w/c 03/08/25

ORDO

Dies	03 SUN	04 MON	05 TUE	06 WED	07 THU	08 FRI	09 SAT	10 SUN
Officium	Dominica VIII Post Pentecosten	S. Dominici Confessoris	S. Mariæ ad Nives	In Transfiguratione Domini Nostri Jesu Christi	S. Cajetani Confessoris	Ss. Cyriaci, Largi et Smaragdi Martyrum	S. Joannis Mariæ Vianney Confessoris	S. Laurentii Martyris
CLASSIS	Semiduplex	Duplex majus	Duplex majus	Duplex II	Duplex	Semiduplex	Duplex	Duplex II
Color*	Viridis	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Rubeum	Purpura	Rubeum
MISSA	Suscépimus, Deus	Os justi	Salve, sancta	Illuxérunt	Os justi	Timéte	Os justi	Conféssio
Orationes	2a. De Inventione S. Stephani Protomartyris 3a. A cunctis	NA	NA	2a. Ss. Xysti II Papæ, Felicissimi et Agapiti Martyrum	2a. S. Donati Episcopi et Martyris	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro Papa (vel ad libitum)	2a. In Vigilia S. Laurentii Mart. 3a. S. Romani Martyris	2a. Dominica IX Post Pentecosten
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de BMV	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Nativitate	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Apostolis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis Ev. propr. ad fin. Missae
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva						Missae votivae vel Requiem permittuntur	Missae votivae vel Requiem permittuntur

Sapientia Aeternitatis

Sapientia Aeternitatis — Wisdom of Eternity — calls us to use temporal goods with eternal ends in view. It rebukes worldly cunning with the higher prudence of grace, urging us to live each moment in light of divine judgment.

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

The Gospel proclaimed on this Eighth Sunday after Pentecost presents us with the unsettling parable of the unjust steward, who, faced with the loss of his position, acts with foresight to secure his future. Though his method is dishonest, Our Lord commends his prudence. “The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.” (Luke 16:8)

It is a stinging indictment—not of his deceit, but of our complacency. We who are heirs of eternity often live with less foresight than those who chase passing gain. We who possess the truths of salvation too often conduct ourselves as if the world to come were vague, distant, or negotiable. This is a grave spiritual failure, and one that lies at the heart of the contemporary crisis afflicting both the Church and society.

We are living, my dear children, through a time of profound moral, doctrinal, and cultural disintegration. The laws of God are mocked in public and flouted in private. The unborn are slaughtered, the natural order is denied, and perversion is celebrated as pride. Authority is subverted, innocence is corrupted, and truth is bartered for influence. Our public institutions have not merely forgotten God—they have redefined man without Him.

Even within the Church, confusion reigns. Where once her mission was the salvation of souls, she now often speaks the language of NGOs, climate treaties, and human fraternity at the expense of eternal truths. Her liturgy is deformed, her doctrine diluted, her witness disoriented. Too many shepherds speak ambiguously where they should affirm the truth. Too many souls are left wandering—starved of reverence, deprived of sound teaching, and unprepared for judgment.

The fundamental error of our age is this: we have lost sight of eternity.

And so I write to you today with a call to recover what we must never have abandoned: Sapientia Aeternitatis—the Wisdom of Eternity.

This is not a poetic phrase. It is the essence of Christian life. To live by eternal wisdom means to see this world for what it truly is: temporary, passing, and ordered to a final reckoning. It means understanding our lives as stewardship, not possession. It means measuring decisions not by popularity, comfort, or utility—but by fidelity to truth and readiness for judgment.

“Redde rationem villicationis tuae”—“Give an account of thy stewardship” (Luke 16:2). This is not a suggestion; it is an impending reality. Each of us—bishop, priest, parent, student, worker—will be asked to account for what we have done with what we were given: faith, time, grace, opportunities, responsibilities. There will be no deferring, no spin, no appeal to consensus. Only the truth.

And yet this is not a call to despair. It is the beginning of freedom. To live with eternity in view is to become wise—to resist manipulation, to endure suffering with purpose, to choose virtue over expedience, to raise families with clarity, to build culture rooted in what lasts.

What, then, must we do?

We must reject the intoxication of the present age. We must unlearn the world’s priorities and re-learn the Gospel’s. We must recover the disciplines of the saints:

• Prayer that is daily, deliberate, and focused.
• Sacraments received worthily and frequently, especially Confession and Holy Communion.
• Mortification to resist the flesh and discipline the will.
• Reverence in the liturgy—especially the Traditional Latin Mass—which forms our souls in the awe due to God.
• Catechesis that is clear and doctrinal, not diluted for modern tastes.
• Charity rooted in truth—especially toward the poor, the unborn, and the spiritually lost.

Let our parishes be havens of eternal wisdom. Let our families be schools of holiness. Let our conversations reflect truth. Let our children be raised not merely for success, but for sanctity. Let our priests be fearless preachers of the Gospel, and let our faithful be emboldened to live counter-culturally, knowing that Christ will not ask us whether we were approved by men, but whether we were faithful to Him.

We are not called to be relevant; we are called to be holy.

Let us draw strength from the saints whom we honour this week. Saint Cajetan, who forsook comfort to rebuild the Church by poverty, prayer, and apostolic zeal. Saint John Vianney, who converted thousands by hearing confessions and preaching judgment with tears. Saint Laurence, who embraced martyrdom with joy because he had already given his life in service to the poor. Each lived the wisdom of eternity. Each gave an account of his stewardship. Each now reigns with Christ.

And so may we.

Let us not delay. Let us live now as those who will give an account. Let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light. The world is passing away. The Church must not follow it into the grave, but rise anew in the glory of her Lord.

O Blessed Virgin Mary, Seat of Wisdom,
intercede for us.
O Saint Laurence, glorious martyr and faithful steward,
pray for us.
O Christ, Judge of the living and the dead,
grant us grace to be faithful now,
that we may rejoice before Thee in eternity. Amen.

With my Apostolic blessing, and in the Sacred Heart of Jesus, 🔝

---

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. 🔝

---

The Liturgy of the Eighth Sunday Post Pentecost

Missa “Súscepimus, Deus”
The Eighth Sunday after Pentecost continues the long green season of the Church, drawing us into deeper reflection on the consequences of grace, the responsibility of stewardship, and the final judgment that awaits all men. The traditional Latin Mass, as codified in the Tridentine Missal and enriched by centuries of liturgical tradition, presents on this Sunday a striking and sobering combination of Epistle and Gospel—both deeply eschatological and morally exigent.

The Introit and Collect: Hope in Divine Protection
The Introit begins with the words “Suscépimus, Deus, misericórdiam tuam in médio templi tui” (Ps. 47:10)—“We have received Thy mercy, O God, in the midst of Thy temple.” Dom Prosper Guéranger, in his Liturgical Year, sees in this antiphon a grateful recollection of God’s past mercies, as well as a petition for His continued favour as we labor in the vineyard of the Lord. The Collect continues this theme, praying that the “course of the world” may be governed by God’s providence and that His Church may rejoice in tranquil devotion. This is not escapism but an appeal for order, that the Christian may focus on eternal things amid temporal unrest.

The Epistle: Stewardship and the Economy of Salvation
St. Paul’s exhortation to the Romans (Rom. 8:12–17 in some lectionaries, though here from 1 Cor. 4:9–15) speaks of the apostles as fools for Christ’s sake, who bear reproach for the Gospel while others are honoured. But in the traditional Tridentine lectionary for this Sunday, the Epistle comes from St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans (8:12–17), which speaks to our debt not to the flesh, but to the Spirit, for only through the Spirit can we truly live. Dom Guéranger comments that this Epistle sets before us the obligations of our baptismal state: “To live according to the flesh is to die; to mortify the deeds of the flesh is to live.” We are sons and heirs—so our conduct must reflect our high calling.

The Gospel: The Parable of the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1–9)
The Gospel presents one of the most puzzling parables of Our Lord: the dishonest steward who reduces the debts of his master’s debtors, and is then praised for his cunning. Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam, offers a traditional interpretation: the steward represents fallen humanity, called to make prudent use of temporal goods in view of eternal ends. While his act was unjust in itself, it is his prudence in preparing for the future that is commended—not his dishonesty. Christ’s point is that “the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.” This is not to encourage dishonesty, but to admonish the faithful to use temporal means—wealth, influence, time—for eternal purposes.

Fr. Martin von Cochem, in his Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, draws from this parable a call to holy foresight: “We are stewards, not owners; we must render an account; we must provide not for comfort, but for eternity.” The liturgy calls us to examine whether we have been faithful stewards of the graces entrusted to us—our time, our vocation, our duties of state.

The Offertory and Secret: Offering Ourselves with Christ
The Offertory antiphon (Ps. 30:15–16) continues the theme of reliance on divine mercy: “In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped: I said, Thou art my God, my times are in Thy hands.” The Secret prayer petitions that this sacrificial offering may purify and renew us, underscoring our need for interior transformation through the Holy Sacrifice.

The Communion and Postcommunion: The Justice of God and Our Stewardship
The Communion antiphon, taken from Psalm 50:21, says: “I will please the Lord in the land of the living.” The Postcommunion prayer petitions that we may be healed and led to eternal salvation by the grace we have received—again, the liturgical texts uniting grace and judgment, mercy and responsibility.

Liturgical Theology: Between Mercy and Judgment
The Sunday’s texts emphasize that grace is not a passive possession but a stewardship. As Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, O.C.D., writes in Divine Intimacy, “God does not grant His gifts that they should lie fallow in our souls, but that they may bear fruit for eternal life.” The parable of the steward reminds us that we must account for every gift—especially the supernatural ones.

Guéranger frames the day within the Church’s maternal solicitude: she prepares her children for judgment by urging them to reflect now on their state before God. The Mass of the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost is thus a quiet, persistent summons to conversion and vigilance, resonating with the words of the Offertory: “Deliver me out of the hands of my enemies, O Lord.”

Conclusion
The Eighth Sunday after Pentecost in the Tridentine Rite is not simply a continuation of “Ordinary Time.” It is a profound meditation on Christian stewardship, the wise use of temporal resources, and the necessity of preparing for the eternal kingdom. The readings, chants, and prayers all converge to remind the faithful: “You are not your own… You were bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Live accordingly. 🔝

---

Missalettes (Sunday VIII Post Pentecost)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

🔝

---

Spiritual Reflection: for the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost

“Give an account of thy stewardship.” (Luke 16:2)

How often we forget that we are not the masters of our lives, but stewards—caretakers—of what belongs to Another. Our soul, our body, our time, our talents, our families, our possessions, even the faith itself: none of these are our own by right. All are gifts entrusted to us by God, for a time, for a purpose, and with an end in view. One day, perhaps when we least expect it, the voice will come: “Redde rationem villicationis tuae.”—“Give an account of thy stewardship.”

The parable of the unjust steward is unsettling because the man is praised not for his honesty but for his foresight. He saw that he would be dismissed, and acted swiftly to secure his future. Our Lord holds up this worldly prudence not to endorse it, but to shame the sloth of the spiritually indifferent. “The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.” How many spend their days storing up riches that perish, managing portfolios and plans and prospects with diligence and energy—and how few spend even a fraction of that zeal in preparing for eternity.

We are warned: the day will come when all masks will fall. When our stewardship will be judged not by appearances, but by fidelity. Did I guard the innocence of my children? Did I nurture my vocation with prayer and sacrifice? Did I use the time entrusted to me to serve others or to serve myself? Did I use my influence to build the Kingdom of God or to secure my own comfort?

St. Paul reminds us in the Epistle that we are not debtors to the flesh, but to the Spirit. To live according to the flesh—to spend one’s life feeding appetites, seeking ease, grasping at vanity—is to walk the path of spiritual death. But to live according to the Spirit is to take seriously the judgment that awaits, and to live each moment as an act of love, offered back to God in thanksgiving and fidelity.

And here we must not despair. The same Lord who will call us to account has given us all that we need to be faithful stewards: grace through the sacraments, light through His word, strength in prayer, and His very Self in the Blessed Sacrament. It is never too late to begin again. Even the dishonest steward found time to act. How much more should we, who know the mercy of Christ, turn today and say: “Lord, I have wasted what was not mine. Help me now to begin to serve Thee truly.”

In the quiet of the Tridentine Mass, this Sunday reminds us that our days are numbered—but not meaningless. That each moment can be sanctified. That our judgment will not be arbitrary, but just, based on how we have used what we were given. In the offertory we cry out: “My times are in Thy hands.” Then let us entrust them to Him now, before they slip away forever.

O Jesus, faithful Steward of the Father’s mercy, grant me the wisdom to see that all I have is from Thee, and the courage to use it for Thee. May I be found faithful in little things now, that I may be entrusted with much in the life to come. Amen. 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Eighth Sunday after Pentecost

And the lord commended the unjust steward, for as much as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.

Today’s gospel from St. Luke is the parable of the Unjust Steward. It tells the story of a rich man who had a steward whom he accused of wasting his goods. He called him and told him that he needed to given an account of his stewardship or he would face dismissal. The steward therefore said to himself that he needed to act quickly before his role was taken from him. He was not prepared to be a manual labourer or rely on the charity of others. He therefore called each one of his lord’s debtors. He asked the first how much he owed the man. He said a hundred barrels of oil. The steward therefore told him to take his bill, sit down quickly and write fifty. He said to another man who said he owed a hundred measures of wheat to take his bill and write eighty. “And the lord commended the unjust steward, for as much as he had done wisely: for the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. And I say unto you: Make unto you friends of  the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings.”

What is the meaning of this parable? Why does it apparently endorse the blatantly unethical behaviour of the steward? It is important to emphasise that what is being commended is not the unscrupulous financial dealings of the steward, but rather his ability to think quickly and salvage the situation in a crisis.

The use of parables was not unique to Jesus, for it was common to many other Jewish teachers. What was distinctive was the sense of urgency which the parables of Jesus convey. His message was not the leisurely exposition of a founder of a new school of scribal interpretation. Rather he spoke of the time in which he lived as the supreme crisis of all history, and it was marked by his own appearance. In his words and mighty works, the Kingdom of God, future in its fullness, was now being manifested in time and history. It was necessary for his hearers to repent and turn away from their past sinful lives and believe in the good news of the coming of the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ person and ministry.

The worldly wise like the unjust steward in the parable knew how to extricate themselves when faced with dismissal for misconduct. But whereas some responded to Jesus’ message, most did not. They failed to discern the significance of the times and carried on with their lives as normal, foolishly unaware of the depth of the spiritual crisis in which they faced. If the unjust steward knew how to act quickly in a crisis in which he faced potential ruin, how much more should Jesus’ hearers   repent and believe the good news of the coming of the Kingdom of God in his person and ministry, or bring judgment on themselves by their failure to respond decisively.

St. Luke has also placed this parable in the context of sayings about the appropriate use of possessions in this world. It is impossible to serve God and Mammon, because possessions are transient and belong to this world, where moth and rust doth corrupt and thieves break in and steal. It is better to seek treasure in heaven, for where our treasure is there will our heart be also.

Why then is the unjust steward praised? Was he not the supreme example of the worldly wise man who was solely preoccupied with that which belongs to this present passing age, rather than the life of the world to come? It would seem that the point being made is that, though his outlook was purely worldly, he did at least have a clear overall aim that enabled him to act decisively when faced by the loss of his livelihood and financial ruin. His overall worldview was totally inadequate and misguided, but at least he had a clear sense of purpose.

Jesus’ message was not that the spiritual is good and the material is bad. It is impossible to give ultimate allegiance to God and Mammon, but that does not absolve us of the need to use the possessions that we have been given wisely. Though they are only transitory things they are not in themselves evil. They only become snares and distractions to us if we misuse them. If they are put in to the service of the Kingdom of God and his righteousness they can be blessings that help to further our proclamation.

In our own time we rightly deplore the ruthless capitalist interested, like the unjust steward in the parable, solely in making a profit, or the political activist preoccupied with promoting a particular temporal agenda or party. But we can learn an important truth from them, and this is that it is necessary to be focused and have a clear sense of purpose and goal in our actions. The mistake made by the unscrupulous businessman or the purely political agitator is that they are interested solely with that which belongs to this world. But if we deplore their outlook we can at least admire and learn something from their passionate commitment to a cause. In this sense the children in this world are indeed wiser in their generation than the children of light.

The Christian ethic is not simply an impractical utopianism, an impossible ideal divorced from the realities of day to day life and business. Rather, it gives us the true perspective and the aim by which to direct all our actions. The wordly wise, like the unjust steward, manage to do this for the merely transient possessions of this present age. But we are called to seek above all the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, for “solid joys and lasting treasure, only Zion’s children know.”

Let us therefore learn the lesson of the parable of the unjust steward, and pray for grace to guide us and enable us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves, as we proclaim the good news of the gospel in our own time and place. 🔝

Transfiguration of Christ

Today we celebrate the great feast of the Transfiguration of Christ. The Gospel account of the Transfiguration which we heard today follows the scene at Caesarea Philippi where Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, the fulfiller of the hopes of Israel. Some had seen Jesus as John the Baptist, some Elijah or one of the old prophets such as Jeremiah, but Simon Peter grasped the true nature of Jesus’ identity as the anointed liberator of Israel. At this point Jesus began to teach that his true vocation as Messiah was not to be a warrior and conqueror, but the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, who was wounded for our transgressions and chastised for our iniquities. Messianic destiny (enthronement and rule) would come about through reversal, repudiation, suffering and death. Peter still understood the Messiah as a warrior and a conqueror, but Jesus rebuked him and said that God’s Messiah is a suffering servant. The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.

Shortly afterwards Jesus took his three inmost disciples Peter, James and John (the Beloved disciple) to pray on a mountainside. The disciples saw Jesus transfigured before them. In some mysterious way they were suddenly able to see the truth of his divinity, and saw the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. They saw Jesus talking with Moses and Elijah, who represent the Law and the Prophets. It was through Moses that the Law had been given on Mount Sinai. Indeed, when Moses came down from the mountainside a veil was put on his face because the skin of his face shone, for to him God spoke face to face as a man speaks to a friend. Elijah was perhaps the greatest of the prophets before John the Baptist, who had also heard the divine voice on the mountainside not in the earthquake, wind and fire but in the still small voice. In seeing Jesus alongside Moses and Elijah the disciples recognise him as the one in whom the hope of Israel reaches its fulfilment. Peter, overwhelmed by the significance of the occasion suggests building three tabernacles, one for Moses, one for Elijah and one for Jesus. But the divine voice reiterates what was said at Jesus’ baptism, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Jesus was not simply the last in the line of prophets like John the Baptist, but was greater even than Moses to whom God spoke face to face as a man speaks to a friend. He was the Son, the Word made flesh, whose glory the disciples beheld on the mountainside.

But through the disciples beheld the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ they had still not fully grasped that the glory of Christ was most powerfully revealed not in power and might but in suffering and death. It is fitting that Jesus’ disciples beheld his glory on the mountainside at the point when he has intimated to them that he must journey to Jerusalem where he would suffer death at the hands of the authorities. Indeed, the disciples are told to say nothing to any man until the Son of Man has been risen from the dead. Only then would they fully understand what Jesus was saying about his vocation to suffer and die in order to fulfil his messianic destiny. St. John’s Gospel (which enshrines the witness of the Beloved disciple who had seen the glory of Christ on the mountainside) goes even further than the others in saying that his suffering and death is not only the way to his final exaltation, but it is his supreme moment of glorification, the lifting up of the Son of Man on the cross in one who took evil upon himself and somehow subsumed it into good.

Few more dramatic contrasts can be imagined than the account of the transfiguration with the healing of the demon possessed man that follows it in the Gospels, after Jesus and his three inmost disciples come down from the mountainside.  Yet it is a reminder that the period of withdrawal on the mountainside to pray is a period of withdrawal in order to return to accomplish the redemption of a world mired in suffering and sin. The scene of Christ transfigured in majesty is very different from the impassive serenity of the Buddha serene in detachment from the world of pain and suffering. On the contrary, the moment of transfiguration while in prayer on the mountainside is a temporary moment of withdrawal from the world in order to return and become more fully involved in it. For without vision the people perish.

We are called to become by grace what he is by nature, to share in the divinity of him who humbled himself to share our humanity. This process of sanctification or deification is not a pantheistic dissolution of our personalities into an impersonal absolute, but rather enables us to become by grace what we were created to be, and so become more truly human than we now are.

Some of the great saints of the Church have by grace experienced this moment of transfiguration while in prayer. It is most commonly associated with the Eastern Church (for example the great Russian saint St. Seraphim of Sarov), but it is not unknown in the Western Church as well. But whether or not we ever witness this moment of transfiguration in prayer, we are all called to become by grace what he is by nature. For we know, as St. John says, that when he finally appears in glory to judge the world at the end of human history we shall be made like him for we shall see him as he is. 🔝

---

This week’s Feasts

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of Saint Dominic (August 4)

Missa “In medio Ecclesiae”
“In the midst of the Church, he opened his mouth: and the Lord filled him with the spirit of wisdom and understanding.” (Introit, Ecclesiasticus 15:5)

Saint Dominic was a man of fire—zealous, ascetical, joyful, and utterly consumed by love for God and souls. He did not seek greatness, but truth. He did not pursue power, but preached the Word with poverty, purity, and perseverance. His life reminds us that the greatest gift we can offer the world is not our opinion, our activism, or even our energy—but truth infused with charity, and charity informed by truth.

The Church invokes Dominic in the liturgy today as one “who shone as the sun in the house of God” (Alleluia verse). He illumined the darkness not by adapting to it, but by piercing it with the light of unchanging doctrine. In an age of confusion and heresy—no less than our own—he gave the world the antidote: the clarity of the Catholic faith, preached with conviction and defended with humility. He believed, as we must, that the Word of God is not to be reshaped to fit the age, but proclaimed boldly that the age may be reshaped by the Word.

And yet Dominic was not merely a preacher of truths. He was above all a man of prayer—his nine ways of praying are a treasury of the Church—and every word from his lips had first been formed in silence before the Crucified. It is said that he never spoke to anyone without first having spoken to God about them. He spent his nights in vigil, crying, “Lord, what will become of sinners?” It was this compassion—born of contemplation—that animated his zeal. And it is this that we so often lack.

Too often today we are tempted to choose between two false options: to speak the truth coldly, or to love sentimentally. Dominic shows us the better way: to preach the truth with tears. To call sin sin, but to call sinners to the Saviour. To wield the sword of doctrine not to wound, but to heal.

He founded an Order whose motto is Veritas—Truth. But the truth he preached was not an abstraction; it was a Person: Christ the Logos, the Eternal Word made flesh. Every Dominican friar, and every Christian soul by extension, is called to be a vessel of that Word—formed in study, inflamed by prayer, and poured out in charity.

Saint Dominic’s life also challenges us to re-examine our spiritual habits. Do we pray before we speak? Do we love the truth enough to study it, suffer for it, live it? Are we willing to be poor in the world’s eyes in order to be rich in God’s wisdom? Do we grieve over the sins of others, not in judgment, but in hope for their salvation?

Today’s Collect calls Dominic “wonderful in preaching and holiness.” The two cannot be separated. Without holiness, preaching becomes noise. Without preaching, holiness becomes sterile. Together, they convert the world.

O Holy Father Dominic, preacher of grace, lover of truth, and friend of sinners, obtain for us a share in thy zeal, thy humility, and thy love for souls. That like thee, we may speak only of God or to God, and spend our lives proclaiming Him whom we shall praise for all eternity. Amen. 🔝

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of Our Lady of the Snows (August 5)

Missa “Vultum tuum”
“Thou hast found favour with God.” (Luke 1:30)
The feast of Our Lady of the Snows, one of the oldest Marian feasts in the Roman calendar, is not merely a commemoration of a miraculous snowfall in August, but a profound reminder that Mary’s presence, protection, and intercession are not bound by time or season. She is Mater Ecclesiae—Mother of the Church—ever watchful, ever nurturing, and ever drawing souls to her Son.

The legend behind the feast tells of a Roman couple in the 4th century who, desiring to dedicate their wealth to the Blessed Virgin, were granted a vision in which she instructed them to build a church in her honour where snow would fall. On the morning of August 5, the Esquiline Hill was miraculously covered with snow. Pope Liberius traced the outline of the future basilica in the snow, and thus arose Santa Maria ad Nives, now the Basilica of St. Mary Major, the first great church in the West dedicated to Our Lady.

This feast teaches us something deeper than pious legend: it shows us that Mary chooses to dwell among her children, and that her maternal care is expressed through the visible structures of the Church. The snow, pure and white, descending in the heat of a Roman summer, signifies not only a miracle of nature, but a heavenly intervention in the affairs of men, a sign that God continues to act through His Mother.

Mary is the living temple of God—the first church where the Word was made flesh. And in every true church, she is present again. As the snow marked the place of her dwelling, so grace marks the souls in whom she reigns. Do we allow her to dwell in us? Do we permit her to shape our souls into temples where Christ may be conceived, adored, and loved?

The Introit of the Mass comes from the psalms: “Vultum tuum deprecabuntur omnes divites plebis”—“All the rich among the people shall entreat thy countenance” (Ps. 44:13). This is no mere earthly wealth. It refers to those enriched by grace, who seek the face of Mary not as an ornament of devotion, but as the Queen Mother of the King. To behold her is to find the path to Christ; to love her is to be drawn into the mystery of the Incarnation.

Saint Bernard, whose devotion to Our Lady knew no bounds, tells us: “In dangers, in distress, in uncertainty, think of Mary, call upon Mary… She holds you fast, so that you do not fall.” The feast of Our Lady of the Snows reminds us of this anchor of grace: that the Church is Marian not by sentiment, but by divine design. She is the model of our faith, the mirror of the Church, and the throne of Wisdom.

The Collect of the feast prays: “Grant that we who commemorate the dedication of the Basilica of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, may through her protection be preserved both in body and in spirit.” Here, the physical and the spiritual are united—just as in the basilica on the Esquiline Hill, the visible temple houses the Eternal Word and honours the Ark who bore Him.

Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to snow upon our hearts the grace of purity, faith, and spiritual refreshment. May the cold fire of her Immaculate Heart temper our passions, cool our pride, and ignite in us the warmth of divine love.

O Mary, Our Lady of the Snows,
Cover us with the mantle of thy mercy,
mark out in our lives the place where Christ shall dwell,
and obtain for us the grace to be temples of the Most High,
as thou wast, full of grace, and always faithful. Amen. 🔝

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of the Transfiguration (August 6)

Missa “Illuxérunt coruscatiónes tuæ”
“And He was transfigured before them.” (Matt. 17:2)
The Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a sublime unveiling—a momentary revelation of the divine glory hidden beneath the veil of His Sacred Humanity. Upon Mount Tabor, Christ showed His chosen three—Peter, James, and John—not a new reality, but the eternal truth of who He is: the Son of God, Light from Light, true God from true God.

The Transfiguration is a feast of hope. It anticipates the Resurrection. It offers strength for the scandal of the Cross. It reveals to us, as Dom Prosper Guéranger writes, “the goal of the Christian life: the vision of the unveiled glory of Christ, face to face.” It is not merely a past event, but a promise of future glory—a glory that begins even now, in the soul transformed by grace.

As the Apostles ascend the mountain, they are wearied. They have followed the Lord, but they do not yet understand where He is leading. So too are we in this life: called to follow, but often blind to the purpose. Yet on the mountain, Christ shines—His face radiant as the sun, His garments white as light. He speaks with Moses and Elijah, the Law and the Prophets, revealing that the Cross is not a contradiction of God’s plan, but its fulfilment. The glory comes through the Passion, not around it.

The voice from the cloud—“This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him”—echoes the baptism in the Jordan, but now with the added command: listen. The Christian life is not merely about seeing signs or feeling consolation, but about listening to Christ, especially when His words are hard—when He speaks of suffering, renunciation, the narrow path.

Saint Leo the Great, in his homily on the Transfiguration, reminds us:
“The Lord revealed His glory before the eyes of His chosen witnesses to remove the scandal of the Cross from their hearts. He wanted to prevent them from being shattered by the humiliation of the Passion by letting them behold the splendour of the Resurrection beforehand.”
This is God’s mercy: to give us moments of light before the darkness descends, to strengthen us by the memory of His glory in times of trial.

But the lesson does not end with light. When the vision fades, the Apostles must descend the mountain. Peter, who longs to build three tabernacles and remain in that radiance, is told to follow Christ back into the world, back into suffering, back toward Calvary. The glory was real—but it was a foretaste, not a resting place.

So it is with us. We may have moments of spiritual clarity, moments when we glimpse the beauty of Christ and feel the fire of His love—but we cannot remain there. These are given to strengthen us for the valley. To remind us that our goal is not here, but Heaven. That holiness is not found in rapture, but in fidelity. That transfiguration begins now—in prayer, in penance, in obedience—and is consummated only in eternity.

Today’s feast asks us:
Are we being transfigured?
Are we climbing the mountain daily in prayer and sacrifice?
Are we listening to the voice of the Beloved Son, even when His words call us to the Cross?

Let us not fear the descent from Tabor, nor the shadow of Gethsemane. The Lord who shone with uncreated light is the same who will carry the Cross and rise victorious. If we follow Him in obedience, we too shall be transfigured, for “we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).

O radiant Lord of Tabor,
who revealed Thy glory to strengthen our faith,
shine in our hearts with the light of Thy grace,
that we may be transformed from glory to glory,
until we behold Thee face to face
in the land of the living. Amen. 🔝

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of Saint Cajetan, Confessor (August 7)

Missa “Justus ut palma florebit”
“Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matt. 6:33)
Saint Cajetan was a nobleman who renounced nobility, a lawyer who abandoned prestige, a cleric who became a reformer not by protest but by penance. In an age when the Church was languishing under worldliness and laxity, Cajetan responded not with rebellion, but with deeper fidelity. He saw that the answer to corruption was not revolution, but conversion.

His founding of the Theatine Order was a work of humble renewal—a call back to apostolic poverty, reverent liturgy, and care for the poor. He lived what he preached: relying entirely on Divine Providence, refusing endowments for his congregation, and trusting that the God who feeds the birds of the air would also provide for His servants. His life rebukes our anxious hoarding, our tendency to make security our idol.

Cajetan reminds us that trust in God is not passivity, but total dependence rooted in active faith. He did not sit idle, waiting for heaven to rain down miracles. He laboured, suffered, prayed, and served—seeking first the kingdom, and letting Providence supply the rest.

The Gospel for his feast (Matt. 6:24–33) calls us to this radical trust. It does not tell us to be irresponsible—but to be faithful first. To work not for riches or comfort, but for souls. To set our eyes not on worldly gain, but on divine reward.

The Church honours Cajetan not merely for what he did, but for what he was: a just man, flourishing like the palm tree (Ps. 91:13), rooted not in wealth, but in grace. He calls us to reform the Church by reforming ourselves, and to heal the world by becoming saints.

O glorious St Cajetan, father of the poor and model of trust,
teach us to seek first the Kingdom of God.
Intercede for us in our needs,
and help us live for Christ with undivided hearts,
trusting all to His providence. Amen. 🔝

Spiritual Reflection for the Feast of Saint John Mary Vianney, Confessor (August 8)

Missa “Os justi meditabitur”
“The mouth of the just shall meditate wisdom, and his tongue shall speak judgment.” (Ps. 36:30)
Saint John Mary Vianney, the Curé of Ars, was not clever by the world’s standards. He struggled in his seminary studies, was almost denied ordination, and was sent to a forgotten village with fewer than 300 souls. And yet that village became a furnace of grace, and he—its obscure priest—became a living icon of Christ the Good Shepherd.

The Church calls him patron of parish priests—not because he was efficient or popular, but because he was holy. His life was marked by penance, long vigils, fasting, and constant prayer. He spent up to 18 hours a day in the confessional, reconciling sinners and calling souls to sanctity. People flocked to Ars from all over France because, as one bishop said, “he showed them God.”

The secret of his holiness was simple: he took seriously the two things many treat lightly—sin and grace. He saw sin as the greatest tragedy, the soul’s self-inflicted death. And he saw grace as the most necessary gift in the world—more vital than food, more healing than medicine, more precious than gold.

His sermons were not polished, but they were pierced with truth. He once said: “If we really understood the Mass, we would die of joy.” He also wept over souls who stayed away from confession, saying, “The Lord is more eager to forgive us than a mother is to rescue her child from a fire.”

Vianney reminds us that sanctity is not for the brilliant, the strong, or the naturally gifted—it is for the willing. For those who will surrender all to Christ. For those who love Him enough to let their lives be consumed for others.

We live in an age of noise, distraction, and spiritual confusion. Vianney lived in a time not so different. His response was not innovation, but adoration. Not programs, but penance. Not activism, but sacrificial love. And through that, God worked miracles.

O holy Curé of Ars,
faithful servant of Christ and tireless shepherd of souls,
pray for priests, that they may be pure and zealous.
Pray for us, that we may hate sin,
love prayer, and live for Heaven.
Lead us back to the confessional,
and through it, to the Heart of Jesus. Amen. 🔝

---

Forgotten Rubrics: The Double Ablution

Among the many rich and reverent details of the Traditional Latin Mass that have been lost or obscured in modern liturgical practice is the double ablution—a seemingly small ritual act, yet one imbued with profound theological and spiritual meaning.

What is the Double Ablution?
In the Tridentine rite, after the celebrant has consumed the Sacred Host and the Precious Blood, he performs a ritual cleansing of the sacred vessels. This purification involves two ablutions, not just one, using wine and then wine mixed with water. Both are consumed by the priest. The first ablution is poured into the chalice immediately after Communion to cleanse any remaining particles of the Host or drops of the Precious Blood. The second ablution—usually a mixture of water and wine—follows to purify thoroughly both the chalice and the priest’s fingers (thumb and forefinger), which have touched the Sacred Species.

Liturgical Significance
This double ablution is not merely a matter of hygiene or practicality. It reflects the Church’s unwavering belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Even the smallest crumb or droplet is treated with utmost reverence. The ritual underscores the sacred duty of the priest to handle the Eucharist with fear and trembling, knowing he stands at the foot of the Cross.

As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, “Since Christ’s entire body is contained under the species of the sacrament, wherever the species of the sacrament is, there Christ’s body is” (ST III, q. 76, a. 4). Hence, every fragment matters.

Spiritual Reflection
The double ablution can be seen as a miniature liturgy within the Mass: a final act of loving care for the Body of Christ, recalling the women who washed and anointed His Sacred Body after the Crucifixion. The first washing removes the visible remnants of the Sacrament, the second, like a final kiss, ensures no trace is overlooked. It is a symbol of spiritual vigilance, the soul’s own desire to be purified and made worthy of such sublime contact with the Divine.

It also serves as a hidden catechesis on the priest’s consecrated hands, which must be kept pure, not only during the liturgy but in daily life. In the Tridentine rite, the priest does not touch anything profane from the consecration until the ablutions are complete and his fingers are ritually cleansed.

Loss and Recovery
In the Novus Ordo Missae, the practice of the double ablution was simplified or omitted, often leaving purification to lay ministers or neglecting the careful rubrics of earlier times. This has led, sadly, to a decline in Eucharistic reverence.

Recovering the double ablution—and understanding its significance—can help restore that spirit of awe and holy fear before the Lord truly present upon our altars. It reminds both priest and people that the Mass is not a meal, but a Sacrifice; not a community gathering, but Calvary renewed.

In every detail of the Traditional Rite, we see the fruits of a centuries-long meditation on the mystery of the Eucharist. The double ablution is one such fruit—a quiet but eloquent testimony of love for the Eucharistic Lord. 🔝

---

---

Sapientia Aeternitatis: Eternal Wisdom in an Age of Short-Termism

The world today rewards the clever, the strategic, the adaptable. We are told that success lies in agility, in anticipating trends, in maximising return and minimising exposure. We educate children to be employable, not virtuous. We train leaders to be efficient, not wise. We structure entire economies and political systems around quarterly targets and polling cycles. And even in our personal lives, we are tempted daily to prioritise what is urgent over what is important.

But our Lord offers another principle: Sapientia Aeternitatis—the wisdom of eternity.

It is a wisdom that sees beyond the immediate, beyond the transactional, beyond the applause of the crowd or the convenience of the hour. It is the kind of wisdom that sees life itself as stewardship—not ownership. That recognises that every decision, every use of time, talent, or treasure is ultimately accountable before the judgment seat of Christ. “Give an account of thy stewardship,” says the Master in the Gospel. Not just in great matters, but in the ordinary fabric of our days.

We live in an age of radical short-termism. Politicians scramble for the next headline. Schools are measured not by virtue but by statistics. Even within the Church, pastoral strategies are often adopted because they are “pragmatic,” not because they are true. And yet, beneath all this activity lies a dangerous forgetfulness—that we are eternal beings, destined not for efficiency, but for judgment. Not for visibility, but for holiness.

The Christian must recover the habit of thinking eternally. Parents must ask not merely what entertains their children, but what sanctifies them. Voters must consider not what is popular, but what is just. Pastors must teach not what soothes, but what saves. The voice of Christ still speaks: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

And this is not to reject prudence. The steward in Our Lord’s parable is praised for his foresight, not his fraud. But the lesson is this: if the children of this world are so diligent in securing their temporal future, how much more should the children of light labour for eternity?

The antidote to this culture of immediacy is not despair, but conversion. It is the return to habits of prayerful discernment. To regular confession, which reorients the soul toward God. To the daily practice of mortification, which reminds us that the pleasures of this world are passing. To the works of mercy, which store up treasure where neither moth nor rust consume.

Our forebears knew this. Their cathedrals were built over generations, their prayers woven through the hours of the day, their decisions animated by a sense of the last things: death, judgment, heaven, and hell. They knew what our age forgets: that the ultimate standard is not profitability, but sanctity. Not cleverness, but fidelity.

Sapientia Aeternitatis is not a mystical abstraction. It is the practical habit of ordering life to its final end. It is the courage to say no to what is expedient in favour of what is right. It is the calm refusal to be drawn into the tyranny of now. It is the light by which the saints lived—and the path we must recover if we are to navigate the present darkness with clarity and hope.

Let us then ask for this wisdom: not the wisdom of the age, but the wisdom of God. Let us teach it to our children, practise it in our homes, witness to it in the public square, and demand it of ourselves. For on the day when all accounts are called in, the only profit that will matter is that of a soul made holy by truth, and found faithful. 🔝

---

The Five Precepts of the Church: Foundations of Faithful Living

An Article Series for Catechists and Confessors: Fr. Paolo Miguel R. Cobangbang CDC

In every age, the Church has wisely proposed certain minimum obligations for all the faithful to safeguard their life in Christ. These are known as the Five Precepts of the Church. Far from being arbitrary rules, these precepts form the basic structure of Christian discipleship and are intimately connected with our duties to God, the Church, and neighbor. Rooted in divine law, expressed through Sacred Scripture, attested by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and preserved in Canon Law and moral theology, they function as thresholds of authentic Catholic living. This series aims to offer a catechetical and pastoral commentary on each precept—drawing from the Bible, Church Fathers, the Catechism, theological manuals, and Canon Law—serving both the formation of the faithful and the review of confessors.

Article I: The Obligation to Hear Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation

Worship as the Principal Act of Religion

The first precept of the Church commands the faithful to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation. This obligation, though ecclesiastical in its formulation, is rooted in the divine law, particularly in the Third Commandment of the Decalogue: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). The Church, from the apostolic age, has understood this commandment as binding Christians to sanctify Sunday, the day of the Lord’s Resurrection, by attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

This observance is not a mere formality but a solemn act of justice and religion toward God. Our Lord Himself declared, “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God and his justice” (Matthew 6:33), and He instituted the Eucharist with the command, “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19). Sunday Mass thus becomes the weekly fulfillment of divine worship, the continuation of Christ’s sacrifice, and the nourishment of the faithful in word and sacrament.

The Fathers of the Church give unanimous witness to the sanctification of Sunday through the Eucharist. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing at the beginning of the second century, called Christians those who “live according to the Lord’s Day,” and who no longer observe the Sabbath, but gather on Sunday to celebrate the Resurrection. St. Justin Martyr provides the earliest detailed account of the Mass, describing how on “the day called Sunday,” the writings of the apostles and prophets are read, prayers are offered, the bread and wine are consecrated, and the faithful partake in Holy Communion (First Apology, 67). These testimonies reflect a lived tradition of Sunday worship as a moral and religious obligation from the earliest days of the Church.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its exposition of the Third Commandment, teaches that the Church, exercising her authority, transferred the solemn observance of the Sabbath to Sunday. This was done not arbitrarily, but to mark the new creation wrought by Christ’s Resurrection. “It pleased the Church of God,” the catechism states, “that the religious celebration of the Sabbath should be transferred to the Lord’s Day. For as on that day light first shone on the world, so by the resurrection of our Redeemer… a new life was restored to us.” Furthermore, the catechism urges pastors to exhort the faithful “to be present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass… to pour out their souls in prayer… and to listen with attention and reverence to the word of God.” Thus, the Lord’s Day is not only a day of rest but, more importantly, a day of active participation in the sacred liturgy.

This teaching is echoed in the Baltimore Catechism, which presents the doctrine in concise, accessible terms for lay instruction. It teaches that we are bound to be present “with reverence and devotion at the whole Mass” on Sundays and holy days, unless excused by a serious reason (No. 3, Q.1329). Those who deliberately fail to fulfill this obligation without excuse “sin mortally” (Q.1332). The catechism also reminds the faithful that proper assistance at Mass requires more than physical presence; it includes attention, devotion, and spiritual participation.

The tradition of moral theology consistently classifies the obligation to hear Mass on Sundays and holy days as a grave precept, whose violation constitutes a mortal sin if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that to omit Mass on Sunday without sufficient cause is a mortal sin, for the command is grave, the object (the Mass) is of the highest importance, and the omission is deliberate. Tanquerey, in his Manual of Moral Theology, affirms that the obligation derives from both divine and ecclesiastical law and is fulfilled only by active and attentive participation in the essential parts of the Mass—from the Offertory to Communion. Heribert Jone and Antoñana likewise teach that willful distractions, inattention, or missing substantial parts of the Mass may render one’s participation gravely deficient. Attending Mass via radio or other media, while spiritually beneficial, does not fulfill the precept unless serious cause excuses physical attendance.

Grave causes that excuse the obligation include illness, care of infants, physical inability to travel, inclement weather, or moral impossibility. However, reasons such as laziness, preference for recreation, or indifference are not sufficient to dispense from the precept. Those who are habitually negligent of Sunday Mass endanger their souls and manifest a disordered spiritual life. On the other hand, those who strive to sanctify the Lord’s Day through worship, rest, and works of mercy grow in grace and communion with the Church.

In the confessional, confessors must be careful in evaluating this obligation. They should inquire whether the penitent clearly understood the obligation, whether the absence was due to a proportionate reason, and whether there is any pattern of habitual negligence. Where there is ignorance or poor formation, the priest must provide catechesis with patience and clarity. Where there is obstinacy or contempt, especially after repeated instruction, the confessor must withhold absolution until there is genuine repentance and a firm purpose of amendment. The precept to hear Mass is not a human invention—it is the Church’s prudent and pastoral application of divine law for the good of souls.

In conclusion, the obligation to assist at Mass on Sundays and holy days is a solemn and joyful duty. It is the heart of Christian worship and the privileged moment when the faithful unite with Christ’s Sacrifice and receive His Body and Blood. The Church does not impose this precept to burden the faithful, but to ensure their union with the Lord who said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:53). To keep holy the Lord’s Day is to live according to God’s time, to participate in His redemptive work, and to enter into communion with the Church’s worship of the Most Holy Trinity.

“O come, let us adore and fall down: and weep before the Lord that made us.”
(Psalm 94:6, Douay-Rheims) 🔝

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

Newman Named Doctor of the Church: Leo XIV Elevates English Convert to Universal Teacher

In a historic and symbolically potent decision, Pope Leo XIV has confirmed the elevation of St. John Henry Newman to the title of Doctor of the Church—a distinction granted to only thirty-seven saints before him. The announcement was made on July 31, 2025, following an audience with Cardinal Marcello Semeraro, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints. The formal liturgical proclamation is expected to follow later this year.

This act by Pope Leo XIV marks a striking moment of convergence between doctrinal clarity, ecclesial continuity, and the deepening of ecumenical witness. It is a gesture at once deeply traditional and pastorally forward-looking—characteristic of Leo XIV’s early pontificate, which has so far shown a preference for thinkers rooted in the patristic and scholastic traditions.

Why Newman?
Born in 1801 and originally an Anglican priest and theologian, John Henry Newman famously converted to Catholicism in 1845 after a long and agonising intellectual and spiritual journey. His conversion marked a pivotal moment not only in English religious history but in the broader Catholic understanding of conscience, tradition, and doctrinal development.

Newman was created a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII in 1879, the same year he delivered his prophetic motto: Cor ad cor loquitur—”Heart speaks to heart.” Now, 146 years later, another Pope Leo has affirmed Newman’s role not merely as a scholar or confessor of the faith, but as a universal teacher of Catholic doctrine.

Newman’s writings—particularly An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, The Idea of a University, and Grammar of Assent—have had a lasting impact on the Church’s engagement with modernity, without ever sacrificing the timeless truths of the Catholic faith. His insistence on the integrity of conscience, the organic nature of doctrinal growth, and the inseparability of intellect and holiness speak directly to the challenges of the 21st century.

A Sign of the Times
Newman becomes only the second Englishman to be named a Doctor of the Church—the first being St. Bede the Venerable in 1899. His elevation follows the 2022 declaration of St. Irenaeus of Lyons by Pope Francis, and continues a recent trend of recognising saints whose contributions to theology, unity, and spiritual renewal transcend cultural boundaries.

The timing is significant. At a moment when the Church in England is struggling under the weight of secularisation, internal division, and increasing cultural hostility, the universal elevation of an English convert—once despised, often misunderstood—signals a call to return to what is true, intellectually sound, and rooted in holiness. Newman is not only a doctor for theologians; he is a guide for laity, educators, and youth navigating a world of confusion.

Theological Depth, Not Trendy Relevance
Unlike recent efforts to manufacture “pastoral relevance” through diluted doctrine or sociological accommodation, this recognition of Newman reasserts the Catholic belief that truth and charity are not in conflict. Newman’s theology was never fashionable. It was never safe. His own life—plagued by misunderstanding, exile, and academic isolation—was a crucible of purification.

Yet precisely because Newman suffered for the truth, he emerges as a credible Doctor of the Church. His life affirms that suffering is integral to sanctity, that intellectual honesty is a form of piety, and that the Church must never sever her mission from her doctrinal moorings.

A Doctor for Our Time
In his own day, Newman saw the “liberalism in religion” of the 19th century as a corrosive force that denied the possibility of objective truth. Were he alive today, he would likely identify in the moral relativism, syncretism, and sentimentalism of the modern West a further extension of that same disease. His response would not be cultural warfare or clerical activism, but a renewed call to conversion of heart and mind—rooted in fidelity to tradition and openness to grace.

If the Church is to survive this age of apostasy, she will need saints who, like Newman, speak both to the heart and the intellect. Not empty slogans, not sociological experiments, but men and women aflame with truth and humility.

Conclusion
By naming St. John Henry Newman a Doctor of the Church, Pope Leo XIV has not simply honoured a great theologian; he has made a theological statement: that the Church’s future must be anchored in her tradition, her reason, and her saints.

In an age of ambiguity, Newman speaks with clarity.
In an age of fragmentation, he offers synthesis.
In an age of despair, he offers hope rooted in truth.

May the Church heed his voice. 🔝

1. “St John Henry Newman Set to Become Newest Doctor of the Church,” Vatican News, 31 July 2025.
2. “Newman to Be Declared Doctor of the Church,” The Pillar, 31 July 2025.
3. “Pope to Bestow One of Catholic Church’s Highest Honors on Anglican Convert John Henry Newman,” AP, 31 July 2025.
4. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845).
5. Newman, Grammar of Assent (1870).
6. Newman, The Idea of a University (1852).
7. Pope Leo XIII, Consistory Allocution on Newman’s Elevation to the Cardinalate, 12 May 1879.
8. Pope Benedict XVI, Homily at the Beatification of Cardinal Newman, 19 September 2010.

---

Dialogue at a Crossroads: Pope Leo XIV Meets Russian Orthodox Envoys Amid Ukraine War

On 26 July 2025, Pope Leo XIV received Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk, head of external relations for the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), along with five other senior Orthodox clerics, in what Vatican officials described as a significant moment for Catholic–Orthodox relations and the wider search for peace in war-torn Ukraine¹.

The meeting, which took place at the Vatican, was the first official audience between the newly elected Pope and a high-ranking Russian Orthodox representative. It followed weeks of careful diplomatic signalling from both sides and comes amid ongoing hostilities between Russia and Ukraine—a war that has divided Christian communities and tested the limits of ecclesial diplomacy.

An Exchange of Courtesies and Concerns
Metropolitan Anthony delivered greetings from Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, congratulating Pope Leo on his election. The Pope reciprocated with thanks and emphasised the “urgency of dialogue and peace,” according to Vatican sources familiar with the meeting².

However, the tone was not merely fraternal. The Russian delegation raised concerns about what they described as the “persecution” of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) by Ukrainian authorities—referring to legislation restricting churches tied to Russia and seizures of church property in areas distancing themselves from Moscow³.

While the Holy See has stopped short of endorsing either side’s political narratives, Pope Leo’s response reportedly affirmed the importance of religious liberty and human dignity in every situation. Vatican officials later said the Pope expressed his desire to support “all efforts at reconciliation and justice,” avoiding direct comment on Moscow’s framing of events.

A Diplomatic Balancing Act
The visit follows Pope Leo’s earlier meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on 9 July at Castel Gandolfo, during which both leaders reaffirmed the Vatican’s willingness to serve as a venue for future peace talks⁴. That conversation included discussion of efforts to secure the return of Ukrainian children forcibly relocated to Russia during the war—a point of continued humanitarian and moral concern⁵.

By welcoming both Zelenskyy and the Russian Orthodox envoys within the same month, Pope Leo has positioned the Holy See as a rare neutral ground in a geopolitical conflict with few trusted intermediaries.

Yet neutrality is not without tension. Critics point to the ROC’s unwavering support for Vladimir Putin and Patriarch Kirill’s theological justification of the invasion, which has placed strain on ecumenical dialogue since 2022. In response, Catholic commentators have urged clarity on the limits of diplomacy, warning against any gesture that might lend legitimacy to state-endorsed aggression masquerading as religious concern⁶.

Towards Reconciliation or Realignment?
Observers note that Pope Leo’s approach marks a potential shift from the style of his predecessor. While Pope Francis pursued back-channel dialogue, often to the frustration of Ukrainian Catholics, Leo’s open meetings with both sides and invocation of Church teaching on peace and justice suggest a more structured ecclesial diplomacy rooted in moral clarity.

Nonetheless, the long road to Orthodox–Catholic unity remains beset by theological, historical, and political obstacles. Any thaw in relations with the Russian Church must contend not only with doctrinal divergence but also with deep wounds inflicted by the war, especially among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox faithful who oppose Moscow’s hegemony.

Still, the 26 July meeting represents a small but significant sign that dialogue—grounded not in compromise, but in truth and charity—may yet serve as a witness to the peace the world cannot give⁷. 🔝

1. Reuters, Pope Leo XIV meets with Russian Orthodox Church official at Vatican, July 26, 2025.
2. America Magazine, Pope Leo XIV receives greetings from Patriarch Kirill during Vatican meeting, July 26, 2025.
3. Kyivindependent.com, Russian Orthodox Church claims persecution in Ukraine during Vatican talks, July 27, 2025.
4. AP News, Pope Leo meets Zelenskyy, reaffirms Vatican as peace venue, July 9, 2025.
5. Detroit Catholic, Pope, Zelenskyy discuss return of deported Ukrainian children, July 9, 2025.
6. English.nv.ua, Ukraine concerned by Vatican reception of Moscow clergy, July 27, 2025.
7. John 14:27 – “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.”

---

Survivor’s Visit to Chicago Raises Questions About Pope Leo XIV’s Past Handling of Clergy Abuse in Peru

A Peruvian survivor of clerical sexual abuse has publicly called on Pope Leo XIV to implement stronger reforms for protecting victims—raising renewed scrutiny of his own actions as Bishop of Chiclayo. The case has become a flashpoint in ongoing debates over the Vatican’s global response to abuse and the credibility of those now entrusted with reform.

A Survivor’s Plea in the Pope’s Hometown
On July 29, Ana María Quispe Díaz, a survivor of sexual abuse by Peruvian priests, spoke out in Chicago, Pope Leo XIV’s American hometown, to demand sweeping changes in the Church’s approach to abuse cases. Standing with SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Quispe urged the Holy Father—formerly Bishop Robert Francis Prevost of Chiclayo, Peru—to publicly acknowledge and remove accused abusers, and to enact a global zero-tolerance policy for clerics found guilty of sexual misconduct¹.

Though she praised some of Prevost’s pastoral sensitivity in her initial meetings with him, Quispe expressed deep disappointment that no decisive canonical penalties followed those encounters. “He met with us, he listened,” she said, “but the priests remained in ministry, and justice did not come.”²

The Peruvian Cases Under Review
The controversy centres on two cases involving Peruvian priests Ricardo Yesquén Paiva and Eleuterio Vásquez Gonzáles, accused in 2022 of sexually abusing minors. Quispe and others allege that Prevost, then Bishop of Chiclayo, failed to conduct a full canonical penal process. They claim the diocesan investigation was limited, internally managed, and failed to deliver transparent outcomes³.

In response, the Diocese of Chiclayo has defended Prevost’s actions. According to diocesan records, he restricted the ministry of the accused, encouraged civil legal action, conducted a preliminary inquiry in accordance with canon law, and submitted findings to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) in late 2022⁴. After Pope Francis transferred Prevost to Rome in 2023, the cases were reportedly reopened under public pressure.

Supporters of Pope Leo XIV argue that the backlash is politically motivated. Paola Ugaz, a Peruvian journalist who has investigated the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV), suggested that the Pope’s critics include those connected to this controversial and disgraced movement. In her view, Prevost was “one of the only bishops” in Peru who meaningfully collaborated with survivors and civil authorities, and his opposition to the SCV led to personal and institutional retaliation⁵.

Concerns from the Past: The Chicago Case
This is not the first time Prevost’s past has drawn attention. SNAP also pointed to a case in Chicago in the early 2000s, when he was serving as the provincial superior of the Augustinian Order. In that instance, a priest accused of abuse was assigned to a friary under supervision. While not in active ministry, SNAP contends the decision placed children at risk. No formal charges were brought in that case, but critics argue that such administrative decisions reflect a broader pattern of institutional minimisation⁶.

A Broader Appeal: Global Zero Tolerance
The deeper issue at stake is whether Pope Leo XIV will enact meaningful reforms that address not only individual cases but the global structural culture that has enabled abuse. SNAP has called for a universal zero-tolerance canon law that would require automatic laicization or permanent removal from ministry after even one proven case of sexual abuse—something current canon law permits but does not mandate⁷.

Quispe Díaz stated: “We don’t want apologies or gestures. We want a law—one that protects children, not priests.”⁸ Her demand echoes a rising chorus of survivors and advocates who believe the Church must go beyond procedures to enforce non-negotiable moral and disciplinary standards.

Credibility and the Burden of Reform
Pope Leo XIV’s elevation to the papacy in May 2025 was greeted by many with hope for doctrinal clarity and ecclesial renewal. Yet for survivors like Quispe, the question is not whether the Pope believes in justice, but whether he is willing to risk his own record to implement it. The credibility of his pontificate on this front may well depend on his willingness to revisit and revise past shortcomings—beginning not in Rome, but in the very places where he once served. 🔝

1. “Survivor of clergy sex abuse in Peru visits pope’s hometown to call for more reforms,” Associated Press, July 29, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. “Abuse survivor calls on Pope Leo XIV to take action in long-delayed case,” National Catholic Reporter, July 30, 2025.
4. Statement from the Diocese of Chiclayo, cited in “As Pope Leo XIV faces scrutiny, victims of abusive Catholic group say he helped when others didn’t,” AP, July 24, 2025.
5. Ibid.
6. “SNAP highlights past Chicago case involving then-Augustinian provincial,” Catholic News Agency, July 29, 2025.
7. Cf. Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (2001, rev. 2021), and Vos estis lux mundi (2019, revised 2023).
8. Statement by Ana María Quispe Díaz at SNAP press conference, Chicago, July 29, 2025.

---

$246 Million Settlement Nears Approval in Rochester Diocese Abuse Case

The Diocese of Rochester is nearing final judicial approval of a $246 million sex-abuse settlement, poised to conclude a six-year bankruptcy process initiated in 2019 after hundreds of lawsuits were filed under New York’s Child Victims Act. The plan, scheduled for confirmation in early September 2025, will address claims from approximately 470 survivors of clerical sexual abuse and represents one of the largest such settlements in the United States.

A Process Driven by Survivors
What distinguishes the Rochester case from earlier diocesan bankruptcies is the role of survivors themselves in shaping the plan. A committee of claimants co-drafted the settlement, which received unanimous support in the survivor vote. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul Warren noted that the victims “had a pen in their hand” when the terms were finalised¹.

Of the $246 million fund, $55 million will come directly from the Diocese and parishes, with the remainder contributed by insurers—most notably Continental Insurance Company, which agreed to a $120 million share².

Legal Precedents and Structural Questions
The path to settlement was complicated by the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, which ruled that non-debtor third parties—such as parishes and religious orders—cannot receive liability releases without affirmative consent³. This posed a challenge to the widespread diocesan strategy of using bankruptcy to shield affiliated entities. In Rochester, however, the judge accepted the releases as consensual due to the claimants’ full support.

The only remaining objection at the time of writing comes from the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Rochester, who fear that the settlement could pre-empt their legal defenses in future lawsuits. Judge Warren indicated that if this is not resolved by the hearing date, it will be overruled⁴.

The Limits of Financial Restitution
While the settlement represents a significant financial concession, survivor advocates have repeatedly emphasized that no sum can compensate for the harm inflicted. Carol DuPré, a survivor abused as a teenager in the 1960s, remarked, “This will never undo what happened to us, but it means we were heard”⁵. Others have criticized the Diocese’s public framing of the bankruptcy as a painful but noble sacrifice, rather than the outcome of legal necessity and decades of institutional denial.

Some survivors continue to push for moral and institutional reforms that go beyond compensation: public naming of the credibly accused, transparency in seminary screening, independent safeguarding structures, and an end to clerical cover-ups. The desire for restoration, not just restitution, remains strong.

A Pattern Across American Dioceses
The Rochester settlement fits into a broader national pattern of diocesan bankruptcies triggered by post-2002 revelations and changing civil law. Notably:

• Los Angeles paid $880 million in 2007 to settle ~500 claims—the largest U.S. diocesan payout to date.
• Rockville Centre, on Long Island, agreed to a $323 million settlement in 2024 for ~540 survivors.
• Buffalo reached a $150 million settlement in 2023, covering ~900 claims.
• St. Paul-Minneapolis settled for $210 million in 2018 after extensive survivor advocacy.

New York’s 2019–2021 Child Victims Act opened a legal window for older cases to be filed, revealing long-suppressed abuses and forcing public reckonings in dioceses long protected by statutes of limitation.

A Traditional Catholic Response
From a traditional Catholic perspective, this crisis cannot be solved by money alone. Financial settlements are necessary instruments of justice, but they do not address the deeper ecclesiological, moral, and doctrinal decay that allowed this abuse to flourish.

The postconciliar era witnessed the erosion of discipline, the collapse of seminary formation, and the toleration of moral relativism—even among bishops. As Pope Pius XII warned, “The greatest sin of our time is that men have lost the sense of sin”⁶. The widespread failure to uphold clear teaching on sexuality, sin, penance, and priestly identity created an ecclesial climate in which predators could act with impunity and victims were silenced in the name of institutional image.

The tragedy of Rochester is not isolated—it is symptomatic of a Church that has, in many places, replaced the supernatural with the managerial, truth with therapy, and repentance with damage control. True reform requires the restoration of Tradition: sound doctrine, sacred liturgy, priestly asceticism, and the fear of God.

Conclusion: Justice and Restoration
As the Diocese of Rochester prepares for the final confirmation hearing on September 5, many survivors are hopeful that this long and painful chapter will at least bring recognition and closure. But for the faithful, the duty does not end with payouts and headlines. Prayer, penance, and firm rejection of the postconciliar compromises that enabled this catastrophe are needed now more than ever. The Church must become again what she was always meant to be: the spotless Bride of Christ, not a sanctuary for abusers or a corporation for reputational defense.

Only by returning to the fullness of the Catholic Faith can the Church be purified, and only by kneeling at the foot of the Cross can true justice be found. 🔝

¹ Reuters, “Rochester Diocese nears final approval of $246 mln sex abuse settlement,” July 29, 2025.
² Catholic News Agency, “Abuse victims agree to $246 million settlement from Diocese of Rochester,” July 29, 2025.
³ Supreme Court of the United States, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).
⁴ Reuters, ibid.
⁵ WXXI News, “Abuse survivors respond to $246M settlement with Rochester Diocese,” July 30, 2025.
⁶ Pope Pius XII, Radio Message to the National Catechetical Congress of the United States, Oct. 26, 1946.

---

Massacre at Prayer Vigil in Komanda: Over 40 Killed in ISIS-Affiliated Attack

More than forty Christians—including numerous children—were brutally murdered on the night of July 27, 2025, in Komanda, a town in the Ituri province of eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The victims were gathered for a prayer vigil when they were attacked by militants believed to be part of the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a jihadist group affiliated with the so-called Islamic State (ISIS). The atrocity has been confirmed by Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), whose sources report that the attackers used machetes and firearms to kill worshippers during their devotions¹.

The Ituri region, like neighbouring North Kivu, has suffered repeated Islamist attacks in recent years. The ADF—a group originally founded in Uganda—pledged allegiance to ISIS in 2019 and now styles itself as the Islamic State – Central Africa Province. Its stated aim is the eradication of Christian presence in the region and the imposition of sharia law².

The massacre in Komanda is one of the deadliest religiously motivated attacks in Congo in 2025, continuing a trend of escalating violence against Christian communities. Just two months earlier, similar attacks were carried out in Beni and Oicha. Survivors of the Komanda attack, many of them severely wounded or orphaned, have appealed for protection and justice. Meanwhile, local clergy have called on the faithful to remain steadfast in prayer and forgiveness, even in the face of such inhuman cruelty³.

A Testimony of Blood
The Church names such martyrdoms in odium fidei—acts of hatred directed at the faith of Christ. They are not simply humanitarian tragedies, but profound spiritual witnesses. The blood of the martyrs, as Tertullian wrote, is the seed of the Church⁴. In Komanda, children died clutching rosaries. Women and men refused to flee the vigil. Their deaths speak to a faith more powerful than fear, and a love stronger than death.

As the West grows indifferent to its Christian heritage, the global South is being asked to carry the cross—sometimes literally—on behalf of the universal Church. Their fidelity, often forged under persecution, stands in stark contrast to the apathy of many who live in comfort and freedom. The Christians of Ituri, like the martyrs of ancient Rome, challenge us to examine our own faith: Do we pray with such fervour? Would we stay at vigil, knowing it might cost our lives?

A Call to Intercession and Action
The faithful are urged to pray for the souls of the departed, for the consolation of survivors, and for the conversion of their persecutors. The attack also renews the moral obligation of Catholics in the West to support organizations such as Aid to the Church in Need, and to advocate for effective international response to Islamist terror in Africa.

This massacre is not isolated; it is part of a sustained campaign of religious cleansing. Silence in the face of such horror is not neutrality—it is complicity. 🔝

1. Aid to the Church in Need, “DR Congo: Islamist Militants Slaughter Over 40 Christians at Vigil,” July 29, 2025.
2. UN Security Council Report, “Armed Groups in the DRC: The ADF and its Links to ISIS,” April 2025.
3. Statement by Fr. Dieudonné Mbokoso, Diocese of Bunia, via ACN International, July 30, 2025.
4. Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 50, “Plures efficimur quoties metimur a vobis: sanguis martyrum semen Christianorum est.”

---

---

In Other News…

---

Vatican Solar Project Aims for Carbon Neutrality

The Vatican has finalized an ambitious plan to transform a 430-hectare property near Santa Maria di Galeria into a solar energy park, marking a significant step toward becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral state¹. The initiative reflects long-standing environmental goals dating back to Pope Benedict XVI’s “Green Pope” initiatives and re-emphasized in Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum under Pope Francis².

The selected site, located northwest of Rome and already hosting Vatican Radio transmitters, will continue to serve dual purposes: the solar farm will coexist with agricultural activity, with provisions in place to ensure that the land remains productive for local farmers and food producers³. The Holy See has emphasized that the project will not only serve Vatican City’s energy needs but will also benefit surrounding communities and contribute to broader Italian and EU environmental targets.

Final implementation is subject to approval by the Italian parliament, as the land lies within Italian territory and requires legislative authorization for energy infrastructure of this scale⁴. The project forms part of the Vatican’s response to climate concerns raised at successive UN summits and is presented as a model of ecological stewardship rooted in Catholic social teaching.

Critics from more traditional quarters, however, warn against allowing ecological commitments to overshadow the Church’s primary mission of evangelization and salvation. Some also raise concerns about the Vatican’s increasing reliance on technocratic solutions while major doctrinal and moral questions remain unresolved. 🔝

¹ Catholic News Agency, July 2025 report on Vatican solar energy plan.
² Pope Benedict XVI first proposed solar panels on Vatican buildings in 2008. See also Laudato Si’ (2015) §§165–170 and Laudate Deum (2023).
³ The dual-use concept aligns with EU agrovoltaic recommendations; see European Commission climate policy guidance.
⁴ Approval required under Italian law regulating sovereign extraterritorial properties and national energy infrastructure.

---

The Battle for Belorado: Schism, Sedevacantism, and the Question of Ecclesial Authority

A courtroom in the Castilian town of Briviesca has become the latest unlikely stage in a global ecclesial drama. At stake: not just property rights, but the very question of what constitutes the true Catholic Church. Ten excommunicated nuns—formerly of the Poor Clares in Belorado, Spain—are challenging the Church’s attempt to evict them from the monastery they once vowed to serve. But behind the civil dispute lies a deeper rupture: one rooted in theology, tradition, and contested authority.

A Schism Declared
In May 2024, the sisters of Santa Clara Monastery released a 70-page manifesto titled Declaración Católica, rejecting the Second Vatican Council, denouncing modernist heresies, and repudiating the legitimacy of the post-conciliar Church. They declared themselves under the authority of Pablo de Rojas Sánchez-Franco, head of the Pious Union of the Apostle Saint Paul—a fringe sedevacantist group unaffiliated with Rome.¹

Archbishop Mario Iceta of Burgos responded with canonical clarity. On 22 June 2024, ten of the sixteen nuns were excommunicated latae sententiae for schism (can. 1364 §1, CIC), having “refused submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the Church.”² The five eldest sisters, who had neither signed the document nor joined the secession, were permitted to remain.

Theological Fault Lines
The theological underpinning of the sisters’ schism is not merely reactionary; it is deeply rooted in the ecclesiology of sedevacantism—the belief that the See of Peter has been vacant since Vatican II due to heresy among the post-conciliar popes.

Their manifesto, echoing the language of Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the Syllabus of Errors, denounces “ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, religious liberty, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the conciliar ecclesiology” as grave departures from the perennial Magisterium.³ Unlike the SSPX, which maintains communion with the Church despite serious critique, the Belorado sisters explicitly severed themselves from Rome—declaring the modern papacy illegitimate.

Key among their objections:

• The loss of the Tridentine liturgy as the Church’s normative expression of worship.
• The perceived betrayal of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
• The abandonment of Catholic integralism in favour of religious pluralism.

What makes their case unique, however, is the communal nature of the break. Unlike prior cases of individual sedevacantist defections, the Belorado schism was enacted corporately, with a functioning religious house, canonical structure, and vowed members acting in unison.

The Rojas Factor
The figure at the centre of this drama is Pablo de Rojas Sánchez-Franco, born in 1974, leader of a self-styled episcopal body with roots tracing not to apostolic succession in communion with Rome, but to lines originating in the Old Catholic or Palmarian traditions.⁴

Rojas claims to possess valid episcopal orders and to represent the remnant Church in a time of apostasy. His “Pious Union of the Apostle Saint Paul” operates in isolation, rejecting Vatican II and all post-1958 papal claimants. He has consecrated bishops, ordained priests, and now absorbed the Belorado convent into his orbit.

While Rojas is unknown to the wider Catholic world, within sedevacantist circles he is divisive. His critics accuse him of:

• Establishing a personality cult.
• Questionable theological education and lineage.
• Discrediting traditionalist critiques by extremism.

Yet for the Belorado nuns, Rojas represents legitimate authority: an anchor in a Church they believe has lost its moorings.

Civil Battle over Sacred Space
The canonical judgment has spilled into civil court. In July 2025, the Archdiocese of Burgos petitioned for eviction, asserting that the ex-nuns have no legal claim to the monastery, which remains ecclesiastical property. The nuns argued the community holds rights as a juridical person distinct from the diocese—a claim the Church rejects, since they ceased to be a religious institute upon expulsion.⁵

The Briviesca court has received the case and is expected to rule by mid-September. If the Archdiocese prevails, the state may authorize forced removal. The nuns, meanwhile, vow to appeal, alleging religious persecution and defending their actions under freedom of conscience and association.⁶

Local Reactions and National Reverberations
The town of Belorado, once proud of its contemplative sisters, now watches with sorrow and confusion. Locals report strained relations, as the ex-nuns live in seclusion, supported by sympathetic laity and online donors.⁷ Their shop remains open, selling chocolates and devotional items, while public Mass is offered irregularly under Rojas’ clergy.

Bishop Iceta has asked the faithful for prayers, lamenting the schism but refusing compromise on ecclesial communion.⁸ Traditionalist commentators have expressed regret that such radicalisation occurred in a house once known for deep piety and liturgical observance.

Yet the sisters remain resolute. In a recent video, one nun described Rome as “the harlot” and praised their new bishop as “a father who will preserve the true Faith.”⁹

A Crisis Beyond Belorado
While the case may appear isolated, it reflects broader discontent in sectors of the Church. For decades, faithful Catholics have wrestled with the dissonance between modern Church praxis and historic doctrine. The rise of sedevacantist and semi-conclavist groups signals a crisis of ecclesial credibility that has festered unresolved.

Whether through episcopal inertia, doctrinal confusion, or liturgical rupture, many perceive the Church’s current witness as fragmented. The Belorado sisters have tragically responded by severing themselves from the Vine—but they are also symptomatic of a larger wound.

Conclusion: Communion or Collapse
As judgment nears in court, the greater judgment remains theological. The Church must address, not only the canonical violations, but the spiritual desolation that led to this schism. Without doctrinal clarity, liturgical unity, and authentic spiritual fatherhood, others may follow.

For now, the battle for Belorado is not over stone walls, but over the soul of obedience—a struggle between fidelity to the visible Church and the temptation to reconstruct it in one’s own image, however “traditional” that may appear. 🔝

1. “Declaración Católica,” Monasterio de Santa Clara, Belorado (May 2024), publicly posted and cited in El País, 16 May 2024.
2. Archbishop Mario Iceta’s decree of excommunication, Archdiocese of Burgos, 22 June 2024.
3. Syllabus Errorum, Pius IX (1864); Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pius X (1907).
4. Analysis of Pablo de Rojas’ consecration lineage, InfoVaticana, 23 June 2024.
5. Canon Law Society of America, Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, can. 120 and can. 616.
6. El País, “El juicio por el desahucio de las exmonjas queda visto para sentencia,” 29 July 2025.
7. Cadena SER Castilla, “Reacciones locales en Belorado ante el cisma,” July 2025.
8. Statement of Archbishop Iceta, Oficina de Comunicación del Arzobispado de Burgos, July 2025.
9. Video statement posted by ex-nuns via Rumble and Telegram, accessed 20 July 2025.

---

A Jesuit of the Stars: Brother Guy Consolmagno and the Legacy of the Vatican Observatory

As Brother Guy Consolmagno nears retirement after a decade as director of the Vatican Observatory, The New Yorker has profiled the American Jesuit astronomer in an expansive feature that serves as both a personal retrospective and a window into the Church’s evolving relationship with science in the 21st century.¹ The article highlights not only Consolmagno’s distinctive vocation—scientist, religious, and communicator—but also the deeper philosophical and theological questions he has raised about humanity’s place in the cosmos, the morality of artificial intelligence, and the spiritual implications of space exploration.

Faith and Science in Dialogue
Consolmagno’s life is itself a compelling response to the modern myth that faith and science must be in conflict. Trained at MIT and the University of Arizona, with a background in planetary science and meteoritics, he joined the Jesuits in 1989 and was appointed to the Vatican Observatory four years later.² Since 2015, he has served as its director, overseeing research programs in both Castel Gandolfo and Mount Graham, Arizona.

In public appearances and writings, Consolmagno often repeats the principle that science and faith are asking fundamentally different, yet complementary questions: science seeks to explain the “how,” whereas religion seeks to understand the “why.”³ This distinction, drawn from the Catholic intellectual tradition, echoes the teachings of St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom emphasized that truth is unified, not divided between rival domains.

Cosmic Questions and Ethical Frontiers
The New Yorker profile devotes significant attention to the Vatican Observatory’s growing role in shaping ethical reflection on emerging technologies—especially artificial intelligence and the expanding frontier of space exploration. While Consolmagno does not presume to offer technical expertise on AI, he maintains that the Church has a duty to frame such developments within a broader moral and anthropological context.⁴

Here, the Jesuit tradition’s legacy of scientific inquiry—epitomized by figures like Matteo Ricci, Christopher Clavius, and Georges Lemaître—meets its contemporary challenge: how to affirm human dignity, responsibility, and wonder in an age increasingly tempted to reduce the human person to data or view the cosmos in purely utilitarian terms.

Consolmagno’s approach is neither fearful nor naïve. He encourages scientists to pursue discovery boldly, but always with the humility that comes from recognizing creation as gift, not possession.⁵ In this spirit, he has spoken frequently about the theological implications of extraterrestrial life—not as a threat to Christian faith, but as a potential expansion of its awe before a God whose work exceeds human expectation.

Succession and Future Prospects
With Brother Guy’s directorship ending in September 2025, the Vatican has named Fr Richard D’Souza, SJ as his successor. D’Souza, a fellow Jesuit and an astrophysicist specializing in galaxy formation, represents continuity as well as renewal.⁶ His appointment suggests that the Observatory’s role as a center for advanced scientific research and theological engagement will continue to flourish.

The Vatican Observatory, often misunderstood or overlooked, is in fact one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world, formally established by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 but with papal astronomical interests dating back to the Gregorian calendar reform in 1582. Its very existence refutes the Enlightenment caricature of the Church as hostile to science. Instead, it witnesses to what Pope Leo XIII called the “harmony of reason and revelation.”⁷

A Model of Integrated Witness
Brother Guy Consolmagno represents something rare in contemporary discourse: a figure who bridges the “two cultures” of science and religion not through compromise, but through fidelity to both the intellectual rigour of science and the spiritual coherence of Catholic faith. His career is a living testimony to what St. Augustine affirmed: “All truth is God’s truth.”

In an age in which ideological narratives seek to pit faith against knowledge, or reduce both to private sentiment or public utility, the Church’s witness through figures like Consolmagno offers a counter-sign—an integrated vision of the cosmos that points not to chaos or control, but to communion and contemplation. 🔝

¹ Rebecca Mead, “The Vatican Observatory Looks to the Heavens,” The New Yorker, 28 July 2025.
² Vatican Observatory Foundation, “Brother Guy Consolmagno, SJ,” vaticanobservatory.org.
³ Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 8 November 2012.
⁴ Consolmagno has discussed this frequently in interviews and writings; see also the Vatican’s 2025 note Antiqua et Nova on AI.
⁵ Cf. Psalm 8: “When I behold your heavens, the work of your fingers… what is man that you are mindful of him?”
⁶ Vatican News, “Fr. Richard D’Souza Appointed New Director of the Vatican Observatory,” 15 July 2025.
⁷ Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 1893, §18.

---

Academic Freedom under Threat: Peers Warn Against Labour’s Proposed Islamophobia Definition

The House of Lords has issued a stark warning over the potential consequences of Labour’s forthcoming definition of “Islamophobia,” highlighting its grave implications for academic freedom, free speech, and the integrity of public institutions. In a coordinated intervention, more than thirty peers cautioned that endorsing the definition—even on a non-statutory basis—could result in the suppression of legitimate academic discourse and the politicisation of university governance¹.

The proposed definition, currently under review by an Islamophobia Working Group chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, has raised serious concerns about its vagueness and breadth. Critics argue it risks conflating genuine religious hatred with lawful criticism of Islamic belief, culture, or social practice. Though Labour insists the definition will carry no legal force, peers warn that institutional adoption—particularly within higher education—could lead to disciplinary measures, non-crime hate incident (NCHI) records, or professional sanctioning².

This concern is not theoretical. Prominent figures such as Lord Trevor Phillips, Sarah Champion MP, and Baroness Casey have all faced formal investigation or condemnation in recent years for raising uncomfortable truths about grooming gangs, radicalisation, and the failure of multicultural policies³. The use of “Islamophobia” in these cases has often served to suppress debate rather than to expose genuine bigotry.

Lord Polak, Lord Singh, Baroness Deech, and others have questioned why the Government should impose any definition at all, when existing legislation already criminalises incitement to religious hatred and protects individuals from discrimination. The Public Order Act 1986, Equality Act 2010, and Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provide robust safeguards without chilling academic inquiry or journalistic freedom⁴.

Perhaps most troubling is the opaque process behind the Working Group’s review. According to reports, only one non-Muslim sits on the panel, with no representation from free speech advocates, Christians, Jews, or secular scholars with expertise in religious pluralism. The call for evidence was reportedly selective and private, raising suspicions of a predetermined outcome⁵.

In recent comments, Dominic Grieve suggested that the group may ultimately recommend not adopting a formal definition at all⁶. But for many observers, including those peers who have worked for decades to foster interfaith dialogue, the damage may already be done. As Baroness Fox observed, the attempt to define “Islamophobia” not as a form of racial hatred but as “any criticism that offends Muslims” risks turning Islam into an untouchable ideology immune from scrutiny⁷.

At stake is the ability of academics to discuss sensitive topics—sharia law, Islamic theology, integration, honour violence, or gender roles—without fear of administrative reprisal. If Labour proceeds with the definition, it will entrench a new orthodoxy in public life: one in which fear of offence trumps freedom of inquiry.

As the United Kingdom wrestles with its complex religious and social landscape, the solution cannot be censorship. True coexistence requires robust debate, mutual respect, and the courage to confront difficult truths—not the silencing of those who speak them. 🔝

¹ “Peers warn that academics could be punished for breaching Labour’s new Islamophobia definition,” Association for Communication, 15 July 2025.
² Camilla Turner, “University staff could face punishment if they breach Labour Islamophobia definition,” The Telegraph, 14 July 2025.
³ “Peers call for ‘misguided’ efforts to define Islamophobia to be scrapped,” Christian Institute, 15 July 2025.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ “U.K. Lords Raise Alarm over Labour Government’s Push for Islamophobia Definition,” Middle East Forum, 15 July 2025.
⁶ John Johnston, “Islamophobia working group chair suggests definition unnecessary,” Politics Home, 14 July 2025.
⁷ Claire Fox, quoted in “Peers challenge Labour’s plans to define Islamophobia,” Daily Sceptic, 15 July 2025.

---

---

COMMENT

---

The Online Safety Act: A Threat to Free Speech in the UK

When the UK Parliament passed the Online Safety Act in 2023, the legislation was heralded by its supporters as a bold defence against online harms—particularly those affecting children. But as the law’s implementation came into force on 25 July 2025, its implications for free speech have become unmistakably clear. Behind the language of safety lies a regulatory regime that is rapidly curtailing legitimate political expression, religious dissent, and public criticism of prevailing ideologies.

Government Oversight and Ideological Control
Under the new law, platforms that host user-generated content—including social media, messaging apps, forums, and even search engines—must not only remove illegal material, but also pre-emptively mitigate vaguely defined “harmful” content¹. While this may seem prudent in theory, it opens the door to state-enforced ideological boundaries. Speech that challenges government policy, particularly on immigration, Islam, or gender, now risks being flagged as “harmful” under compliance regimes shaped by political and cultural pressure².

Although the Act claims to protect content of “democratic importance,” in practice this protection is inconsistent and selectively applied. Statements that oppose progressive gender ideology—such as affirming the biological basis of sex or defending the rights of women-only spaces—have already been removed under platform moderation aligned with the new guidelines³. Meanwhile, criticism of Islam, even when expressed in the context of legitimate religious debate or public concern over radicalisation, is increasingly silenced under the guise of preventing hate speech⁴.

The Re-Emergence of Blasphemy Laws
The chilling effect is especially evident in relation to religious criticism, where criticism of Islam now triggers disproportionate scrutiny. In some cases, users have faced police visits or bans from platforms simply for sharing material that secularly critiques Islamic texts or practices⁵—while attacks on Christianity remain permissible and often unmoderated. This de facto reintroduction of blasphemy laws, but applied unequally, signals a major regression in British liberties.

The Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police High Court ruling in June 2025 reaffirmed that state support for ideological causes, such as Pride, can violate the principle of political neutrality⁶. Yet despite that legal clarification, the Online Safety Act entrenches a system where state-endorsed values—including LGBT ideology, multicultural integration narratives, and “diversity” dogma—enjoy privileged status, while traditional Christian, conservative, or nationalist perspectives are monitored, discouraged, or penalised⁷.

Impact on the Digital Public Square
Enforcement is already being felt. Ofcom’s investigation into 34 adult websites over age verification made headlines⁸, but beneath that, more insidious developments are unfolding. Independent forums and online communities—especially those that allow unmoderated discussions about politics, faith, or sexuality—are shutting down, geo-blocking UK users, or facing prohibitive compliance costs⁹. Even platforms like Reddit and Discord are tightening access to UK users, and discussions on topics like gender identity and immigration are being locked or purged¹⁰.

A surge in VPN usage (up over 6,000%) indicates that hundreds of thousands of UK users are already circumventing the law to maintain access to uncensored content¹¹. Yet this workaround is no solution. For many, especially younger users or those unfamiliar with such tools, the result is an ideologically filtered internet, where dissent is not merely discouraged but rendered invisible.

Opposition Grows, But Media Remains Compliant
Over 450,000 citizens have signed petitions calling for the Act’s repeal or reform¹², and groups like Big Brother Watch, the Free Speech Union, and the Online Safety Act Network have raised the alarm. Yet their warnings are largely ignored by mainstream media outlets, many of which are complicit in portraying opponents as defenders of “harmful” or “extreme” content¹³.

Meanwhile, prominent voices—including tech firms like Apple, Meta, and Signal, and human rights groups such as the Wikimedia Foundation—have warned that the Act’s provisions threaten end-to-end encryption, privacy rights, and civil liberties¹⁴. Nonetheless, government ministers continue to dismiss criticism, with Labour’s Peter Kyle MP suggesting that those concerned with free speech are “playing politics with children’s safety”¹⁵—a false binary that obscures the reality: protecting children should not require the silencing of conscience or truth.

Conclusion: A New Digital Conformity
The Online Safety Act is no longer merely a legislative debate—it is an ideological weapon reshaping British society. While it purports to protect the vulnerable, its deeper effect is to curate public discourse, censor religious and political dissent, and impose the state’s vision of “safety” as a new standard of truth.

Unless challenged and reformed, the Act may prove to be the most far-reaching blow to free expression in modern British history—enshrining a regime of digital conformity where only those views approved by state-aligned institutions may be openly shared.

As Catholics and citizens, we must resist the false peace of ideological safety and uphold the higher calling of truth, charity, and the unflinching witness of faith. 🔝

¹ Online Safety Act 2023, UK Parliament. The Act mandates risk assessments and mitigation of “content that is harmful to adults” and “to children,” including legal but harmful material.
² Commons Library Research Briefing (CDP-2025-0043), 12 July 2025.
³ See Ofcom consultation draft codes, July 2025. Moderation guidelines identify gender-critical content as “high-risk for community tension.”
⁴ The Guardian, “Quran-burning, hate crime, and online speech: new boundaries under Online Safety Act,” 26 July 2025.
⁵ Free Speech Union press release, “Woman investigated by police for retweeting ex-Muslim post,” 30 July 2025.
⁶ Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1523 (Admin), judgment delivered 18 June 2025.
⁷ Big Brother Watch, “Ideological Bias and Enforcement under the Online Safety Act,” Policy Note, July 2025.
⁸ Reuters, “UK probes 34 porn sites under new age-check rules,” 31 July 2025.
⁹ Wikipedia entry, “Online Safety Act 2023,” accessed 1 August 2025.
¹⁰ The Verge, “The UK is slogging through an online age-gate apocalypse,” 30 July 2025.
¹¹ Windows Central, “VPN demand erupts in UK outpacing France in the face of adult content rules,” 31 July 2025.
¹² Change.org, “Repeal the Online Safety Act – Free Speech is Not Harmful,” petition data, accessed 1 August 2025.
¹³ The Times, “Peter Kyle: Opponents are ‘playing politics’ with child safety online,” 29 July 2025.
¹⁴ Signal Foundation joint statement with Apple, Meta, Proton, and Wikimedia, “Protecting Encryption and Privacy in the UK,” 24 July 2025.
¹⁵ The Times, ibid.

---

Academic Disinvited Over “Hostile” Social Media Posts: Another Blow to Free Inquiry in British Universities

A prominent psychologist was recently disinvited from an academic conference on the grounds that their past social media posts were deemed “hostile or provoking,” according to Academics for Academic Freedom (AFComm). The case has sparked concern across the academic freedom landscape, highlighting ongoing institutional reluctance to tolerate controversial but legally protected viewpoints—particularly regarding gender identity and cultural critique¹.

Though the individual has not been publicly named, AFComm confirms the academic was originally invited to speak at a major scholarly event before the organisers withdrew the invitation, citing concerns over reputational risk and the “tone” of prior posts². No specific violation of university policy or law was alleged, and no formal procedure was initiated. The mere perception that the scholar’s online views might disrupt the event or offend some attendees was enough to remove them from the programme.

This incident echoes a growing number of cases in which British academics have faced disciplinary measures, public condemnation, or professional isolation for expressing gender-critical beliefs, conservative moral views, or politically heterodox opinions on social media. While legal precedents—such as the landmark Forstater ruling—affirm that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010³, universities have frequently bowed to activist pressure or adopted risk-averse stances that override such protections in practice.

Perhaps the most instructive parallel is the case of Professor Jo Phoenix, a criminologist and founder of the Gender Critical Research Network, who endured harassment and professional sabotage at the Open University for her views on sex and gender. In May 2024, an employment tribunal found the university guilty of 25 separate counts of unlawful belief discrimination and harassment, including the cancellation of her events, public condemnation by staff, and a hostile work environment⁴.

In many such cases, the disinvited or disciplined academic is portrayed not as a victim of censorship but as a potential threat to the “safety” or “inclusivity” of others. This framing weaponises institutional commitments to equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) against the very principles of scholarly debate and lawful dissent. The result is a chilling effect on honest inquiry and a narrowing of permissible opinion within the academy.

AFComm’s report notes the striking procedural asymmetry in these disinvitations: often no complaints are formally lodged, no right of reply is granted, and no standard of evidence is applied. The judgment is subjective—based on tone, optics, or ideological discomfort rather than misconduct. Yet the consequences are real: reputational damage, loss of speaking opportunities, and professional marginalisation.

While some disinvited academics have successfully pursued legal redress, as in Phoenix’s case, the broader culture of fear and self-censorship remains entrenched. As AFComm warns, British universities risk becoming echo chambers, in which dissenting voices—however credentialed or well-reasoned—are excluded not for error, but for offence.

This latest incident serves as yet another reminder that free speech and academic freedom are not self-sustaining. They must be actively defended, especially when they protect unpopular or contested ideas. A university that silences dissent for the sake of comfort ceases to be a place of learning and becomes instead a factory of compliance. 🔝

¹ AFComm, Academic disinvited from conference over ‘hostile or provoking’ social media posts, 17 July 2025. https://afcomm.org.uk/2025/07/17/academic-disinvited-from-conference-over-hostile-or-provoking-social-media-posts/
² Ibid.
³ Forstater v CGD Europe & others [2021] UK Employment Appeal Tribunal 0105_20_1006, judgment confirming that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/forstater-v-cgd-europe-and-others/
⁴ Phoenix v The Open University, Case No. 2200785/2022, Judgment of the Employment Tribunal, May 2024. Summary available via Sex Matters: https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/learning-from-the-jo-phoenix-case/

---

The Illiberal Ban: Labour’s Conversion Therapy Legislation Threatens Free Speech and Belief

The Labour government’s renewed push to legislate against so-called “conversion practices” may be dressed in the language of safeguarding, but it represents a dangerous intrusion into private conscience, parental rights, pastoral care, and legitimate professional dialogue. Far from protecting vulnerable people, the proposed bill—promised in the 2024 Labour manifesto and reiterated in the 2025 King’s Speech—risks becoming one of the most censorious pieces of legislation in modern British history¹.

Not What It Seems
The phrase “conversion therapy” evokes dark and outdated images of coercion, electroshock treatments, and forced institutionalisation—abuses rightly condemned by all reasonable people. But this legislation is not aimed at banning such extremes, which are already unlawful. Instead, the proposed bill criminalises even consensual conversations, therapeutic approaches, and religious counsel that deviate from contemporary orthodoxies on sex and gender identity².

This goes far beyond outlawing abuse. Labour’s draft policy is expected to explicitly include gender identity and gender expression, meaning that basic statements—such as affirming that sex is immutable or discouraging a child from medical transition—may be treated as criminal acts, even if the person receiving the advice consents³.

An Attack on Free Speech and Belief
Under the banner of inclusion, the legislation threatens foundational freedoms:

• Parents may be prosecuted for guiding their children toward their biological reality.
• Pastors and priests could face legal jeopardy for preaching Christian doctrine on the nature of man and woman.
• Therapists could be barred from exploring underlying trauma if the patient’s declared identity is trans.
• Friends and family who offer gentle persuasion or warn against irreversible hormone or surgical interventions may be reported under the law’s broad scope.

The government is reportedly refusing to include exemptions for consensual conversation, despite repeated warnings from lawyers, doctors, religious leaders, and civil liberties advocates that doing so undermines Article 9 (freedom of religion) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights⁴.

No Safeguard Against Ideological Abuse
The most egregious omission from Labour’s plan is its silence on the inverse problem: the aggressive affirmation and medicalisation of children experiencing same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. In today’s climate, it is often young people with same-sex attractions who are guided toward transgender identification by schools, therapists, and online influencers.

This phenomenon—described by detransitioners and whistleblowers alike—is, in effect, a form of gay conversion therapy by another name. But it will not be addressed by the new law. Instead, such practices will be legally enshrined as “affirming care,” even when they result in irreversible harm⁵.

Thus, a law claiming to protect LGBTQ+ people may do the exact opposite: leaving vulnerable youth unprotected against institutional ideologies while criminalising those who urge caution, fidelity to the body, or psychological exploration.

A Chilling Message
The broader consequence of this bill is the redefinition of harm as disagreement. To say “I believe you are not the other sex” or “I believe your identity may not align with your best interest” becomes not simply an opinion but a punishable act. The line between safeguarding and silencing is erased.

If Labour proceeds with this legislation without strong protections for free speech, religious freedom, parental rights, and therapeutic integrity, it will criminalise dissent, not protect dignity.

Conclusion
A just society must distinguish between coercion and persuasion, between abuse and belief. To conflate them is to adopt an ideological regime under the guise of compassion. Britain must not follow the example of countries where Christian teaching is censored, therapy is politicised, and parental guidance is rebranded as violence.

What is needed is not an ideological crackdown, but honest, open, and humane dialogue. A truly inclusive law would protect children from being medicalised for ideological ends and allow families, professionals, and religious ministers to speak the truth in love.

If Labour is serious about rights, it must reject this authoritarian impulse—and remember that true care requires freedom. 🔝

1. The King’s Speech (July 17, 2025) – outlined Labour’s intent to ban all “conversion practices,” including trans-related ones. See [Hansard HC Deb 17 July 2025].
2. NHS England and BACP already prohibit coercive or abusive therapies. See: [NHS Guidance on Gender Identity Development Services].
3. Guardian, “Stonewall to fight to ban all LGBT conversion practices,” March 28, 2025.
4. See legal analysis by the Free Speech Union and Human Rights Watch on proposed bans’ incompatibility with ECHR Articles 9 and 10.
5. Tavistock whistleblower David Bell’s testimony and NHS Trust’s own review (2022) described such affirmation-led practices as “experimental” and “unquestioning.” See: Bell Report Summary, NHS England, 2022.

---

Standing with St Laurence: The Joy of Holy Defiance

On August 10th, the Church commemorates one of her most radiant martyrs: St Laurence, the deacon of Rome whose holy defiance in the face of imperial tyranny immortalised him as both patron of the poor and icon of Christian courage. He is perhaps best remembered for his scornful wit before death—telling his torturers to turn him over on the gridiron because he was “done on this side.” But the true glory of Laurence lies not in this sardonic moment alone. It lies in his supernatural joy, his bold fidelity, and his clear-sighted contempt for worldly power when it sets itself against Christ.

Today, Catholics find themselves once again living under a hostile empire—not that of pagan Rome, but the more subtle and insidious dominion of the modern West’s anti-Christian zeitgeist. Our overlords no longer wear laurel wreaths or issue decrees from marble forums. They sit on judicial benches, behind news desks, in academic departments and bureaucratic agencies. They do not demand that we burn incense to Jupiter, but they do insist we honour the gods of this age: tolerance without truth, rights without responsibilities, identity without nature, and progress without God.

St Laurence, were he alive today, would not hesitate to call this out for what it is: idolatry. And like the martyrs of old, he would face it not with a coward’s retreat or a chameleon’s compromise, but with the clarity of faith and the courage of love. For what earned Laurence his crown was not simply enduring torture. It was his refusal to accept the lie that Caesar was God. When commanded to surrender the treasures of the Church, he gathered the poor, the sick, the orphans and widows, and declared: “Here are the true treasures of the Church.” He exposed the power of empire as hollow and unworthy of fear.

The Faithful Must Defy the New Tyranny
The Church today needs men and women with Laurence’s vision—his ability to see through the glamour of evil and recognise the true value of souls, truth, and sacrifice. The new tyranny presents itself not as brutal persecution (though it may come to that) but as a velvet glove: the cancel culture that silences, the HR code that coerces, the curriculum that corrupts. The response must be interior fortitude rooted in objective truth, lived with joy and without apology.

This does not mean adopting a posture of political rage or reactionary bitterness. Laurence was no ideologue. He was a servant of the altar and of the poor, a man of the Gospel. But his fidelity to Christ made him, inevitably, an enemy of the world. The same must be true of every serious Catholic today. To remain neutral or silent in the face of this spiritual war is not prudence—it is complicity.

The Call to Lay Down Our Lives
St Laurence’s feast is not a quaint reminder of long-past cruelty. It is a call to present courage. Each of us is invited to lay down our lives—not necessarily in the flames of martyrdom, but in the slow-burning daily sacrifice of public fidelity to Christ. This means being willing to lose our jobs, our reputations, even friendships or family ties if the cost of keeping them is betrayal of the truth.

As Laurence saw, what is at stake is not merely ecclesiastical prestige or political influence. It is the eternal destiny of souls. The Church does not exist to be tolerated, nor to blend in. She exists to convert, to sanctify, to bear witness to the Kingdom not of this world. And to do that today, we must be prepared to be hated, mocked, and marginalised.

Joy is Our Weapon
Yet Laurence also shows us that such defiance need not be grim. His laughter amid the flames is not bravado; it is the joy of one who has nothing left to lose but everything to gain. Joy, for the Christian, is not a mood but a virtue—a fruit of the Holy Ghost, born from love of God and confidence in His victory. It is joy, not anger, that will make our witness compelling in an age of despair.

Let us therefore celebrate this feast not with nostalgia, but with resolve. Let the spirit of St Laurence animate a new generation of Catholics who are not ashamed of the Gospel, not afraid of the mob, and not seduced by the idols of our time. The gridiron may come in new forms—digital, psychological, professional—but the fire is the same, and so is the call: lay down your life, take up your cross, and follow Christ.

And when we are “done on this side,” may we, like Laurence, be ready to offer the rest of ourselves to the Lord with joy. 🔝

1. St Ambrose, De Officiis, Book II, Chapter 28.
2. Butler’s Lives of the Saints, August 10, entry on St Laurence.
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2473: “Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith.”
4. Romans 12:2 – “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…”
5. Galatians 5:22 – “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace…”

---

---

🔝

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)

---

🔝