with God, in silence, fidelity, and sacrifice.

Conclusion
The Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel invites us to climb the “mountain” of holiness under Mary’s guidance. It reminds us that devotion to her is never an end in itself but a means to closer communion with her Son. As we invoke her under this title, we ask not only for protection in death but for perseverance in life—through the narrow path that leads to union with God.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, pray for us. 🔝

---

---

---

Forgotten Rubrics: Genuflecting Toward the Blessed Sacrament

Among the many quiet casualties of the postconciliar liturgical upheaval is the nearly universal abandonment of a simple but profound gesture: genuflecting toward the Blessed Sacrament. Once considered second nature for Catholics, this small act of reverence has in many places been replaced by hurried bows, distracted nods, or nothing at all. And yet, the rubrics—where still intact—continue to call for it.

The Sign of Faith in the Real Presence
Genuflection is not merely a cultural gesture but a theological one. It is, as the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) still affirms, an act of adoration. The 2002 GIRM states:

“A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration and is therefore reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament…”

Historically, Catholics would genuflect upon entering or exiting a church where the Eucharist was reserved. Clergy and servers would genuflect when passing in front of the tabernacle. Faithful would genuflect when the Sacred Host was exposed or when Christ was present on the altar at the consecration. In the traditional rubrics of the Roman Rite, a genuflection was mandated every time one passed in front of the tabernacle or altar where the Blessed Sacrament was present. This was not a matter of piety, but of obedience to the liturgical norms.

Modern Confusion and Loss of Gesture
In many Novus Ordo parishes today, this gesture has vanished, even among clergy. Part of the confusion arises from the displacement of the tabernacle to side chapels or obscure corners, as encouraged by post-Vatican II architectural reforms, often against the explicit wishes of St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. But even where the tabernacle is centrally located, genuflection is often neglected.

Worse still, the liturgical formation in many seminaries and catechetical programs has failed to emphasize the importance of such gestures, reinforcing the idea that bodily reverence is optional or outdated. This is more than a failure of discipline—it is a failure of faith in the Real Presence.

Rubrical and Doctrinal Witnesses
The preconciliar rubrics were unambiguous. The Ritus Servandus in the Tridentine Missal instructs the priest and ministers to genuflect “whenever passing before the Most Blessed Sacrament.” The Caeremoniale Episcoporum adds that this genuflection must be “profound” and “performed with attention and care.”

Even the 1983 Ceremonial of Bishops (§71) retains the instruction:

“When the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the sanctuary, the bishop and ministers genuflect whenever they pass in front of it, except when they are carrying the processional cross or candles.”

More Than Ritual
To genuflect is to confess with the body that Christ is truly present—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. It is a public act of humility, of Eucharistic faith, and of interior devotion expressed outwardly. In a world that constantly encourages casualness and self-centeredness, the genuflection is a physical antidote: a moment of silence, deference, and adoration directed away from the self and toward God.

Restoring the Gesture
The restoration of this rubric is not optional for those seeking to recover Catholic identity. It is part of the broader re-sacralization that must occur in our churches, our liturgies, and our hearts. Catechists, priests, and bishops must teach it anew—not only as a liturgical directive, but as a personal act of worship.

Let the recovery begin with us. Every time we enter a church where Christ is truly present, let us bend the knee with reverence and love. Not out of nostalgia, but out of fidelity to the living Christ.

“At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth” (Phil. 2:10). 🔝

¹ General Instruction of the Roman Missal, §274.
² Ritus Servandus in Celebratione Missae, VI.4 (Missale Romanum, 1962).
³ Ceremonial of Bishops, §71 (1983 English edition).
⁴ Caeremoniale Episcoporum, Lib. I, cap. 12, n. 83 (1600 edition).
⁵ See Pope Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis, §69, where he emphasizes the central placement of the tabernacle as a sign of Eucharistic faith.

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel

“Behold your mother.” (John 19:27)
On the heights of Mount Carmel, the prophet Elijah once took refuge, prayed for rain, and beheld the cloud that prefigured the Virgin who would bear the Christ. Centuries later, hermits settled on that same mountain, seeking solitude not for its own sake, but to draw near to God through prayer, penance, and contemplation. It is in this spirit that we celebrate the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel—not merely as a commemoration of a title or a vision, but as a summons to follow Mary on the narrow path that leads to the summit of divine love.

Mary of Carmel is not a distant figure clothed in romantic legend. She is the Virgin of silence and strength, of hiddenness and glory. She is the contemplative soul par excellence, whose gaze never wavered from the face of her Son—from the cradle to the Cross, and beyond the tomb to His heavenly throne. She teaches us that to love God is to watch, to wait, to ponder, to persevere. The heights of Mount Carmel are not geographical—they are spiritual. They are the high places of surrender, of purity of heart, of union with the Divine.

When she gave the scapular to St. Simon Stock, it was more than a sign of her protection in death. It was a mother’s garment, a mantle of commitment: a call to wear Christ, to follow Him with the same fidelity and interiority that marked her own life. The scapular, in its simplicity, says: “I belong to Mary, and through her, to Jesus.” It is a habit of the heart as much as of the shoulders.

Today, Our Lady of Mount Carmel stands before us not as a mere comfort, but as a challenge. She invites us to become like her—to ponder the Word, to live in the shadow of the Cross, to say fiat even when the cost is hidden. In a world loud with distractions and driven by pride, she remains the quiet teacher of humility, obedience, and contemplation.

She does not promise ease, but presence. She does not remove the Cross, but teaches us to carry it with grace. And she walks with us always, leading us from the valleys of sin to the mountain of divine union. On this feast, we are reminded: the heart of Carmel is not withdrawal from the world, but deeper immersion into the mystery of God. It is not escape, but encounter.

May we, clothed in her mantle, learn to love as she loved, pray as she prayed, and walk as she walked—all the way to the mountain where God reveals His glory.

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Mother and Queen of contemplatives,
lead us by the narrow path of purity,
shield us in the hour of trial,
and bring us to the summit of holiness,
where Christ is all in all. Amen. 🔝

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

The Vatican’s War on the Latin Mass Was Never Mandated: The Lie Unravels

When Traditionis Custodes was issued in July 2021, it came with a startling claim: that bishops around the world had judged Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum a source of division and disharmony in the Church. Based on this, Pope Francis decreed that the Traditional Latin Mass should be severely restricted—many interpreted the document as a final blow against the living presence of Catholic liturgical tradition.

But four years later, that justification lies in ruins.

In July 2025, veteran Vatican journalist Diane Montagna published the very CDF report to which Pope Francis had referred in Traditionis Custodes—and it said the opposite. The bishops did not call for restriction. The CDF did not recommend suppression. The Church was misled.

The Buried Report: Peace, Not Division
The report, compiled in 2020 by the CDF’s Fourth Section (formerly Ecclesia Dei), was intended to assess global episcopal sentiment about the implementation of Summorum Pontificum. Its contents were never made public—until Montagna obtained and released them. Dated February 22, 2021 (the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter) and bearing protocol number 03/2020-ED, the report included statistical analyses, regional summaries, and direct quotations from bishops. It could not be more official.

And its conclusion was unequivocal:

“The majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”¹

Far from describing a Church torn by liturgical conflict, the bishops praised the pastoral fruits of the Traditional Latin Mass, which they associated with reverence, fidelity, and spiritual depth:

“The prevailing attitude among the faithful… is one of peace, faithfulness to the Church, and a desire to grow in holiness.”²

The report even documented that the older liturgy had improved the celebration of the Novus Ordo in some places, deepened vocations, and brought about conversions.

A False Justification Revealed
Yet Pope Francis, in his Apostolic Letter, claimed otherwise. Referring to the CDF consultation, he stated that the bishops’ responses had “preoccupied and saddened” him, and convinced him of the need to act:

“The results have been carefully considered… and persuade me of the need to intervene.”³

This contradiction lay dormant until the facts came to light.

The Vatican’s Pivot: “Confidential Reports” and Missing Documents
Faced with the CDF report’s publication, the Vatican could no longer rely on silence. During a press conference on July 3, 2025—convened for an entirely different topic—Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola, Secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, was asked about Montagna’s publication. He deferred to Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni, who read from a prepared statement:

“I do not confirm the authenticity of the texts that have been published, which presumably concern part of one of the documents on which the decision was based… Further documentation was later added… including other confidential reports resulting from additional consultations.”⁴

For the first time, the Vatican claimed there were other, secret reports that supposedly factored into the decision to suppress the Latin Mass. But Montagna immediately pointed out the glaring problem:

“If what Bruni says is true, why did Pope Francis not refer to those ‘additional documents’ in Traditionis Custodes, given that they presumably gave him the basis for his decision to abrogate Summorum Pontificum?”⁵

She added that the Vatican now bore the burden of proof: either publish the alleged reports, or admit that Traditionis Custodes was built on a false premise. As of this writing, no such reports have been released.

Andrea Grillo: From Triumph to Tantrum
One of the leading theological advocates of Traditionis Custodes, Andrea Grillo, reacted with panic. In a July 9 blog post, he denounced the leak as “partial and preconciliar,” and accused Montagna of sabotaging ecclesial trust. He maintained that the suppression of the Latin Mass was necessary for the Church to fully receive Vatican II.

But traditional commentators were quick to expose the incoherence. Rorate Caeli, in a widely shared editorial titled The Mad Hatter Liturgist, wrote:

“Grillo now finds himself forced to explain away the very bishops whose guidance he once invoked. His incoherence is as theatrical as his contempt for the faithful.”⁶

Msgr. Nicola Bux: “The Bishops Weren’t Responsible”
While ideologues tried to contain the fallout, one of the most respected voices in the Church brought clarity and calm. Monsignor Nicola Bux—former consultor to the CDF, close collaborator of Benedict XVI, and liturgical theologian—granted an in-depth interview in which he exposed the real authors of the war on tradition.

Speaking to La Bussola Quotidiana, Bux declared:

“The bishops of the world did not take a negative stance toward Summorum Pontificum. Those who were surprised included Benedict XVI himself, as Msgr. Gänswein’s memoir confirms.”⁷

He dismissed the claim that traditionalists lack a sense of communion with the Church:

“To attribute to the extraordinary rite a distorted sensus Ecclesiae is not correct… One could ask whether those attending the ordinary form truly adhere to the faith and morals of the Church.”⁸

Bux also underscored the ecumenical value of the ancient liturgy:

“If there is a rite that is very similar to the Byzantine rite, it is the Old Roman rite… When Summorum Pontificum came out, Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow praised Pope Benedict for recovering our common liturgical roots.”⁹

As for the effects of Traditionis Custodes, Bux was unsparing:

“It has not stopped the Latin Mass. Obedience may have slowed it, but the liturgical tradition flows like a river. Rejecting it will only estrange future generations from the Church.”¹⁰

He called on Pope Leo XIV to return to Benedict’s reform of the reform, to abandon the ideological suppression of tradition, and to let both rites “ferment” together as most bishops had advised:

“Let us replant the severed branches with the patience of charity.”¹¹

Pope Leo XIV: A Moment of Reckoning
The current pope now stands at a crossroads. With the facts exposed, the Vatican’s narrative has collapsed. If Pope Leo XIV desires to restore trust and unity, he must address the injustice at the heart of Traditionis Custodes.

Fr. Gerald Murray, canonist and commentator, put it plainly:

“A return to Benedict XVI’s liturgical peace would not be a political retreat—it would be an act of justice, based on the Church’s own data.”¹²

A European bishop, speaking anonymously to Nuntiatoria, said:

“We were told that the bishops supported the restrictions. We now know we were used.”

Conclusion: The Time for Truth Has Come
The narrative that justified the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass has unraveled. The CDF report is real. The bishops did not call for a crackdown. The Pope’s own justification was, at best, mistaken—at worst, manipulated. And now, thanks to the courage of a few, the truth is public.

Grillo may rage, but the faithful now know: the tradition was not the problem. The lie was. 🔝

¹ CDF Report, Giudizio Complessivo, Feb. 22, 2021.
² Ibid.
³ Pope Francis, Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.
⁴ Vatican Press Briefing, July 3, 2025.
⁵ Diane Montagna, Res Novae, July 10, 2025.
⁶ Rorate Caeli, The Mad Hatter Liturgist, July 10, 2025.
⁷ Msgr. Nicola Bux, Interview with La Bussola Quotidiana, July 2025.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Ibid.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² Fr. Gerald Murray, The Arroyo Grande Show, July 10, 2025.

---

Pope Leo XIV’s Abuse Reforms: Structural Continuity, Survivor Demands, and the Weight of History

Pope Leo XIV has reaffirmed the Church’s commitment to eradicating abuse by declaring there should be “no tolerance of any kind” for abuse in Catholic institutions¹. The statement, read in Lima during a performance of a play about investigative journalist Paola Ugaz’s work on ecclesial abuse in Peru, signals an intention to uphold the Church’s recent efforts in transparency, safeguarding, and institutional reform². Yet this early phase of Leo XIV’s pontificate reveals a stark divide between institutional continuity and the rising tide of survivor demands for decisive, global change.

Leadership Transition and Institutional Continuity
At the heart of this renewed focus is Pope Leo’s appointment of Archbishop Thibault Verny as president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, succeeding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, who had held the post since its creation under Pope Francis in 2014³. Verny, formerly Bishop of Chambéry, has served on the Commission since 2022 and is known for his role in overhauling the French episcopate’s safeguarding practices following the devastating 2021 report estimating over 330,000 victims of clerical abuse since 1950 in France alone⁴.

Verny is widely regarded as a pastoral and pragmatic leader. As head of the French bishops’ child protection council, he oversaw third-party audits and worked to embed victim accompaniment into every diocesan structure⁵. Upon his appointment, Verny emphasised humility, collaboration with survivors, and a commitment to safeguarding as a permanent culture—not a temporary policy⁶. The Commission under his leadership aims to strengthen local safeguarding bodies while offering annual reports, global guidance, and support for those harmed by clergy or religious⁷.

This appointment suggests that Pope Leo is prioritising competence and continuity rather than sweeping changes in the Vatican’s safeguarding approach. Vatican observers note that, like his predecessor, Leo XIV seems to favour empowering local episcopal conferences and lay professionals to implement reforms that reflect cultural and legal particularities, while maintaining a unified moral vision of zero tolerance⁸.

Survivor Response: Words, Wounds, and the Need for Action
Reactions from abuse survivor groups have been mixed, ranging from cautious hope to deep scepticism. The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) released a public letter shortly after Leo’s election, expressing “grave concern” about the new pope’s record in handling abuse allegations during his time as bishop in both Chicago and Peru⁹. They accuse him of failing to remove known abusers and of favouring institutional protection over victim advocacy¹⁰.

In their statement, SNAP declared:

“The Church has no credibility to speak on children’s rights while it continues to shelter predators and shield bishops from accountability.”¹¹

At vigils held in Chicago—Leo’s hometown—survivors reiterated their longstanding demands: universal laicization of proven abusers, financial restitution to victims, public release of all diocesan files on abuse cases, and the establishment of a global survivors’ oversight body¹². While Verny’s appointment is broadly welcomed as a positive development, these groups insist that safeguarding policy must go beyond personnel. It must include clear canonical consequences for bishops who fail to act, and civil accountability for those complicit in coverups¹³.

Comparisons with Prior Popes
Pope Leo XIV inherits both the structures and shadows of his predecessors.

• St. John Paul II first declared that clergy who abuse minors have “no place in the priesthood,” but institutional response under his papacy was widely criticised as delayed and insufficient¹⁴.
• Benedict XVI took decisive disciplinary action—laicising hundreds of abusers—and made public apologies to victims¹⁵.
• Francis, while building on Benedict’s groundwork, institutionalised safeguarding through the creation of the Pontifical Commission and high-profile summits, but faced criticism for inconsistency and for shielding certain bishops accused of negligence¹⁶.

Leo XIV, for now, presents himself as a pope of continuity. His praise of journalists, particularly those exposing corruption and abuse, marks a striking rhetorical shift. He stated:

“Wherever a journalist is silenced, the democratic soul of a nation is weakened.”¹⁷

But survivors point to his own history and urge him to turn rhetoric into canonical clarity. In their view, the global credibility of the Church depends not just on declarations, but on enforceable, universal policy.

Looking Forward: Will Zero Tolerance Be Codified?
The key question for Leo XIV’s pontificate is whether his “zero tolerance” stance will be translated into canon law and episcopal discipline. Survivor advocates argue that unless bishops who enable abuse are themselves removed, the crisis remains unresolved at its root.

Meanwhile, the Verny-led Commission is poised to advance its mission of healing, prevention, and cooperation with civil authorities. Verny’s own words may prove a guiding principle:

“Safeguarding is not a programme or department. It must be a conversion of the heart.”¹⁸

The faithful, survivors, and the world will be watching to see whether this conversion becomes a systemic renewal. 🔝

¹ Associated Press, Pope Leo XIV says there should be no tolerance for abuse of any kind in Catholic Church, 21 June 2025.
² Ibid.
³ AP News, Pope Leo XIV signals continuity on fighting abuse with new head of child protection board, 5 July 2025.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Vatican News, Pope appoints new president of Commission for the Protection of Minors, 5 July 2025.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ground News composite coverage, Pope Leo XIV takes strong stance against abuse, July 2025.
⁹ People Magazine, Here’s Why Sex Abuse Survivor Organization Has ‘Grave Concern’ About Pope Leo XIV, 21 June 2025.
¹⁰ SNAP, Survivors respond to Pope Leo XIV’s election with grave concern, June 2025.
¹¹ Ibid.
¹² AP News, Survivors of clergy sexual abuse turn up calls for reforms from new pope’s American hometown, 21 June 2025.
¹³ Ibid.
¹⁴ John Paul II, Address to the Cardinals of the United States, 23 April 2002; see also Crisis Magazine retrospective, 2022.
¹⁵ Benedict XVI, Pastoral Letter to the Catholics of Ireland, 2010; Vatican records on laicizations, 2011–2012.
¹⁶ Vatican News, 2019 Meeting on the Protection of Minors in the Church; National Catholic Reporter, analysis of bishop accountability under Pope Francis, 2023.
¹⁷ Associated Press, Pope Leo XIV says there should be no tolerance for abuse of any kind, op. cit.
¹⁸ Vatican News, Interview with Archbishop Verny, July 2025.

---

Synodality: A Modernist Mechanism Disguised as Conciliar Continuity

The Vatican’s recently released Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod 2025–2028 offers further confirmation that synodality, far from being a rediscovery of ancient ecclesial practice, functions today as a modernist tool for continual structural reform, doctrinal ambiguity, and ideological accommodation. Despite claims to embody the vision of Vatican II, the process reveals more about postconciliar agendas than it does about the actual intentions of the Conciliar Fathers.

Modernism in Pastoral Drag
Synodality, as currently promoted, exhibits all the features identified and condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), especially the idea that doctrine evolves through lived experience and that Church structures must be shaped by contemporary needs rather than divine constitution¹. The Synod documents habitually substitute theological clarity with pastoral euphemisms, such as “the exchange of gifts,” “missionary fruitfulness,” and “journeying together.” These terms have no precise doctrinal content; rather, they signal fluidity and inclusivity, not truth and authority.

This linguistic ambiguity is not accidental. Pope Pius VI condemned similar “indeterminate expressions” during the Synod of Pistoia, warning that they enable heterodox ideas to be smuggled into official discourse². Likewise, modern synodal language often avoids direct contradiction of dogma, instead displacing it with an impression of openness, while undermining clarity and certainty in belief.

Did Vatican II Intend This?
Sister Nathalie Becquart’s claim that “Synodality is the Second Vatican Council in a nutshell” misrepresents the Council’s ecclesiology. Nowhere in Lumen Gentium, Christus Dominus, or Sacrosanctum Concilium is the Church presented as a permanently deliberative body whose identity is found in process. The Council affirms hierarchical authority, apostolic succession, and the teaching office of bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff³.

The term “synodality” does not even appear in the texts of Vatican II. The Council’s actual concern was the proper relationship between the pope and bishops (collegiality), not the devolution of governance to local listening sessions or the democratization of magisterial teaching⁴. While Lumen Gentium emphasizes the role of the laity in the life of the Church (cf. LG §31–33), it never suggests that lay consultation replaces teaching authority. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger explained, collegiality is not a power-sharing arrangement, but a manifestation of hierarchical communion grounded in sacramental ontology⁵.

A Hijacked Council
The current synodal process is best understood as an ideological appropriation of the Council, not its faithful continuation. As Cardinal Walter Brandmüller observed during the Amazon Synod:

“The term synodality is being used to imply a shift in ecclesiology, from the hierarchical-sacramental structure willed by Christ to a democratic model drawn from secular governance.”⁶

Indeed, many of the most vocal promoters of synodality advocate for doctrinal and moral changes that Vatican II explicitly avoided: women’s ordination, same-sex blessings, and sacramental participation for those in irregular unions. These are not expressions of the sensus fidelium, but examples of modernist activism leveraging institutional structures to reshape the Church in the image of the world⁷.

A Church in Perpetual Process or a Church of Eternal Truth?
As Joseph Ratzinger warned in his 1982 Theologische Prinzipienlehre, the Church must resist the temptation to identify herself with the zeitgeist or with “structures of dialogue” that become ends in themselves⁸. The Church is not a discursive community. She is the Mystical Body of Christ, entrusted with preserving and transmitting the deposit of faith (depositum fidei) “whole and entire” (cf. Dei Verbum §10).

Synodality, when severed from apostolic tradition and the clarity of dogmatic teaching, becomes an ecclesiology of infinite deferral—a refusal to declare, to define, to bind. The resulting confusion, far from expressing the “missionary dynamism” invoked by the Synod’s architects, fosters paralysis, division, and drift.

If synodality is to have any genuine place in Catholic life, it must be purified of its modernist accretions and reintegrated into the true ecclesial framework: hierarchical, sacramental, apostolic, and defined by the obedience of faith. Until then, it will continue to function as a slogan in search of a Church. 🔝

¹ Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), §§12–13, condemns the modernist conception of doctrine evolving from subjective experience rather than objective revelation.
² Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei (1794), condemns the use of “indeterminate expressions” to insinuate error without direct contradiction of defined doctrine (n. 33).
³ Lumen Gentium §20–27 affirms the divine institution of the episcopate, the hierarchical structure of the Church, and the unique role of the Roman Pontiff. See also Christus Dominus §2 and §6.
⁴ The term synodality appears nowhere in the conciliar documents. Its postconciliar use has been shaped by theological schools influenced by Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and the Bologna school—each of whom promoted a more democratic or participatory ecclesiology.
⁵ Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report (1985), p. 59. He warns against confusing episcopal collegiality with parliamentary models, reaffirming that bishops govern by divine right, not by popular mandate.
⁶ Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, Intervention at the Synod on the Amazon, October 2019.
⁷ See Archbishop Héctor Aguer, “Synodality and the Risk of a Democratic Church,” InfoCatólica, May 2024: “To confuse synodality with democratic practice leads to the ruin of doctrine, because truth is no longer received, but constructed.”
⁸ Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 389. He criticizes the tendency to transform the Church into a “discussion society” and warns of “perpetual reform” as a substitute for fidelity.

---

Not the Mass He Died For
On the tragic irony of commemorating St Thomas Becket with a rite he would not recognise as Catholic

The July 7th offering of a Catholic Mass in Canterbury Cathedral, in honour of the Feast of the Translation of St Thomas Becket, has been heralded as a historic and healing gesture. For the first time in centuries, a papal representative—Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendía, the Apostolic Nuncio—offered the Eucharist in the very sanctuary where Becket once served and was slain. The symbolism was powerful. And yet, beneath the surface of this apparent triumph of ecumenism lies a tragic irony: the rite offered bore little resemblance to the Catholic Faith that Becket lived for, served, and ultimately died to defend.

This is not a quarrel over Latin or incense, chant or vesture. It is not primarily a matter of aesthetics or nostalgia. The heart of the matter is this: the modern liturgy used to honour Becket—formally valid though it may be—does not reflect the sacrificial, hierarchical, and transcendent character of the very Church and liturgy Becket gave his life for. It does not convey the same vision of priesthood, altar, or ecclesial authority. It is a ritual shaped by the spirit of accommodation rather than the spirit of martyrdom. And the most sobering irony of all? It is virtually indistinguishable from the Protestant communion services now routinely offered by the Anglican canons of Canterbury Cathedral.

That a Catholic Mass would return to Canterbury is, in one sense, an historic victory. But what kind of Mass? And what theology of Church and Sacrifice does it now communicate? The rite celebrated on July 7th was the Novus Ordo Missae—the form promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 following the Second Vatican Council. Its architects, most notably Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, aimed explicitly to reshape the liturgy to appeal to Protestant sensibilities. “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren,” Bugnini reportedly said, “that is, for the Protestants”¹. Whether one quibbles with the exact phrasing, the ecumenical intention behind the reform is undisputed².

The result was a liturgy more focused on horizontal fellowship than vertical adoration, more anthropocentric than theocentric, more didactic than sacrificial. Gone were the ancient offertory prayers that emphasised propitiation. Gone was the orienting posture of priest and people facing God together. Gone was the unambiguous presentation of the Mass as a true and efficacious Sacrifice for sins. These were not minor alterations in tone or form—they were substantial shifts in theology, made manifest ritually.

St Thomas Becket would not have recognised this rite as the Mass. It is not simply that it is said in the vernacular or with simplified ceremony. It is that it no longer conveys the theological reality to which he gave his allegiance, even unto death. Becket resisted King Henry II’s attempt to subjugate the Church to the crown, insisting that the Church was not the servant of the state but the mystical Body of Christ, governed by apostolic authority, and centred on the Sacrifice of the Mass. His was a faith formed by the Latin Fathers, lived out in the rhythm of the Roman Rite, and sealed in the witness of blood.

In a sorrowful parallel, St Thomas More would later defy another monarch, Henry VIII, who not only sought to control the Church but severed her from Rome altogether. Henry VIII divorced the Church to divorce his wife; Becket’s king merely sought to instrumentalise her. But in both cases, the two Thomases gave their lives rather than betray the integrity and liberty of the Church, and the sacramental order that sustained her.

How, then, can it be fitting to commemorate Becket with a rite that arose not from the faithful organic development of tradition, but from the deliberate rupture of it? A rite that mirrors in form and content the very services offered each Sunday by the Anglican canons of Canterbury, whose institution is itself the fruit of the very schism that Becket’s blood now rebukes?

We are not speaking here of illicit or invalid sacraments, nor denying the intentions of those who celebrate them. But we must be honest: the reform of the liturgy was undertaken with a view to reconciliation—not with the Tradition, but with those who rejected it. And thus we arrive at the spectacle of a martyr for Catholic orthodoxy being honoured with a rite engineered to obscure the very truths he died to defend.

That is not reconciliation. It is erasure.

The true way to honour St Thomas Becket is not merely to invoke his name at a commemorative event, but to worship as he worshipped, to believe as he believed, and to defend the Faith with the same fearless resolve. It is not enough to bring a papal nuncio to Canterbury. We must bring the Catholic Mass. Not just a Mass with the name, but the Mass in substance—the Roman Rite as it organically developed, faithful to the theology of the Fathers, the witness of the martyrs, and the unbroken tradition of the Church.

If Becket were alive today, would he have joined in the celebration of a rite so indistinguishable from the Protestant services that followed the Reformation? Or would he, as he did in his own age, have drawn a line in the sand and stood upon it, no matter the cost?

Until that question is answered with integrity, such commemorations, however moving in appearance, remain a tragic inversion: the martyr’s altar eclipsed by the very compromise his life refutes. 🔝

¹ Quoted in Jean Guitton, Paul VI secret (Éditions du Centurion, 1979); also reported in L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March 1965. See Michael Davies, Pope Paul’s New Mass (Angelus Press, 1980), pp. 463–465; Yves Chiron, Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (Angelico Press, 2018), ch. 6.
² Fr. Louis Bouyer, Memoirs (Ignatius Press, 2015), pp. 222–226: “They transformed the Roman rite into a banal, on-the-spot fabrication.” Bouyer, though involved in the reform, later sharply criticised its theological and ritual incoherence.
³ Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci, A Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (1969), known as the Ottaviani Intervention.
⁴ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. XIII, Feast of St Thomas Becket.
⁵ Pope Alexander III, Epistolae et Decreta, on the canonisation of Becket and his defence of the Church’s liberty.
⁶ Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy (1912), pp. 214–220.
⁷ Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), esp. pp. 78–83.
⁸ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986): “The new rites have been protestantised. They no longer express clearly the truths of the Catholic faith.”

---

Fear of the State or Fear of God?
U.S. Bishops Dispense Mass Obligation for Illegal Immigrants

Two American Catholic dioceses—San Bernardino, California, and Nashville, Tennessee—have issued rare decrees excusing Catholics from the Sunday obligation to attend Mass if they fear arrest by immigration authorities. The dispensations apply specifically to migrants concerned about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity near parishes, and have sparked growing controversy both within and beyond the Church. From a traditional Catholic perspective, the move raises serious theological, moral, and ecclesiological concerns.

A Response to Enforcement or a Retreat from Witness?
Bishop Alberto Rojas of San Bernardino—one of the largest dioceses in the United States—declared that any Catholic experiencing “genuine fear” of immigration enforcement could consider themselves excused from attending Sunday Mass. The decree, co-signed by Vicar General Gerard M. Lopez, was described as a pastoral response:

“In issuing this decree, I’m guided by the Church’s mission to care for the spiritual welfare of all entrusted under my care, particularly those who face fear or hardship.”¹

The Diocese of Nashville implemented a similar policy in May, citing a noticeable decline in attendance at Spanish-language Masses following local ICE activity. “No Catholic is obligated to attend Mass on Sunday if doing so puts their safety at risk,” the statement read.²

While both dioceses insisted that churches remain open and welcoming, the implication is clear: for some Catholics, the threat of state enforcement now outweighs the obligation to render worship to God.

Undermining the Sunday Precept
From the perspective of Catholic tradition, this is no small matter. The Third Commandment and the precept of the Church bind the faithful—under pain of mortal sin—to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, unless prevented by grave cause such as illness or physical impossibility.³

By introducing the subjective and elastic category of “fear,” these dispensations risk reducing divine law to pastoral discretion. In effect, they subordinate the worship due to Almighty God to state power and emotional anxiety. This is precisely the kind of pastoral relativism that traditional Catholics have long warned against: a model in which the supernatural is continually displaced by socio-political concerns.

Fr. James Martin, SJ, himself no traditionalist, observed that the decree was “a dramatic sign that not even Catholic churches are considered safe places any longer,” adding,

“Where are the voices for religious freedom now?”⁴

His comment unintentionally exposes the failure of a Church leadership that has often been louder on immigration than on liturgical or moral fidelity to the faith.

Is the Church Protecting Those in Mortal Sin?
The only individuals likely to fear ICE activity at church are those in the country illegally. While the Church rightly distinguishes between sin and criminality, and acknowledges the hardships driving many to emigrate, Catholic moral theology has never endorsed the deliberate violation of just civil laws.

As St. Paul teaches in Romans 13:1–7, lawful authority is ordained by God for the preservation of order and justice.⁵ While prudence and charity call for the humane treatment of migrants, the Church cannot appear to canonise lawbreaking or conflate sanctuary with impunity.

By issuing dispensations framed around the presumed illegality of parishioners, these dioceses risk giving the impression that unlawful presence is being pastorally affirmed—or worse, that the Church is aligning itself with ideological opposition to immigration enforcement, rather than maintaining supernatural detachment from the affairs of Caesar.

Sanctuary Breached and Symbolism Surrendered
Traditionally, Catholic churches were considered places of immunity from secular intrusion, with centuries of practice and law reinforcing the sanctity of sacred space. The idea that ICE might arrest someone during Mass should provoke righteous indignation from bishops—not pre-emptive dispensations that cede moral ground before the state.

This capitulation suggests not pastoral courage, but institutional fear—fear of optics, litigation, and political disapproval. It also raises the question: would the same urgency be shown to Catholics afraid of attending Mass due to gender ideology in schools, COVID mandates, or surveillance by federal agencies targeting traditional Catholics as “extremists”?⁶

Inconsistency in applying dispensations signals not universality of principle, but ideological selectivity.

The Traditional Catholic Response
The Catholic Church’s first duty is not to preserve comfort or avoid controversy, but to save souls. A faithful response would uphold both truth and charity:

• Call the faithful to Mass, encouraging trust in Divine Providence even in the face of adversity.
• Support immigrants in regularising their status through moral and lawful means, without encouraging evasion.
• Reassert the sanctity of sacred space, resisting unjust state interference not by retreat, but by witness.
• Offer dispensations only in truly grave, immediate cases, not as blanket policies rooted in political fears.

Above all, the Church must restore confidence that grace is worth the risk—that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not optional, not negotiable, and not contingent on political conditions.

Conclusion
This episode is not merely a response to immigration enforcement—it is a symptom of a Church that has become far too comfortable thinking in the categories of the world. The bishops of San Bernardino and Nashville may claim pastoral concern, but in doing so, they risk proclaiming a dangerous message: that temporal fear excuses spiritual neglect.

When the faithful are taught to stay home rather than come to the altar of God, the sanctuary has already been breached—not by ICE, but by a loss of supernatural faith.

“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28). The Church’s duty is not to comfort the fearful, but to form the courageous. Anything less is a betrayal of her Lord. 🔝

¹ Diocese of San Bernardino statement, July 2025.
² Diocese of Nashville press release, May 2025.
³ Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2180–2181; 1917 Code of Canon Law, can. 1247.
⁴ Fr. James Martin, SJ, statement on X (formerly Twitter), July 2025.
⁵ Romans 13:1–7; cf. Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 104, a. 5.
⁶ See FBI internal memo on “radical-traditionalist Catholic” threats (2023); USCCB silence during state closure of churches during COVID.

---

The U.S. Bishops and Political Endorsements

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has reaffirmed its longstanding position of abstaining from political candidate endorsements, despite a recent IRS policy shift permitting religious nonprofits to do so without risking their tax-exempt status. The bishops’ decision continues a post-Second Vatican Council approach to political neutrality, ostensibly aimed at protecting the Church’s prophetic voice in public life. But from a traditional Catholic perspective, the news raises deeper questions about whether neutrality has too often translated into moral equivocation or strategic timidity.

Neutrality or Abdication?
USCCB spokesperson Chieko Noguchi clarified: “The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good. The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.”¹

In theory, this reflects a legitimate pastoral strategy: forming consciences rather than substituting for them. In practice, however, many traditional Catholics view the USCCB’s implementation of this principle as inconsistent and overly deferential to liberal democratic norms. The Church has never been politically partisan — but it has always been doctrinally authoritative, especially on non-negotiables like the sanctity of life, the nature of marriage, and the immutable law of God.

Selective Political Pronouncements
While refraining from candidate endorsements, the bishops have not hesitated to issue statements on particular policies. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, president of the USCCB, recently criticized a Republican budget bill for cuts to Medicaid and climate provisions, while also lamenting its insufficient action against Planned Parenthood and gender ideology.² This mix of left- and right-leaning critiques underscores the conference’s attempt to avoid party alignment, but it also reveals the fragmentation within the episcopate itself — not over prudential matters, but over the hierarchy of moral truths.

Some traditional Catholics have noted with concern that public condemnations of grave intrinsic evils such as abortion or transgender surgeries are often couched in bureaucratic language or balanced with commentary on immigration and climate change. This parity-of-emphasis approach blurs the moral clarity needed in a culture of confusion.

The Seal of Confession and Religious Liberty
Perhaps more unifying for Catholics across the spectrum is the ongoing legal battle in Washington State, where priests face the prospect of being compelled by law to violate the sacramental seal of confession in abuse investigations. Here the bishops, alongside the Trump administration, have mounted a defense of religious liberty.³ Their opposition is both principled and constitutional, grounded in the clear teaching of the Church that the seal is inviolable — even unto martyrdom.

Yet this situation also reveals a broader irony. The modern state has moved from tolerating religion to regulating it, and from regulating it to attempting to redefine or override its most sacred prerogatives. The bishops’ careful neutrality in elections has not prevented this encroachment; arguably, it has emboldened it.

Catholics Divided
Pew Research data reveal the ongoing political split among American Catholics: 49% lean Republican, 44% Democrat.⁴ Among white Catholics, a majority support the GOP, while Hispanic Catholics lean Democrat. This demographic division is not simply cultural — it reflects the theological ambiguity in the Church’s public voice. If bishops speak with equal weight on carbon emissions and child dismemberment, Catholics will rightly conclude that voting is a matter of personal taste rather than moral obligation.

Moreover, Catholic politicians like JD Vance and Marco Rubio are openly at odds with the bishops on issues such as immigration, advocating for policies they believe prioritize national cohesion and the rule of law. Vance has even cited ordo amoris, the Catholic ordering of loves, to justify strong border controls — a move that drew criticism from Pope Francis prior to his death.⁵

The Role of the Church in a Disintegrating Culture
Under Pope Leo XIV, who has not yet commented on the Trump-era deportation program, the Vatican continues its pro-immigration stance, though observers note a rhetorical shift compared to Francis. Still, traditional Catholics increasingly question whether the Church’s political neutrality has become a cover for avoiding prophetic confrontation with moral depravity — particularly in a society that now debates whether unborn children deserve personhood and whether men can become women.

The Old Roman Apostolate holds that while the Church must remain free of partisan entanglement, it cannot be silent when governments promote intrinsic evils. A refusal to endorse candidates is not the same as a refusal to condemn sin or to uphold the reign of Christ the King. In this hour, neutrality is not enough. 🔝

¹ Statement by Chieko Noguchi, USCCB, July 2025.
² Archbishop Timothy Broglio, USCCB Statement on Budget Priorities, June 2025.
³ Washington State Confession Law, legal filings and commentary, June 2025.
⁴ Pew Research Center, U.S. Religiosity and Political Affiliation Report, February 2025.
⁵ Pope Francis remarks on JD Vance, L’Osservatore Romano, February 2025.

---

---

In Other News…

---

Filipino Bishops Denounce Online Gambling as ‘Moral Plague’ and Call for Nationwide Ban

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has issued a stark and urgent appeal to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and his government: ban all forms of online gambling. The bishops’ July 9 statement, released at the conclusion of their 130th plenary assembly, described the growing online gambling industry as a “new plague or virus… destroying individuals, families, and society.”

Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, Archbishop of Kalookan and President of the CBCP, warned that online gambling is no longer an innocent pastime but has become “a deep and pervasive moral problem, hidden in the guise of entertainment and technology.” He further condemned its seductive design, particularly its targeting of youth and the poor, calling it “a clear form of slavery” that deadens the conscience and fosters addiction.

Notably, the bishops issued their statement in Filipino rather than English—a pastoral gesture aimed at directly reaching the country’s most economically vulnerable, who are also most at risk of gambling exploitation.

A Clear Catholic Position
In citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2413), Cardinal David reaffirmed that gambling is morally unacceptable when it deprives one of the means needed for daily life or becomes addictive. Although the Church does not condemn games of chance per se, it draws a firm line where gambling “enslaves” rather than entertains.

That threshold, in the bishops’ judgment, has long since been crossed. In 2024 alone, online gambling in the Philippines reportedly generated ₱154 billion (approximately $2.73 billion USD), marking a 165% increase from the previous year. This explosive growth, they argue, reflects not success but complicity: “Why do many in the media, the government, and the business world seem to be silent? Could it be because many of them are also benefiting from it?” Cardinal David asked.

The bishops’ accusation is not merely rhetorical. They raise a profound moral and political question: can a government be considered just if it profits from its people’s degradation?

Silence and Complicity—Even Within the Church
In a striking moment of self-examination, the bishops also acknowledged that the Church itself has often been silent. The statement urges parishes not only to speak out, but to accompany those enslaved by gambling addiction with concrete acts of mercy, including support groups, pastoral counselling, and catechesis on stewardship, virtue, and human dignity.

It is worth recalling that the Philippine hierarchy has a history of moral leadership on this issue. In 2001, the late Cardinal Jaime Sin denounced then-President Joseph Estrada over gambling-linked corruption, contributing to the People Power uprising that removed him from office. The present crisis, however, is more insidious. There are no obvious figures of scandal—only an invisible, digital industry that profits by atomizing society and dulling the spiritual life of the nation.

Not a ‘Right’ but a Vice
Cardinal David also rebuked the misuse of “human rights” language to justify gambling: “Even if this type of entertainment is recognized as part of ‘human rights,’ it still does not mean that it is right, especially when it causes the destruction of many.” Here, the bishops confront a growing global trend that disguises vice as liberty, and indulgence as self-expression.

The distinction is critical. True freedom is not the license to destroy oneself, but the ability to live in accordance with truth and virtue. Gambling, when weaponized through addictive design and financial desperation, is not an exercise of freedom but a form of digital bondage.

Implications for Catholic Governance and Witness
The call for a ban on online gambling will test both the political and ecclesial will of the Philippines. For the Marcos administration, the question is whether it will heed the moral voice of the nation’s religious majority or continue to allow the digital exploitation of the poor in exchange for revenue.

For the Church, the challenge is to match public denunciation with pastoral action. Cardinal David’s charge to parishes to become “active in helping individuals and families affected by gambling” is a vital reminder that charity must follow prophecy. Otherwise, the Church risks becoming yet another voice of outrage, rather than a beacon of liberation.

In a time when addiction, isolation, and disillusionment threaten the foundations of Filipino social life, the bishops’ stance is a rare example of moral clarity. Whether it will be matched by civil courage remains to be seen. 🔝

¹ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2413: “Games of chance or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others.”
² CBCP Plenary Statement, July 9, 2025. Statement issued in Filipino, translated and reported by CBCP News and Crux.
³ David, P. V., Chrism Mass Homily, March 2025; quoted in CBCP statement, July 2025.
⁴ Online gambling revenue figures from CBCP statement citing Philippine government statistics.
⁵ Historical context: The role of Cardinal Sin in the 2001 People Power Revolution is well documented, e.g., see Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 2001.

---

Filipino Bishops Denounce Inaction Over Duterte Impeachment—but Stop Short of Full Moral Clarity

In a pointed and unusually forthright pastoral letter issued at the close of their 130th plenary assembly, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) denounced what they described as “moral indifference” surrounding the Senate’s delay in acting on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. The daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte faces serious charges of embezzlement and conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.—charges which, under normal circumstances, should have already prompted a Senate trial.

That such proceedings have stalled is, according to the CBCP, a matter not only of political failure but of moral gravity. “We affirm that impeachment, when pursued with truth and justice, is a legitimate democratic mechanism for transparency and accountability in governance,” declared the bishops in their letter dated 9 July, signed by Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David of Kalookan, a longtime critic of the Duterte administration¹.

While the bishops stopped short of calling for specific political action, their words carried moral weight: “We call our faithful to combat moral indifference, listen to all sides with openness, and foster a culture of engaged citizenship rooted in our Christian faith”².

This appeal, commendable in its demand for responsibility and civic virtue, reflects essential aspects of traditional Catholic social teaching—especially the duties of rulers to uphold justice and the obligation of citizens to resist corruption. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, unjust rulers may be resisted within the bounds of law and reason, for civil authority exists to serve the common good, not the private interest³.

Yet while the CBCP’s desire for transparency aligns with the Church’s perennial demand for justice, their framing of the issue within postconciliar themes—dialogue, pluralism, and democratic process—exposes a deeper tension between modern ecclesial rhetoric and traditional Catholic clarity.

Selective Emphases and the Absence of Christ the King
From a traditional Catholic perspective, the letter’s moral exhortations—however sincere—are weakened by the lack of any explicit invocation of Christ’s Kingship over political life. The bishops appeal to justice, truth, and solidarity, yet do not name the divine source of these goods. Where Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas called nations to recognize the authority of Christ over their laws and institutions⁴, the CBCP appeals instead to a generic humanism and civic engagement. Without reference to the Social Kingship of Christ, moral appeals risk becoming abstract, fragile, and easily co-opted by secular ideologies.

Moreover, the bishops’ boldness on this particular case contrasts with their historically muted response to other grave moral issues in Philippine society. While corruption is rightly condemned, traditional Catholics might ask: where is the equivalent clarity on issues such as contraception, abortion, and the ideological infiltration of Catholic institutions by gender theory and Western-funded NGOs? When the bishops speak of “engaged citizenship,” they must also speak of Catholic conscience, formed in truth, not simply participation in pluralist structures.

On Gaza, War, and the Hierarchy of Moral Priorities
The CBCP’s appeal for peace in Gaza reflects a sincere pastoral concern and draws upon the Catholic tradition of just war theory, which forbids the deliberate targeting of civilians and insists that warfare must be proportionate and discriminate. Their condemnation of the “weaponization of starvation” and call for humanitarian aid to reach all civilians is, in itself, a morally sound principle. However, the suggestion—whether explicit or implied—that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are systematically obstructing aid as a tool of war lacks substantiation and fails to reflect the complex reality on the ground.

There is no verified evidence that the IDF has deliberately “weaponized” humanitarian aid distribution. On the contrary, multiple sources—ranging from UN officials to independent observers—have documented how Hamas systematically obstructs aid delivery, seizes food and medical supplies, and has even opened fire on Palestinian civilians queueing to receive assistance from Israeli convoys⁵. These acts amount to a secondary form of oppression, wherein the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population is exacerbated not only by the war but by the militant regime that claims to represent them.

By failing to name Hamas and its role in prolonging the suffering of Gazans, the CBCP risks contributing to a false moral equivalence that clouds the Church’s duty to uphold truth, justice, and the right order of moral responsibility. Traditional Catholic moral theology, as articulated by theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, insists on discernment in judgment—especially in matters of war⁶. As Pope Pius XII warned, compassion must not substitute for clarity, and peace efforts must be grounded in justice, not sentiment⁷.

A just and lasting peace cannot come through rhetorical symmetry, but through repentance, truth, and restoration of moral order. To that end, a properly Catholic appeal must not only condemn suffering, but identify the causes of suffering and name the agents of injustice—even when doing so is unpopular⁸.

Labor Rights and the Church’s Duty to Lead
One of the more praiseworthy aspects of the pastoral letter is the CBCP’s acknowledgment of unjust wages and the exploitation of workers in church institutions themselves. Echoing Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, the bishops rightly insist that “justice begins at home” and that the Church must lead by example. Their appeal for just wages and security of tenure reflects authentic Catholic social teaching and deserves practical implementation⁹.

This is one of the few points in the letter where the bishops take clear moral responsibility as pastors and employers, not merely commentators on society.

A Call Worth Hearing—But Not Yet the Trumpet Blast We Need
The bishops’ concluding appeal—“to do justice, love goodness, and walk humbly with our God”—is rooted in Scripture and reflects genuine pastoral concern. Yet for many Filipino Catholics, especially those longing for the clarity and authority of the traditional Magisterium, the letter stops just short of the bold witness required in this moment. It decries injustice, but not error. It points to social evils, but not their spiritual root. It calls for peace, but not repentance. It urges action, but not conversion.

What is needed now is not only a prophetic denunciation of political corruption, but a full-throated proclamation of Christ the King—a reminder that no society can be just without being ordered to truth, and no truth stands apart from God’s Revelation. Until the bishops name the Lord of history, their call for justice may stir the conscience but fail to transform it. 🔝

¹ CBCP Pastoral Letter, 9 July 2025; Cardinal David has previously condemned extrajudicial killings during Duterte’s presidency in multiple homilies and public statements.
² Ibid.
³ St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regno ad Regem Cypri, Book I, ch. 13; see also Summa Theologiae, II–II, q. 42, a. 2, on sedition and legitimate resistance.
⁴ Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925), §§17–19, 29.
⁵ United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) situation reports, March–June 2024; Times of Israel, Reuters, Wall Street Journal coverage of Hamas interference and violence at aid points (2023–2025).
⁶ St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book 22; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II–II, q. 40.
⁷ Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (1939), §§38–40.
⁸ Cf. Gaudium et Spes, §16; Leo XIII, Libertas, §15; Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique (1910).
⁹ CBCP Pastoral Letter, 9 July 2025; see also Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, §§19–23; Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, §§71–76.

---

A Placard, a Parade, and Eleven Police: The Arrest of Montgomery Toms

LONDON, 6 July 2025 — A peaceful protester was arrested, detained, and banned from the City of Westminster for wearing a sandwich board stating: “🏳️‍⚧️ = Mental Illness.” His name is Montgomery Toms, and his arrest — captured on video and corroborated by multiple sources — has become emblematic of Britain’s spiralling double standards in policing public speech.

The incident occurred during London’s Pride parade. But Toms, rather than marching in rainbow colours, stood silently on Piccadilly holding his sign — a protest inspired by Canadian activist “Billboard Chris,” who similarly walks public streets with messages opposing gender ideology. As Toms later stated to police, his intention was “to engage in conversation” and to advocate for “a community and society where people like me are entitled to have a different opinion without being marginalised by other groups.”

That hope was not fulfilled. Pride attendees confronted him, and shortly thereafter, Metropolitan Police officers approached. Video footage confirms that police warned Toms his placard could constitute an offence under the Public Order Act. When he refused to remove it, they led him away from the crowd and placed him under arrest. One officer read the formal caution: “You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence…” Toms was handcuffed, searched, and detained at Charing Cross Police Station for ten hours before being released on bail with conditions including a three-month ban from entering Westminster.

This was not conjecture or exaggeration. It was a formal arrest, as confirmed by bodycam-style footage and Toms’ own post-release statement. The charge was not violence, incitement, or obstruction. It was the display of a belief — one which, though offensive to some, remains protected under UK law as a philosophical position, especially after Forstater v CGD Europe clarified the legal standing of gender-critical views under the Equality Act 2010¹.

Legal Overreach and Ideological Policing
The arrest has sparked widespread criticism. Alan Miller, founder of the Together Declaration, denounced the event as a “blatant abuse of police power,” noting the surreal spectacle of eleven officers detaining one man with a sign. He condemned the growing use of public order laws to suppress dissent, especially when that dissent targets protected ideologies rather than minority groups.

The National Review ran the story under the headline: *“Displaying a Trans‑Critical Sign Gets a Man Arrested in the U.K.”*² — a title that reflects both the straightforward facts and the extraordinary inversion of liberal norms. Meanwhile, FOI data published in The Guardian reveals that such arrests are now part of a growing pattern: public order detentions in London have increased tenfold since 2019, while prosecution rates remain below 3%³. The result, critics argue, is a chilling effect — where arrest becomes a tool of intimidation, even when no crime is ultimately charged.

Douglas Murray: A Nation of Two-Tier Law
Among the most scathing responses came from commentator Douglas Murray, who dissected the case with caustic clarity. Writing in The Spectator, he described Toms’ placard as “not welcomed by the ‘Love is Love’ crowd,” noting that Pride, once the domain of marginalised voices, now seems to marginalise dissent in its own name.

Murray mocked the disproportionate police response:

“Had Toms shouted ‘Jihad, jihad, jihad’ or carried a sign saying ‘Slay the infidel’, he might have been waved along and wished a good day.”

He continued with biting irony:

“Another way to have avoided police attention would be for him to have stolen a bike or nicked a phone… Or better still, joined one of the country’s many grooming gangs. That way police forces across the land might leave him alone, and he wouldn’t come to the attention of most politicians for 20 years.”

Murray’s point — shared by many — is not merely about inconsistency, but ideological asymmetry. While far more inflammatory statements are tolerated from other quarters in the name of diversity or religion, expressions of concern about gender ideology are met with immediate force.

Toms himself raised the phrase “two-tier policing” as he was being arrested. Parliament, unsurprisingly, denies such a phenomenon exists. Lord Hermer, the current Attorney General, recently told the BBC that accusations of double standards are “disgusting” and should be silenced. But to many observers, Toms’ treatment illustrates precisely what the government refuses to admit: that British policing has become ideological, selective, and dangerously politicised.

A Sign of the Times
Montgomery Toms did not threaten, obstruct, or incite. He stood on a pavement with a message — controversial, yes, but consistent with the beliefs of countless doctors, parents, and Christians. His treatment signals that public space in Britain is no longer ideologically neutral. It belongs to those whose views are state-approved.

To defend freedom of speech is not to endorse every statement. It is to assert that unpopular opinions — especially those rooted in conscience or concern for children — must not be criminalised to maintain an illusion of harmony. If eleven police officers are required to suppress a sandwich board, the sign is not the threat. The regime is. 🔝

¹ Forstater v CGD Europe (2021): UK Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling affirming that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act.
² National Review, “Displaying a Trans-Critical Sign Gets a Man Arrested in the U.K.”, 7 July 2025.
³ The Guardian, “Met Police accused of ‘assault on right to protest’ after tenfold rise in nuisance law arrests”, 3 July 2025.
⁴ Douglas Murray, The Spectator, “If Toms had shouted ‘Jihad’, the police would have let him go”, 10 July 2025.

---

The Modernist Error in Cardinal Goh’s “Adapting to Change”

Cardinal William Goh’s reflection of 5 July 2025, titled Adapting to Change, offers a seemingly pastoral meditation on the Gospel and the challenges of spiritual growth. But beneath the devotional tone lies a theological proposal that embodies the core error condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: modernism—the synthesis of all heresies.

The Cardinal’s assertion that fidelity to the past requires change is not merely questionable; it is a textbook expression of the modernist mindset: that truth evolves, that doctrine must be adapted to modern man, and that religious expressions must be reinterpreted in light of contemporary consciousness.¹

Change as Principle, Not Exception
Cardinal Goh writes that “not changing is being unfaithful to our past,” and that even theological expression must “evolve” to remain communicable.² While he concedes that doctrine itself is immutable, he insists that theology is “always evolving,” and that truth must be re-expressed in ways “understandable to our audience.”³

This reveals the classic modernist error of historicism: the belief that truth must be reinterpreted according to the spirit of each age. The Church becomes, in this view, not the guardian of divine revelation, but a living organism whose teachings must mutate to remain culturally resonant.

Yet the Catholic Church has always taught the opposite. The deposit of faith is complete, perfect, and unchanging. While its formulation may become more precise, its meaning may never be altered.⁴ Any evolution in theology must be growth in clarity—not in content.

Liturgical Fluidity and Doctrinal Drift
Nowhere is Cardinal Goh’s modernist logic more evident than in his treatment of the Mass. He states that the celebration of the Eucharist “has been changing since the first Mass” and that such change must continue so that the Mass “remains faithful to its original meaning yet relevant to our times.”⁵

This claim distorts the nature of liturgical development. Organic development preserves continuity with the past; it unfolds naturally and reverently from the apostolic deposit. The modernist mentality, however, sees liturgy as a tool of communication, malleable to the needs of the age. The postconciliar liturgical reform, largely engineered in this spirit, bears the marks not of organic growth but of rupture.

It is not fidelity to change that safeguards tradition—it is fidelity to the unchanging. The Mass is not a cultural expression to be reshaped for every age. It is the Church’s highest act of worship: the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, received and handed down—not reinvented.

The Myth of “Dynamic Fidelity”
Cardinal Goh’s central thesis rests on a theological fiction: that continuity demands change. But what he calls “dynamic fidelity” is a contradiction in terms. To change the expression of a dogma so thoroughly that its meaning is no longer the same is to change the dogma itself.

Pope St. Pius X warned that modernists “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is to the faith and its deepest fibers.”⁶ They do this by introducing ambiguity—by separating doctrine from pastoral application, dogma from lived reality, truth from communication.

Cardinal Goh writes that if truth is not “re-expressed,” it risks becoming “redundant.”⁷ But truth is never redundant. It may be rejected, hated, ignored—but it remains true. The Church’s mission is not to find relevance but to proclaim the truth “in season and out of season” (2 Tim 4:2), whether it pleases modern man or not.

Secular Parallels: The Heresy of Innovation
The Cardinal’s reasoning finds an easy analogue in secular thought. Our age rejects fixed truths and inherited wisdom. In philosophy, education, medicine, and ethics, the very idea of a permanent human nature is denied. All is fluid. Progress is assumed to be inevitable and good.

This ideology leads to gender ideology, transhumanism, and euthanasia—all in the name of “evolving understanding.” In this light, Goh’s appeal to “be in sync with the times” is not merely theologically dangerous—it is culturally suicidal.⁸

When the Church adopts the language and logic of the world, she does not convert it—she is absorbed by it. The world changes constantly. Christ does not. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). The Church’s task is not to mirror the age, but to sanctify it.

The Vincentian Remedy
St. Vincent of Lérins gave the enduring answer to the dilemma of change: “In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”⁹ This Commonitorium stands as a timeless refutation of modernist mutability.

Yes, development is possible. But it must be according to the same sense and the same judgment. It must be a flowering, not a mutation. The idea that truth must be adapted to survive is not Catholic—it is evolutionary theology, the death spiral of doctrine.

Conclusion: Modernism in Devotional Wrapping
Cardinal Goh’s Adapting to Change presents itself as a spiritual encouragement to trust God in moments of uncertainty. But it delivers, under cover of piety, a distinctly modernist theology. Its language is mild; its consequences are radical.

The modernist does not deny dogma outright. He reinterprets it. He affirms continuity while emptying tradition of its substance. He insists that nothing changes, while changing everything in practice. He speaks of the “new wine” of the Gospel, but pours it into wineskins crafted by the age.

The Church must not follow the path of secular decay. She must reject the illusion of relevance bought at the cost of truth. She must reject modernism not only in name but in logic, language, and liturgy. And she must remember that the most prophetic thing she can do in a collapsing world is remain faithful to what does not change. 🔝

¹ Cf. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, §3.
² Cardinal William Goh, “Adapting to Change,” 5 July 2025.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 4; see also St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 23.
⁵ Goh, “Adapting to Change.”
⁶ Pascendi, §3.
⁷ Goh, “Adapting to Change.”
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 2.

---

---

COMMENT

---

Tradition and Vocations: The Future Is Rooted in the Past

An Old Roman Reflection on the Fruits of Fidelity
In a small parish community committed to the fullness of Catholic Tradition, a priestly vocation emerged in fewer than seven years—not through synodal campaigns or modern pastoral initiatives, but through the timeless and sanctifying power of the traditional Roman Rite.

The young man who discerned his call had once lived immersed in secularism and vice. His conversion came not through the sentimental liturgies or therapeutic homilies that dominate much of the contemporary Church, but through the objective encounter with the sacred in the traditional Latin Mass. Recognizing that his conversion had been mediated by Tradition, he sought to remain anchored in it—and the parish, offering daily traditional Mass and authentic spiritual discipline, gave him exactly that. Now, he advances through formation in a traditional religious order, prepared to live out the sacrificial priesthood of Jesus Christ.

This is no isolated case. Rather, it is a manifestation of what the Old Roman Apostolate has long affirmed: vocations flourish where Catholic faith, liturgy, and moral discipline are preserved without compromise or innovation.

Vocations in Crisis
Across much of the mainstream Latin Church, the crisis is acute. In 2024, the Archdiocese of New York—one of the largest and most historically influential in the United States—received only two seminary applicants.¹ Father George Sears, director of vocations, called it unprecedented. Meanwhile, the FSSP, ICKSP, and traditional Benedictine monasteries are turning away candidates for lack of space. Why the disparity?

The reason is as clear as it is uncomfortable: modern liturgy and doctrinal vagueness do not inspire sacrificial vocations. Young men called to imitate Christ the High Priest seek the clarity, reverence, and doctrinal solidity that is found in the Church’s perennial form. It is in unchanging Truth, not ephemeral adaptations, that they discover the strength to give their lives.

The Charlotte Example and the Cost of Innovation
The Diocese of Charlotte, long known for vocations and a sympathetic approach to tradition, has begun dismantling what had borne fruit. A leaked draft policy sought to eradicate anything resembling the preconciliar Roman Rite.² Four thriving Latin Mass communities were closed. What is this if not liturgical iconoclasm, packaged in the language of “unity”?

The response of the faithful has been predictable: anguish, migration, and resistance. This is not merely pastoral error—it is, as the ORA recognises, a repetition of the conciliar rupture, where bishops impose discontinuity in the name of aggiornamento. Many faithful, exhausted by decades of unstable ecclesial leadership, find themselves asking: To whom shall we go?

Continuity or Rupture: The Core Question
The false dichotomy between a “pre-Vatican II” and “post-Vatican II” Church has left generations spiritually impoverished. Pope Francis’ Traditionis Custodes was a juridical attempt to eliminate even the limited refuge provided under Summorum Pontificum.³ The banishment of the traditional Mass from parish life—unthinkable in centuries past—was rationalized as a move toward “unity.” But the ORA knows well that unity without truth is counterfeit.

The Novus Ordo itself was imposed by means of bureaucratic force. Archbishop Bugnini’s manipulation of both Pope Paul VI and the Consilium has been thoroughly documented.⁴ The claim that the new rite emerged from the Council Fathers is false; it was crafted in their absence, and often against their instincts. Paul VI’s reported tears at learning the Octave of Pentecost had been abolished speak volumes.⁵ Even Bugnini conceded that those attached to the old rite should be permitted to pray as their fathers had.⁶

A Generation That Seeks Holiness, Not Relevance
The recent Paris–Chartres pilgrimage, in which 19,000 young Catholics walked 90 kilometers in joyful penitence, testifies to where the future lies.⁷ The organizers confirmed that not a single priest accompanying the pilgrimage requested to offer the Novus Ordo.⁸ The youth are not looking for relevance or spectacle—they are seeking reverence, mystery, and unchanging truth.

These pilgrims are not “rigid” or reactionary. They are the fruits of a remnant Church, preserved despite decades of marginalization. And their growing numbers point to what the ORA has insisted for decades: fidelity begets fruitfulness.

Why Do the Shepherds Resist?
If the evidence is so clear, why is it ignored? Some bishops fear the reaction of their peers or the Holy See. Others remain ideologically committed to the failed experiment of liturgical modernism. The fate of figures like Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland—both sidelined for their defense of Tradition—reminds all who govern that the cost of fidelity can be exile.

This climate of fear and centralisation is precisely why the Old Roman Apostolate exists: to preserve and propagate the fullness of the Catholic faith in a time of confusion, while remaining canonically Catholic and seeking reconciliation under conditions of doctrinal integrity and liturgical continuity.

Vocations Require Stability
Traditional seminaries, including those served by the Old Roman bishops, continue to attract high-quality candidates. Their shared characteristic? A non-adversarial relationship with Catholic Tradition. Where faith, liturgy, and morals are taught as received from the Apostles—not reinvented by committees—men come forward.

This stands in contrast to the ethos of the “synodal Church,” where listening is touted but only to those who repeat pre-approved slogans. When the faithful cry out for the Roman Rite, they are met with silence. When they walk 90 kilometers to Chartres in the footsteps of their forefathers, bishops attempt to impose the Novus Ordo upon them.

The Pope, the Priesthood, and the Latin Tongue
Pope Leo XIV, though emerging from the postconciliar framework, has begun to signal awareness of the problem. His choice to pray in Latin, his appeals for mystery in worship, and his criticisms of spectacle stand as welcome gestures. The ORA regards these signals cautiously, but hopefully.

The Church needs more than gestures. She needs restoration—not only of rubrics and rites, but of clarity in teaching, the moral courage of her shepherds, and the integrity of her institutions.

The Child Shall Lead Them
The prophet Isaiah foresaw that “a little child shall lead them” (Isaiah 11:6). Today, the youth—young men kneeling before the tabernacle, young women walking barefoot in pilgrimage, families praying the Rosary in Latin—are leading the way back to sanity, sanctity, and Tradition.

Their message to the bishops is not one of rebellion but of filial love. They seek what the Church once offered freely: the full Catholic faith, the Mass of the Ages, and the path to sanctity.

The Old Roman Apostolate hears this call. It answers—not with innovation, but with apostolic fidelity. 🔝

1. Arlington Herald, “Only two men applied to seminary last year,” June 4, 2025.
2. Source: internal diocesan leak, reported June 2025.
3. Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis, July 16, 2021.
4. Yves Chiron, Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy, Angelico Press, 2018.
5. Ibid.
6. Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975), Liturgical Press, 1990.
7. Notre-Dame de Chrétienté, Chartres Pilgrimage Report, Pentecost 2025.
8. Famille Chrétienne, interview with Philippe Darantière, June 4, 2025.

---

The Lords Must Act: A Final Bulwark Against the Culture of Death

The advance of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—commonly known as the Leadbeater Bill—through the House of Commons marks a grave moment in Britain’s moral and constitutional history. Passing by a mere 23-vote margin at its Third Reading on 20 June 2025, the Bill now faces scrutiny in the House of Lords. Lord Jackson of Peterborough has rightly called upon the upper chamber to exercise its constitutional and moral duty to halt a law that legalises suicide with medical complicity and frames it as compassion¹.

A Shaky Mandate, Not a National Consensus
The Bill’s supporters celebrated its narrow Commons victory, but such celebration rings hollow. Between Second and Third Reading, support dropped sharply, revealing deep discomfort even among MPs². Several senior Labour figures, including Deputy Leader Angela Rayner and Health Secretary Wes Streeting, withdrew support, citing concerns about safeguards, funding, and public trust³.

Despite this, Sir Keir Starmer personally voted in favour, and some MPs, notably Catholic ones, faced coercion and even sacramental consequences. The Times reported that at least one Catholic MP was denied Holy Communion, prompting accusations of a “witch hunt” from Liberal Democrat Chris Coogan⁴. But such consequences are not persecution—they are the natural outworking of moral theology: public support for grave sin invites public scandal, and the Church is obliged to withhold the Sacrament lest it be desecrated⁵.

The Role of the Lords: More Than a Procedural Brake
Lord Jackson emphasises that the Bill is not covered by the Salisbury Convention, meaning the Lords are not restrained from rejecting it outright⁶. The claim by Lord Falconer that it would be “unconstitutional” to do so is plainly false. As other commentators note, the Lords have both the legal right and historical precedent to block morally harmful legislation, especially when public and parliamentary consensus is absent⁷.

The purpose of the upper chamber is not simply to refine policy but to defend the moral fabric of the nation. When the Commons fails to uphold the natural law—by legalising what God forbids—the Lords must intervene. This is not obstruction; it is statesmanship.

False Compassion and the Slippery Slope
Supporters frame the Bill as narrow, limited, and compassionate. But these are the same arguments that were made in Canada before Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) spiralled beyond terminal illness to include disability, mental illness, and even poverty⁸. Already, critics such as Philip Murray and Mark Elliott warn that the UK version lacks robust legal safeguards and opens the door to future broadening⁹.

Even now, the Bill exempts assisted deaths from automatic coroner inquests, meaning that no independent judicial review would be required before—or after—a person dies. Former Chief Coroner Thomas Teague KC has warned that without inquests, unlawful deaths could easily slip through the net¹⁰.

The notion that the right to die can be cleanly contained is a delusion. As Pope St. John Paul II declared, “euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing ‘perversion’ of mercy”¹¹. The push to medicalise death is not neutral—it undermines the Hippocratic oath, introduces coercion into end-of-life care, and teaches the vulnerable that their suffering renders them expendable.

Undermining Palliative Care and the Sanctity of Life
Another grave concern is the Bill’s lack of conscience protections for hospices and palliative care providers. There is no statutory opt-out, meaning that institutions grounded in religious or moral principle may face pressure to participate in assisted killing. This is not “choice”; it is coercion under the guise of healthcare reform¹².

As for financial costs, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has warned that setting up the administrative infrastructure would require up to £13.6 million annually, even as the NHS faces critical shortages and real suffering among those awaiting genuine care¹³.

This is the grim irony: the political class refuses to fund palliative services adequately, then offers death as a cheaper substitute for care. What is presented as “dignity in dying” amounts to the outsourcing of despair.

The Church’s Witness: Truth with Tears
The Church must speak with truth and tears. She must oppose this bill not with cruelty, but with clarity. The traditional teaching is unambiguous: human life is sacred from conception to natural death. No illness, no burden, no suffering removes that dignity.

In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II warned against societies that “cease to consider life as a sacred and inviolable gift” and instead judge it by “efficiency and usefulness.” Once this utilitarian logic takes hold, the strong decide whether the weak are worthy of life—and no one is safe¹⁴.

If this bill becomes law, the Church must be prepared to refuse cooperation, to offer sanctuary, and to accompany the dying with true compassion—spiritual, medical, and human.

A Targeted Response: Peers Must Now Hear from the Faithful
The House of Lords is now the battlefield, and the Church is not alone. Several pro-life and disability rights organisations have launched targeted campaigns urging peers to block or amend the Bill.

• Care Not Killing Alliance has activated a nationwide letter-writing and email campaign, providing materials for supporters to contact peers directly.
• Right To Life UK is running a dedicated campaign hub with educational resources and peer-targeting tools, framing both abortion and assisted suicide as part of the same ideological collapse of legal personhood¹⁵.
• SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) is opposing the recent decriminalisation of abortion up to birth, warning that the same logic—life as conditional upon consent, not inherent dignity—is now being applied at the other end of life¹⁶.
• Christian Medical Fellowship and Not Dead Yet UK are marshalling testimonies and ethical objections from disabled people and healthcare professionals.

These campaigns are supported by legal analysis as well: the Equality and Human Rights Commission notes that Article 2 of the Human Rights Act provides an explicit and unqualified right to life: “No one shall be deprived of life intentionally”—a principle fundamentally incompatible with state-facilitated suicide¹⁷.

From the Womb to the Deathbed: The Same Fight for Life
These battles are not isolated. The same Parliament that recently removed criminal penalties for abortion up to birth is now considering authorising doctors to end life at its other natural boundary. These are not legislative tweaks—they are foundational betrayals of the sanctity of human life.

As Pope Benedict XVI warned: “A society incapable of accepting the suffering of its members… is a cruel and inhuman society.”¹⁸

We must now act—not only in protest but in prayer, witness, and catechesis.

A Vote with Eternal Consequences
As the Bill proceeds to the Lords in September, the time for compromise is over. This is not just another political debate. This is a moral watershed, and the Peers of the Realm now stand as guardians at the gate.

They must not be cowed by accusations of “cruelty,” “regression,” or “religious interference.” They must remember the words of the Prophet Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). To legalise suicide is to enshrine despair as public policy and to abandon the sick when they most need hope.

Let us pray the Lords have not only wisdom—but courage. 🔝

1. Lord Jackson, “Lords Have Mercy,” The Critic, 4 July 2025.
2. UK Parliament records, Third Reading Vote on Leadbeater Bill, 20 June 2025.
3. The Times, “Angela Rayner and Wes Streeting Withdraw Support for Assisted Dying Bill,” June 2025.
4. The Times, “Priest Denies MP Communion for Backing Assisted Dying Bill,” 22 June 2025.
5. Canon 915, Codex Iuris Canonici (1983); cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, Q. 33, Art. 7.
6. HL Constitution Committee, The Salisbury Convention, HL 123 (2006).
7. M. Elliott, P. Murray, N. da Costa, “Legislative Boundaries in Non-Government Bills,” 2025.
8. Trudo Lemmens, “MAiD and the Canadian Slippery Slope,” Journal of Law & Medicine, 2023.
9. Philip Murray, “Is the Leadbeater Bill a Gateway Law?” The Critic, June 2025.
10. The Times, “Without Inquests, Wrongful Deaths May Slip Through the Net,” 30 June 2025.
11. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, §66 (1995).
12. Care Not Killing, “Briefing on Hospice Conscience Protections,” May 2025.
13. The Guardian, “Wes Streeting Questions Cost of NHS Assisted Dying Service,” 22 June 2025.
14. Evangelium Vitae, §23.
15. Right To Life UK, Defend Life Campaign Hub, 2025.
16. SPUC, Abortion Decriminalisation Campaign Briefing, 2025.
17. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Article 2 – Right to Life, updated 2024.
18. Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, §38.

---

Against Confusion: Why “Islamophobia” Is the Wrong Term and a Danger to Free Speech

As the Labour government reviews legal definitions of anti-Muslim hatred, traditional Catholics and civil libertarians alike should resist the ideological drift that falsely equates religious criticism with racism.

A Shifting Landscape of Definitions
In early 2025, the newly elected Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer inherited a policy initiative launched under the Conservative government to define the parameters of anti-Muslim hatred. The initiative took the form of a Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia, chaired by Dominic Grieve KC, with the goal of producing a non-statutory definition that could inform hate crime enforcement, education policy, and civic guidance.

At stake is not merely a terminological preference but the future boundary between lawful dissent and criminalised speech. The question is urgent: will criticism of Islam become functionally equivalent to racism in law and public life?

The APPG’s 2018 Definition: Ambiguity as Ideology
The most widely circulated definition of Islamophobia remains that of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, issued in 2018:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.“¹

This definition has been adopted by the Labour Party in opposition and by many local authorities. However, it has drawn widespread criticism for its vagueness, ideological presuppositions, and potential to chill lawful speech. The term “Muslimness” is undefined and unbounded. It could refer to theological beliefs, cultural customs, political behaviours, or even dress—leaving citizens unsure of what speech is permitted.

Civil liberties groups, ex-Muslim reformers, secular critics, and religious minorities—including Christians—have all warned that the APPG’s framing protects not just persons from hate, but ideas from scrutiny, inverting the very principles of a pluralistic society.

Islam Is Not a Race
Perhaps the most dangerous assumption of the APPG definition is its repeated claim that Islamophobia is a form of racism. This is conceptually incoherent. Islam is not a race—it is a global religion with adherents from every ethnic background. To label criticism of Islamic belief, law, or history as racism is to commit a category error—one that has already been used to silence dissent and stigmatise debate.

From a Catholic perspective, the problem is clear. The Gospel proclaims Christ crucified and risen, the only Son of the Father, and Saviour of mankind. Islam explicitly denies all these doctrines. If the critique or rejection of Islam’s teachings is redefined as racism, then evangelisation itself becomes hate speech.

A Definition Drafted in Secret?
Despite the gravity of its task, the Working Group itself has operated with a remarkable lack of transparency. Its terms of reference state that its proceedings are confidential, its advice to government private, and that the group “does not speak on behalf of HMG.”²

To date, there has been no published list of members, no minutes released, and no evidence of consultation with Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or secular groups—even though some of these communities are frequently misidentified and targeted in “Islamophobic” incidents.³ Baroness Fox of Buckley, the only peer known to have attended a session, publicly criticised the lack of pluralism and openness.⁴

Civil liberties organisations such as the Free Speech Union, the National Secular Society, and researchers at Policy Exchange have warned that this lack of oversight leaves the process vulnerable to ideological capture.⁵ Some working group members have previous associations with Islamist-linked advocacy, raising concerns about whether freedom of conscience, speech, and religion are being properly defended.⁶

The Government’s Preferred Terminology: A Cautious Improvement
Encouragingly, the current Labour-led government has shown signs of favouring the more accurate and neutral term anti-Muslim hatred. This phrase properly identifies the target of moral and legal concern—persons, not ideas. It aligns with existing legislation on religiously aggravated offences and avoids conflating legitimate criticism with unlawful conduct.

Chairman Dominic Grieve KC has reportedly insisted that any new definition must explicitly preserve the right to question, critique, or reject Islamic beliefs. If that principle is upheld, it will represent a welcome rebalancing of the post-2018 trajectory.

Why the Words Matter
Catholics have a profound interest in this debate. Our fidelity to revealed truth requires us to proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, which necessarily entails a rejection of Islam’s central tenets. This cannot and must not be pathologised as hate.

The terms anti-Muslim hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice are morally precise. They uphold the dignity of individuals while preserving the freedom to engage in public discourse about religion. The term Islamophobia, by contrast, is a political construct. It is used to blur the line between people and ideas, to criminalise legitimate debate, and to place one religious worldview beyond critique.

Let the government name the evil clearly: hatred of persons, not scrutiny of religion. And let Catholics, with clarity and charity, defend both truth and freedom. 🔝

¹ All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined (2018).
² UK Government, Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred/Islamophobia: Terms of Reference (March 2025).
³ The Spectator, “The Islamophobia Working Group is Unbalanced and Opaque,” April 2025.
⁴ Baroness Claire Fox, Parliamentary debate, Hansard, 20 March 2024.
⁵ PoliticsHome, “Concerns Raised Over Lack of Diversity in Islamophobia Working Group,” May 2025.
⁶ Policy Exchange / FWI Report, “Renewed Effort to Stifle Free Speech in the UK,” June 2025.

---

---

🔝

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)

---

🔝