Category: News

News concerning the Apostolate

Open Letter to Zöe Franklin MP on the Assisted Dying Bill

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

On 24 June 2025, Liberal Democrat MP for Guildford, Zöe Franklin, gave an interview to Premier Christian News explaining her decision to support the Assisted Dying Bill, which recently passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. In that interview, Ms Franklin described the Bill as “safe, compassionate and carefully regulated,” and stated that her Christian faith informed her vote. She expressed the view that God “is not content” with the suffering of those unable to access assisted death and argued that such inequality is unjust.

In response, Archbishop Jerome Lloyd of the Old Roman Apostolate has issued an open letter, published below, addressing the moral, theological, and legislative concerns raised by Ms Franklin’s position.

The Archbishop’s letter engages not only with the doctrinal incompatibility of assisted suicide with the Christian faith, but also with the serious legal, medical, and ethical implications of the Bill. Drawing on official statements from multiple Royal Colleges—including the Physicians, Psychiatrists, General Practitioners, Pathologists, and Surgeons—the letter underscores widespread professional alarm about the Bill’s deficiencies in safeguarding the vulnerable, ensuring clinical oversight, and preserving the integrity of end-of-life care.

The letter also reflects the consistent moral teaching of the Church on the sanctity of human life, the nature of true compassion, and the dangers of allowing emotionalism to guide public policy.

This intervention is part of the Old Roman Apostolate’s broader mission to defend the dignity of the human person and bear witness to perennial Catholic teaching in the public square. It is offered in a spirit of respectful engagement, pastoral concern, and moral clarity.

FranklinAD260525SELDownload

The Eclipse of Woman: How Modern Feminism Undermined Womanhood in the Pursuit of Equality

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

This essay traces the evolution of feminism from its early pursuit of justice to its modern contradictions—highlighting how efforts to achieve equality have, over time, eclipsed the very identity of womanhood. Though written as objectively as possible, the argument may be controversial: it contends that feminism’s rejection of sexual difference, adoption of androgyny, and embrace of abortion has unintentionally obscured the feminine it once sought to honour.

Feminism and Its Contradictions: From Equality to Erasure

Modern feminism, though rooted in aspirations for justice and the recognition of women’s inherent dignity, has over successive waves evolved into a movement often characterised by contradictions and internal ironies. From the claim that women are fundamentally the same as men, to campaigns that rely on unequal treatment to achieve “equality,” to the adoption of male patterns of behaviour and language, and finally to the modern crisis of gender identity in which womanhood is no longer a stable or defensible category, the feminist movement has undergone a series of paradoxical transformations. This essay outlines those developments and considers their broader implications.

I. From Equality in Dignity to Sameness in Nature

First-wave feminism, emerging primarily in the 19th and early 20th centuries, centred on legal and civic recognition for women based on their shared human dignity with men. These early feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Millicent Fawcett, fought for women’s suffrage, access to education, and rights in property and marriage law. Their arguments were often grounded in Enlightenment ideals of human reason and, crucially, in Christian anthropology, which affirmed that men and women were equal in the eyes of God, both made in His image.

The appeal was not for androgyny but for justice. Women, they argued, possessed reason, moral agency, and the ability to contribute to public life just as men did, albeit in ways proper to their own nature. Stanton famously wrote, “The strongest reason for giving woman all the opportunities for higher education… is the sacredness of her individuality.”¹ This assertion reflected a worldview in which difference did not imply inequality.

However, the second wave of feminism, emerging in the post-war years and gaining momentum in the 1960s and 70s, departed from this principle. Influenced by existentialist philosophy (especially Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir), Marxist critiques of the family, and Freudian theories of repression, second-wave feminism introduced a profound conceptual shift: from equality of dignity to equality of identity and function. The new feminism no longer simply demanded recognition of women as rational beings but insisted that the distinctions between men and women themselves were arbitrary, imposed, and oppressive.

De Beauvoir’s claim that “One is not born, but becomes, a woman”² became the foundational maxim of this shift. It proposed that femininity itself was a social construct—something imposed by patriarchal structures and internalised by women through cultural conditioning. Consequently, traditional roles such as motherhood, domesticity, and nurturance were not to be honoured or protected, but deconstructed as instruments of female subjugation.

This philosophical shift led to a redefinition of liberation: not as the free exercise of virtue in accordance with a woman’s nature, but as the ability to transcend or reject that nature altogether. Women were encouraged to join the workforce, delay or avoid motherhood, and adopt a lifestyle shaped by autonomy, productivity, and sexual independence. In doing so, the standard of success subtly but decisively shifted to male norms.

Mary Harrington, a contemporary feminist critic of this trajectory, writes, “Sexual differences are now increasingly seen as obstacles to be overcome rather than truths to be understood.”³ The result was not the elevation of femininity but its functional elimination in public discourse. The distinctiveness of womanhood was not protected but traded for access to male-coded forms of power—often in the corporate or political sphere—thereby implying that traditional feminine contributions had no inherent value.

II. From Imitation to Erasure: Vice, Contraception, and Abortion

A significant and often overlooked turning point in feminist thought occurred when the movement shifted from challenging the moral failings of men to imitating them. Whereas early feminists critiqued male patterns of sexual irresponsibility, violence, and exploitation, later feminist rhetoric began to valorise these very traits—so long as they were enacted by women. The rise of “sex-positive feminism” in the late 20th century reframed promiscuity, aggression, and emotional detachment not as societal problems, but as marks of female empowerment.

This moral inversion was reinforced by the technologies and ideologies of the sexual revolution. The introduction of the contraceptive Pill in the 1960s was heralded as a means of liberation, allowing women to decouple sex from reproduction. But it also subtly transferred the responsibility for fertility management—and therefore the burden of consequence—entirely onto women. As Mary Eberstadt has observed, the Pill “allowed men to have sex without consequence, while encouraging women to behave as if their bodies responded to sex the same way male bodies did.”⁴

Rather than elevating womanhood, this dynamic incentivised women to conform to male sexual expectations. Chemical contraception suppressed the natural rhythms of the female body, and the culture surrounding it normalised emotional detachment as a precondition for social acceptance.

Abortion, presented as a safeguard when contraception failed, entrenched this logic further. It reframed the unborn child not as a person in need of protection but as an obstacle to autonomy. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous “violinist” analogy typified this view, likening pregnancy to involuntary organ donation.⁵ Motherhood was thus portrayed not as a natural vocation but as a contingent burden.

Feminism increasingly treated these technologies as essential instruments of freedom, yet their effects were structurally disempowering. Women were told they could be truly equal only if they suppressed or denied the very biological functions that make them distinctively female. In doing so, the feminist project turned against its own foundation.

As Erika Bachiochi has shown, the cultural result has not been greater solidarity between men and women, but a radical asymmetry in which women carry the full cost of a libertine sexual economy: “Abortion rights have enabled a cultural shift in which men are no longer expected to make lifelong commitments to women with whom they father children.”⁶

In short, the feminist embrace of contraception and abortion has not freed women, but has redefined womanhood itself as a problem to be fixed. What was once a cause centred on the dignity of the female body has become a movement dedicated to its management and erasure.

III. Linguistic Androgyny and Symbolic Self-Erasure

Language both reflects and shapes reality. It encodes not only social conventions but cultural values and metaphysical assumptions. Recognising this, second-wave feminists turned their attention to the structures of language as a site of “patriarchal dominance.” Words such as actress, hostess, stewardess, and priestess—once ordinary descriptors of female roles—were reinterpreted as diminutive or derivative. These terms, feminists argued, marginalised women by suggesting that the female version of a role was somehow lesser or secondary to its male counterpart.

This linguistic critique gained influence through the work of feminist theorists such as Dale Spender and Deborah Cameron, who insisted that “man-made language” reinforced a male-centred worldview and needed deconstruction.⁷ Their proposed solution was not to elevate feminine terms, but to eliminate them—replacing gender-specific titles with ostensibly neutral or male-derived forms: actor, chairperson, server, priest.

What appeared to be a linguistic reform toward neutrality was, in fact, an act of symbolic erasure. Rather than affirming and dignifying the feminine as something worthy of cultural articulation, feminism adopted a linguistic strategy that made womanhood invisible. In seeking to escape male dominance, it assimilated the male standard so thoroughly that female distinctiveness disappeared.

Roger Scruton captured the deeper implications of this move when he observed, “The desire to eliminate all traces of sexual distinction from public life often results in the masculinization of female presence rather than its dignification.”⁸

What this linguistic agenda reveals is not merely an effort to expand representation but to sever language from nature—an attempt to unmoor vocabulary from biological and ontological truth. The feminine is no longer spoken as something real and rooted, but recoded as a contingent identity to be included, negotiated, or erased.

IV. Positive Discrimination and the Paradox of “Equity”

Modern feminism increasingly embraced the politics of positive discrimination—seeking not equality before the law, but equality of outcomes. In contrast to the first-wave demand for impartiality and merit-based access, late 20th- and early 21st-century feminism embraced quotas, affirmative action, and preferential policies designed to correct supposed “structural imbalances.”

In the UK, the Equality Act 2010 permits “positive action” under Section 158 when “persons who share a protected characteristic suffer a disadvantage, have different needs, or have low participation in an activity.”⁹ Feminist advocates have defended such measures as necessary to undo centuries of exclusion. Yet in practice, this often results in institutionalising the very inequality it claims to overcome.

Positive discrimination introduces a conceptual paradox: in order to achieve “equity,” individuals must be treated unequally based on group identity. The same ideology that insists women are just as capable as men simultaneously insists that women cannot succeed without structural advantages, special training programs, or legislative exemptions. Merit becomes suspect, and competence is often overshadowed by the optics of representation.

Moreover, these interventions are rarely symmetrical. Where women are overrepresented—such as in university admissions or certain healthcare roles—there is no equivalent push to redress imbalance in favour of men. “Equity” is selectively applied, always in favour of the politically dominant narrative rather than genuine balance.

The deeper irony lies in how this approach undermines both excellence and solidarity. Women who achieve success in male-dominated fields under quota regimes may find their competence questioned—assumed to be the product of policy rather than ability. Meanwhile, men excluded from opportunities on the basis of sex alone increasingly view feminism not as a pursuit of justice, but as a politics of exclusion and resentment.

V. Identity Politics and the Triumph of Male Over Female

The most radical and internally destructive development within modern feminism has come through its alignment with gender identity ideology. Having spent decades rejecting essentialist definitions of womanhood, mainstream feminism now insists that “woman” is a self-declared identity, untethered from biology. The contradiction is clear: in trying to liberate women from fixed categories, feminism has made womanhood indefinable.

In 2022, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked to define “woman.” She replied: “I’m not a biologist.”¹⁰ That evasive response symbolised a movement unable—or unwilling—to state what a woman is.

This has enabled biological males who identify as “women” to enter female-only spaces: sports, prisons, shelters, and awards. In athletics, men identifying as women now routinely outperform female athletes.¹¹ The very spaces feminists once fought to create for women are now occupied by male bodies.

Feminists who object—such as Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel—have been ostracised and branded transphobic. As Mary Harrington notes, “The trans woman is not a woman who has been freed from the constraints of her biology, but a man whose self-perception is prioritised above the reality of women.”¹²

Feminism, having unmoored itself from biology and nature, cannot now mount a coherent defence of the female. The category it once fought for no longer has meaning. Its enemies, long defeated, have returned—this time in disguise.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Self-Destruction

The historical arc of feminism—beginning with the pursuit of justice and recognition, and culminating in the denial of womanhood itself—presents not a story of unbroken progress, but a cautionary tale of conceptual unraveling. What began as a movement to affirm the dignity of women as women has, in its later stages, dismantled the very meaning of the term.

The irony is layered and devastating:

  • In the pursuit of equality, feminism adopted sameness, erasing sexual complementarity.
  • In the quest to overthrow male vice, it embraced and valorised promiscuity, aggression, and detachment, now recoded as empowerment.
  • In order to secure freedom, it promoted contraception and abortion, tools that suppress or terminate the very powers unique to womanhood.
  • In the name of equity, it justified inequality, institutionalising preferential treatment under the guise of fairness.
  • In defending inclusion, it tolerated and even celebrated the invasion of male bodies into female spaces—thereby subordinating actual women to ideological projections.

Each of these shifts reflects not merely a misstep, but a detachment from reality: from the biological, moral, and metaphysical truths that ground a coherent account of the human person. Feminism, in its radicalised form, has become a project not of emancipation but of abstraction—one that seeks liberation from the givenness of nature and the responsibility of relationship.

That which is not grounded will not stand. A feminism that cannot define what a woman is, that cannot honour her nature, nor defend her spaces, nor elevate her role as life-bearer and nurturer, has lost its moral compass. Indeed, it risks becoming a tool for the very forces it once opposed.

What remains is a task not just for feminists, but for all who care about truth and justice: to rebuild an understanding of womanhood that is neither romanticised nor denied; one that affirms equality without erasing difference; and one that protects female dignity not through sameness with men, but through the honouring of what is uniquely and gloriously feminine.

Only a return to truth—biological, philosophical, and theological—can restore coherence to this fractured discourse. If feminism is to mean anything at all, it must once again begin with the reality of woman.

Footnotes

  1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman’s Bible, 1895.
  2. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. H. M. Parshley (New York: Vintage, 1989), p. 267.
  3. Mary Harrington, Feminism Against Progress (Regnery, 2023), p. 45.
  4. Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve After the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution (Ignatius Press, 2012), p. 19.
  5. Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1971), pp. 47–66.
  6. Erika Bachiochi, The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision (University of Notre Dame Press, 2021), p. 203.
  7. Deborah Cameron, The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 87–91.
  8. Roger Scruton, An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Modern Culture (St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), p. 88.
  9. Equality Act 2010, UK Parliament: Section 158 – Positive Action: General.
  10. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, March 23, 2022.
  11. See World Athletics rulings on transgender competitors, 2022–2023.
  12. Mary Harrington, Feminism Against Progress, p. 174.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

The Rule of Feeling: How Emotionalism Is Undermining Law and Public Reason

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

When feeling becomes law, justice falters

A marked feature of contemporary political discourse is the increasing prominence of emotionalism—the prioritisation of subjective feeling over objective reasoning—in shaping law and public policy. While empathy and moral awareness are essential in any humane society, the over-reliance on emotional appeals raises concerns about the coherence, stability, and justice of resulting legislation, particularly in areas requiring ethical nuance and long-term foresight.

Emotionalism, in this context, refers to the dominance of affective responses—such as compassion, outrage, or personal testimony—over empirical evidence, ethical reasoning, and consistent legal principle. In recent years, this tendency has become especially evident in debates over abortion, assisted suicide, gender identity, immigration, and education.

Legislating from Sentiment: Key Examples

In June 2025, Parliament voted to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, effectively decriminalising abortion and removing nearly all penalties for self-managed procedures in England and Wales¹. The debate was dominated by emotionally charged appeals rather than objective legal and ethical argument. Introducing the amendment, Dame Diana Johnson MP declared:

“Women who end a pregnancy need support, not the threat of a criminal trial. Imagine the trauma of a miscarriage, and then imagine being investigated by the police as though you were a criminal. That is happening in Britain today.”²

This statement exemplified the emotional framing of the reform: invoking miscarriage, trauma, and criminalisation to elicit moral urgency. Broader issues—such as gestational limits, post-viability protection, or the rights of the unborn—were largely eclipsed. Several pro-life MPs, including Kemi Badenoch, raised concern that the legislation eliminated prosecutorial safeguards and created the legal possibility of abortion up to birth in certain scenarios³.

What was conspicuously absent from the debate was any serious engagement with the implicit recognition of unborn human personhood—enshrined both in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and in the very structure of the Abortion Act 1967, which did not legalise abortion outright but instead made provisional exceptions to prosecution for what would otherwise be considered the unlawful killing of a person.

Instead, the chamber was swept along by emotionalist rhetoric that displaced reasoned reflection. This is not how legislators should approach questions of life and law. The deliberate unmaking of legal and moral precedent through rhetorical sleight and sentimental appeal is a betrayal of the dignity of parliamentary governance. When emotionalism supplants philosophical and juridical reasoning, it is not progress but regression—a descent into policymaking by pathos rather than principle.Subscribed

Parliament also voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (Assisted Dying) Bill, permitting physician-assisted suicide for patients with six months or fewer to live. Supporters frequently invoked themes of personal suffering and indignity. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater stated: *“Give dying people choice, autonomy, and dignity”*⁴. During earlier sessions, MPs recounted emotionally charged stories of watching loved ones die, often moving the chamber to tears⁵. One of the most poignant appeals came from Sir Stephen Timms MP, who said:

“I watched my wife’s mother suffer in the final weeks of her life. She was in pain, terrified, and crying out that she wanted it to be over. No one should be forced to endure that when they are beyond hope of recovery.”⁶

Such deeply personal narratives, while sincere, were used to frame legal change as a moral obligation. Critics of the bill warned that these sentiments, though powerful, were being used to justify significant shifts in the ethical foundations of medicine and end-of-life care—without adequate consideration of coercion, palliative alternatives, or the long-term societal impact.

One of the most striking features of the assisted suicide debate was the scant regard shown by many proponents for the views of professional medical bodies. Despite clear and publicised warnings from the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Colleges of General Practitioners and Psychiatrists, these objections were largely brushed aside⁷. Their concerns—ranging from the risks to vulnerable patients, to the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship—were eclipsed by emotionally driven assertions of individual autonomy. This marginalisation of institutional expertise demonstrates how emotionalism, when dominant, leads to policymaking detached from professional prudence and ethical safeguards.

This same emotional tenor is evident in UK policy concerning gender identity. NHS guidelines have endorsed gender-affirming interventions—including puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones—based on emotional imperatives such as alleviating distress and preventing suicide. However, the Cass Review (2024) found the evidence base for these interventions to be “remarkably weak,” and identified significant long-term risks⁸. The report further documented that some clinicians were reluctant to raise concerns for fear of reputational damage⁹.

In schools, the promotion of gender ideology has similarly leaned on emotional language. Pupils are often encouraged to express chosen identities and pronouns under the guise of kindness and support. Then-Education Secretary Gillian Keegan defended draft guidance by saying it “puts the best interests of all children first”¹⁰. However, as was noted in the House of Lords, “Actions such as changing names and pronouns are serious and can have a wider impact”¹¹—a sober warning easily drowned out by emotionally charged rhetoric about safeguarding and affirmation.

Immigration discourse likewise illustrates the prevalence of emotionalism. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper framed recent policy directions in explicitly moral terms: “Defend migrants and develop a system based on ‘compassion and dignity’… safe routes”¹². Yet emotional appeals, while well-intentioned, often obscure critical questions of integration, capacity, legality, and social cohesion. As one MP observed during debate: “The whole debate about immigration is descending into an ugly place where everyone is being asked to take sides”¹³.

Undermining Legal Equality: Selective Application of the Equality Act

Nowhere is the replacement of law with sentiment more structurally apparent than in the inconsistent application of the Equality Act 2010. In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “sex” in the Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity¹⁴. This affirmed that single-sex spaces and services—such as prisons, refuges, or sports—may lawfully exclude individuals on the basis of sex, even if they possess a Gender Recognition Certificate¹⁵.

Yet many public bodies continue to act as though the law says the opposite. The Scottish Government, for instance, retained guidance in schools allowing children to socially transition, use opposite-sex facilities, and be affirmed in their chosen identity without parental knowledge—prompting legal warnings from gender-critical campaigners¹⁶. The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued ambiguous guidance suggesting institutions could sidestep sex-based segregation if done in the name of “inclusion”¹⁷.

This has resulted in a two-tier enforcement of the Act:

  • Women’s sex-based protections are increasingly bypassed under pressure to be “trans inclusive.”
  • Gender identity claims are privileged, even when in direct contradiction to statutory law and judicial interpretation.

The result is legal incoherence. In one setting, courts reject compelled pronoun usage for male defendants in rape trials¹⁸; in another, schools and workplaces encourage staff and pupils to treat gender identity as unquestionable and enforceable. Such inconsistency undermines the rule of law, public confidence, and the very integrity of protected characteristic legislation.Subscribed

The Dangers of Emotion-Driven Legislation

Legislation shaped primarily by emotionalism produces laws that are reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to ideological capture. Several structural risks are especially apparent:

1. Legal Incoherence and Loopholes
In the case of abortion, legal language driven by anecdotal urgency—rather than principled deliberation—resulted in ambiguous gestational boundaries and a lack of clarity on regulatory oversight. Law becomes selectively applied and difficult to defend.

2. Erosion of Professional Ethics
In medicine, emotion-led mandates can undermine professional conscience. Doctors may face pressure to participate in ethically questionable acts, particularly where the appeal to “choice” eclipses the deeper question of whether a given act is morally or clinically justifiable.

3. Weaponisation of Victimhood
Framing certain identity groups as emotionally untouchable—such as “trans youth” under threat of suicide—can result in the silencing of valid medical and educational concerns. The invocation of emotional harm becomes a veto on discussion itself.

4. Suppression of Dissent
Emotional narratives recast disagreement not as debate, but as moral offense. Those who raise concerns about abortion, gender ideology, or immigration policy are accused not of error, but of cruelty.

5. Undermining Rule of Law
When feeling replaces truth as the standard for law, justice becomes unstable. Laws cease to act as a rational safeguard for all and become instead an instrument of cultural mood, vulnerable to manipulation and volatility.

6. Infantilisation of Public Discourse
Finally, emotionalism discourages critical thought and the virtues of citizenship. Public reasoning is replaced by slogans, therapeutic mantras, and reactive policymaking, rendering society less capable of handling complex moral and social questions.

These are not new phenomena. In previous eras of cultural upheaval—the French Revolution being a prime example—reasoned deliberation gave way to emotional fervour, and the results were rarely just or lasting. The tendency to replace law with feeling, deliberation with passion, has historically opened the door to instability, injustice, and tyranny. As C.S. Lewis observed, “The heart never takes the place of the head: but it can, and should, obey it.”

Restoring Moral Clarity in Lawmaking

To restore confidence in the rule of law and uphold the common good, a measured response is needed. Parliament could establish a requirement for independent ethical review for legislation concerning life, identity, and medicine. Institutions representing professional, legal, and civic reasoning must not be sidelined by emotionally charged advocacy. Public bodies must be required to align policy with judicial rulings, not activist guidance. The Equality Act must be enforced consistently—not ideologically.

A society ruled by feeling may be momentarily comforted—but it will not endure.

Footnotes
¹ The Telegraph, “MPs vote to allow abortion up to birth in UK law,” 18 June 2025.
² Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 2 June 2025, Dame Diana Johnson MP.
³ The Times, “Ministers likely to back ‘extreme’ plans to decriminalise abortion,” June 2025.
⁴ Kim Leadbeater MP, Hansard, 24 May 2025.
⁵ BBC News, “Commons supports assisted dying bill,” 24 May 2025.
⁶ Sir Stephen Timms MP, Hansard, 20 June 2025.
⁷ Royal College statements, March–May 2025.
⁸ Cass Review, April 2024.
⁹ Ibid., Chapters 6–7.
¹⁰ DfE Press Statement, December 2023.
¹¹ Hansard, House of Lords Debate, March 2024.
¹² Yvette Cooper, quoted in The Telegraph, 4 March 2025.
¹³ Hansard, Immigration Debate, February 2025.
¹⁴ For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers, UK Supreme Court, April 2025.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ The Guardian, “Scottish government given deadline to implement biological sex ruling,” 18 June 2025.
¹⁷ EHRC Guidance, May 2025.
¹⁸ The Times, “Judges advised to reject rape defendants’ chosen pronouns,” June 2025.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

The Forgotten Premise of Equality

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

Recovering the Inherent Value of Human Life in a Postmodern World

In today’s public discourse, equality is frequently affirmed as a moral ideal. Yet how that ideal is applied can vary widely. From questions surrounding life’s beginning and end to debates about identity and medicine, deep tensions have emerged in our cultural understanding of what it means to be human. This essay offers a gentle but clear reflection: Can we still affirm equal dignity for all persons—consistently, coherently, and compassionately? Drawing from science, reason, and widely shared ethical principles, this is not an argument of ideology but of conscience.

Introduction

Modern societies often expect public moral debates to proceed without reference to religious belief. This approach, commonly described as pluralistic or secular, is intended to create fairness in diverse cultures. Yet even on this shared ground, we face unavoidable questions: Why should any human life be protected? What does it mean to be a person? What makes some actions right and others harmful?

Beginning from reason and shared civic assumptions, one finds that the case for the inherent value of every human life is not only defensible—it is profoundly humane. This essay traces that case from life’s earliest beginnings through questions of dignity, autonomy, and identity.

Human Life Begins at Conception

Biological science consistently teaches that human life begins at conception. At the moment of fertilisation, a distinct organism comes into being with its own genetic identity, oriented toward development as a human being. A 2018 study surveying over 5,000 biologists—representing a range of worldviews—found overwhelming agreement with this conclusion¹. Even prominent atheist thinker Richard Dawkins has acknowledged this biological fact².

The moral debate, then, is not over when life begins, but when it should be protected. Some argue that viability, consciousness, or independence should determine moral status. Yet these criteria are variable and fragile. They might exclude newborns, those with dementia, or the comatose. A consistent and inclusive ethic begins by recognising that if someone is human, their life merits protection—not because of what they can do, but because of who they are.

Dignity Is Not Earned—It Is Inherent

The cornerstone of modern human rights is the affirmation that every person possesses inherent dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with this premise: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”³. International covenants uphold rights as flowing from this dignity, not granted by governments or earned by abilities⁴.

This vision implies that human worth is not contingent on usefulness, awareness, or status. As ethicist John Tasioulas explains, dignity is not a reward for virtue or competence, but a condition of simply being human⁵.

This matters greatly. When we begin to ration dignity based on characteristics or capacities, we create hierarchies of humanity. History shows where that path leads. To protect the vulnerable, society must begin with the presumption that every human life—regardless of condition or circumstance—has equal moral worth.

Abortion Is Not Healthcare, Nor Is It a Reproductive Right

Public discussions often frame abortion as “healthcare” or a “reproductive right.” These labels, however, obscure more than they clarify.

Healthcare exists to heal disease and preserve life. But pregnancy is not a disease, and a fetus is not a tumour. Abortion ends a biologically healthy process and terminates a distinct human life⁶. It is not morally or medically neutral. For many women, abortion is followed by grief, regret, or emotional trauma. Research shows increased risks of depression, anxiety, and even suicidality following abortion⁷.

The term “reproductive right” also misleads. Reproduction has already occurred by the time a woman is pregnant. What’s at issue is not fertility control, but ending an already-conceived life. This distinction is crucial for ethical clarity.

A more compassionate framework would provide women with real alternatives—financial support, emotional care, and community resources—so that no woman feels she must choose between her child and her future.

The Body and the Question of Identity

Another cultural trend is the detachment of personal identity from the body. In abortion, the fetus’s body is treated as irrelevant. In gender ideology, one’s own body may be seen as an obstacle to identity. In both cases, biology is made secondary to subjective feeling.

This produces contradictions. A fetus may be regarded as a baby if wanted, or as medical waste if not. A minor too young to consent to a tattoo may be permitted to undergo irreversible procedures to alter sex characteristics. These are not edge cases—they are increasingly embedded in policy and practice¹³.

A more coherent anthropology sees the human person as a unity of body and soul, or body and mind. Our bodies are not accidents to be overcome; they are part of who we are. Respecting the person means respecting the whole person—body included.

The Tyranny of Choice

Modern moral discourse often treats autonomy as the supreme good. But freedom requires more than choice—it requires truth. A good choice presupposes some objective difference between good and evil, helpful and harmful.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, once said, “No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother”⁹. But this formulation elevates choice above the thing chosen. It risks overlooking the rights of those who cannot choose—the unborn, the elderly, the dependent.

This also applies to assisted suicide. Proponents argue that ending one’s life is a matter of personal autonomy. But research from jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal shows many people are motivated not by physical pain, but by fear of being a burden or by loneliness¹¹. Lord Sumption, speaking from the UK Supreme Court, warned that legalising assisted suicide may impose social pressure on the vulnerable to “do the decent thing” and opt for death¹².

True autonomy includes the freedom to live without coercion—whether economic, social, or medical. Compassion means accompanying those who suffer, not eliminating them.

A Question of Coherence

What binds all these trends together is a growing incoherence in how society defines and defends human life. A fetus lacks rights because it cannot speak for itself; an elderly person seeks assisted death for the same reason. A child is deemed too young to drink, vote, or marry, yet considered old enough to redefine their biological sex.

Such contradictions suggest that our ethical frameworks are being shaped more by ideology than by principle. If rights are grounded in feelings, utility, or social acceptance, then they can be withdrawn just as easily. Human dignity becomes conditional, not universal.

To remain just and humane, society must rediscover a consistent principle of equal worth—one that applies regardless of age, ability, desire, or circumstance.

Conclusion: A Shared Foundation for Human Worth

This essay has appealed not to religious doctrine but to reason, science, and conscience. It has sought to show that the inherent value of every human life is not a sectarian belief, but a foundation of civil society.

We may differ on many matters, but we can agree on this: every human being matters. Equality means more than fairness—it means recognising the profound worth of every person, especially those with the least power or visibility.

To recover that truth is not to impose faith, but to restore humanity. And in doing so, we reclaim the forgotten premise of equality—the only one on which a just and compassionate future can be built.

Footnotes
¹ Jacobs, S. (2018). Contemporary Biological Views on When Life Begins. University of Chicago Survey.
² Richard Dawkins, interview with Brendan O’Connor, RTÉ Radio 1, March 2012.
³ United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1.
⁴ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Preamble.
⁵ Tasioulas, J. (2013). “Human Dignity and the Foundations of Human Rights.” In Understanding Human Dignity, British Academy.
⁶ American College of Pediatricians. (2017). “When Human Life Begins.”
⁷ Reardon, D.C. (2002). “The Aftermath of Abortion: A Review of Psychological Effects.” The Linacre Quarterly, 69(1), 29–41.
⁸ Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard University Press.
⁹ Sanger, M. (1920). Woman and the New Race. Brentano’s.
¹⁰ Anderson, R. T. (2015). Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. Regnery Publishing.
¹¹ Oregon Health Authority. (2023). Death with Dignity Act Annual Reports.
¹² Sumption, J. (2014). UK Supreme Court Judgment in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice.
¹³ See e.g. California Penal Code §187(a); contrast with permissive state abortion laws.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

Legally Dead: The Collapse of Moral Law in Britain

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3)

This week, the United Kingdom has crossed a dreadful moral threshold. In the span of just a few days, Parliament has voted first to decriminalise abortion—effectively permitting self-managed termination of life in the womb up to birth—and then to legalise so-called “assisted dying,” a misleading phrase for what is in truth state-sanctioned suicide. Two votes. One message: life is no longer sacred.

When legislators permit the destruction of the most vulnerable—the unborn child, the despairing sick, the elderly whose existence has become burdensome—they do not merely alter policy. They strike at the heart of justice itself. The right to life is not one among many rights—it is the ground upon which all others stand. Without it, the edifice of rights becomes a hollow facade, masking cruelty with euphemism.

The Illusion of Compassion

It is claimed, in both cases, that these measures represent progress—greater autonomy for women, greater dignity for the dying. But autonomy cannot mean the right to destroy another, nor can dignity be made dependent upon the absence of suffering. To offer death as a solution to distress is not compassion; it is surrender. It betrays a society that has forgotten how to suffer with, how to love, and how to protect.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that human law derives its legitimacy from the natural law, which is itself a participation in the eternal law of God.¹ When a human law contradicts the natural law—when it permits murder under the guise of mercy—it is no true law, but rather an act of violence cloaked in legality.

And as Pope Pius XII solemnly declared:

“The life of one who is innocent is untouchable, and any direct attempt… to kill… is a violation of one of the fundamental laws without which secure human society is impossible.”²

The votes cast in Westminster this week were not victories for justice, but capitulations to despair.Subscribed

Death by Emotionalism

The culture of death in Britain was not ushered in by force of logic, constitutional principle, or sober legal debate. It was won—decisively—through emotional manipulation. The parliamentary votes that removed legal protection from the unborn and invited suicide into the framework of care were secured not by reasoned argument but by the power of sentiment, tears, and selective storytelling.

In place of philosophy, we were given pathos. In place of principle, personalities. Members of Parliament stood not to defend justice, but to emote. And those who dared to speak of moral absolutes or natural law were treated not as defenders of tradition, but as heartless ideologues resisting “progress.”

This is not lawmaking. It is theatre.

One need not deny the suffering of individuals to see the danger in allowing public policy to be dictated by feeling. Compassion is not the enemy of justice—but sentimentality often is. For sentimentality demands outcomes that feel good rather than ones that are good, and it sacrifices the unseen, the unborn, and the inconvenient at the altar of emotional relief. In the absence of objective moral standards, emotion becomes tyrant.

The great irony is that modern man, having prided himself on “rationalism,” now makes law by anecdote and weeps his way into barbarism. As Pope Pius XII warned:

“It is not emotion or feeling that guides to the truth, but reason enlightened by faith.”³

And yet, it was the secular philosophers themselves who paved the way. David Hume famously wrote:

“Morality is determined by sentiment… Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular.”⁴

A culture that accepts such a premise will eventually legislate on the basis of tears, not truth.

The sanctity of life is not subject to public sentiment. The right to live is not decided by polls, headlines, or individual hardship. Yet this week, Britain proved that enough tears in a Westminster chamber can wash away centuries of moral consensus and jurisprudential restraint.

Death is now defended not by argument but by appeal to emotion. And so, once again, as in the twilight of Rome and the decadence of every fallen age, man exchanges the truth of God for the lie of his own feelings (cf. Rom. 1:25).

Our Failure to Embrace Suffering

At the heart of both these votes—abortion and assisted suicide—lies a deeper spiritual crisis: our culture’s utter inability to make sense of suffering. In casting off the Cross, we have lost not only our theology of sacrifice but also our capacity for endurance, for compassion rightly ordered, and for hope that transcends pain.

We do not suffer well because we do not know why we suffer.

Modern man, having severed suffering from redemption, now seeks only to eliminate it—no matter the cost. But where suffering cannot be eliminated, the sufferer is. What cannot be fixed is discarded. What cannot be explained is hidden. And so the unwanted child and the despairing patient are treated not as persons to be loved, but as problems to be solved—by termination.

This is not love. It is spiritual cowardice.

Our ancestors knew suffering as a school of virtue, a mystery to be united to the Cross, and a means of purifying the soul. The saints called it a blessing. The martyrs bore it as witness. Christ Himself sanctified it, not by erasing it, but by embracing it. “Though He were a Son, yet learned He obedience by the things which He suffered” (Heb. 5:8).

But in a society that worships control, comfort, and autonomy, suffering is seen only as an indignity—a failure of systems, a defect of life. And so we flee from it. We medicate it, mask it, and ultimately legislate it out of existence. What remains is a culture too fragile to face sorrow and too sterile to bring forth joy.

Until we recover the truth that suffering can be redemptive, we will continue to kill those whom suffering touches most. A nation that cannot suffer cannot love.

What Remains of Human Rights?

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

The early Fathers knew this. St. Gregory of Nyssa insisted that “the murder of a man is the greatest of crimes, for he bears in himself the image of God.”⁵ Tertullian, facing a pagan culture that practiced infanticide and abortion, declared: “He who will one day be a man is already one.”⁶

Our modern culture has reversed this. Those most obviously human—the child whose heartbeat can be heard, the patient whose voice has grown weak—are redefined as burdens, liabilities, problems to be managed. Their deaths are facilitated not in secrecy, but under the protection of law.

The Apathy of Apostasy

There is a silence more dangerous than outright heresy—a silence that clothes itself in reasonableness, civility, and theological ambiguity. It is the silence of apostasy, not declared but lived: the practical abandonment of the Gospel in order to preserve comfort, reputation, or relevance. This is the silence that now dominates much of Christianity in Britain.

While Parliament was debating whether to permit the killing of the unborn up to the point of birth, and the deliberate facilitation of suicide in the name of compassion, where were the voices of Christian leaders? Where was the Church’s sacred duty to “preach the word… in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2)? A handful spoke, and fewer still protested. Most remained hidden—paralysed by past failures, afraid of media backlash, or cowed by secular expectations of religious “neutrality.” This is not humility. It is abdication.

Secularisation has not simply removed the Church from public favour; it has exposed the frailty of our witness. The rise of a cold and calculating rationalism has persuaded many Christians that moral conviction must be shelved in favour of dialogical tone, or that faith is a private matter unsuited to the public square. But the apostles did not die to preserve pluralism. They preached a Gospel that was offensive, demanding, and utterly incompatible with the paganism of their day.

And now, as our nation slides deeper into a culture of sanctioned death, many who bear the name of Christ do so without the Cross. They want credibility without martyrdom, influence without confrontation. But the blood of the martyrs was not spilled so that bishops might take refuge in parliamentary neutrality, nor so that clergy might shrink from the controversy of truth.

The great failure of contemporary Christianity in the United Kingdom is not a lack of access to media, nor a shortage of theological resources. It is a failure of nerve. The fear of controversy has eclipsed the fear of God. And so we are left with polite press releases, sterile ecumenical handwringing, and a witness that says nothing precisely when it must cry out.

This is not the apostolic Church. It is the lukewarm Church which our Lord warns He will “vomit out” (Apoc. 3:16).

Now is the time for repentance—for a return to the boldness of the martyrs, the fidelity of the confessors, and the uncompromising proclamation of Christ’s Lordship over life and death. For if we will not defend the innocent, then we are no longer worthy to bear His Name.Subscribed

The Failure of the Secular Experiment

But as much as this moment reveals the failure of the Church to bear prophetic witness, it is just as damning a verdict on the secular experiment itself. For decades, the architects of modern Britain have promised that a society freed from religion would become more enlightened, more humane, and more just. What we see instead is a civilisation that has grown cold, frightened, and profoundly discompassionate.

The self-proclaimed humanists, atheists, and rationalists who led the charge for a post-Christian public square have not replaced the Gospel with moral clarity or courage. On the contrary, they have presided over a descent into utilitarianism, euphemism, and legalised abandonment. They have reduced compassion to consent, and justice to bureaucratic compliance.

It is no coincidence that in a culture which no longer fears God, death is increasingly offered as a solution. For when man exiles his Creator, he inevitably redefines himself—not as a being made for eternity, but as a biological organism to be optimised, managed, or extinguished. As Dostoevsky warned: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” But what secularists rarely consider is that when everything is permitted, compassion is no longer required.

Atheism promised emancipation; it has delivered moral paralysis. Secular humanism claimed to cherish dignity; it now permits the killing of the voiceless and the despairing. In the absence of God, man has become not sovereign but expendable. And those who once claimed the moral high ground now cower behind procedural justifications and speak in the sterile idiom of “personal choice.”

There is no moral courage in this. No prophetic vision. No love. Only silence, legality, and the efficient management of despair.

We were told that man could be good without God. But now, with God formally excluded from our laws and institutions, we are left with a society that has no coherent answer to evil, no consolation in suffering, and no defence of the innocent.

What Can the Righteous Do?

The Psalmist cries out: “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Ps. 11:3). It is a cry many faithful hearts now echo. But the answer is not despair. The Church must speak even more clearly, live even more sacrificially, and love even more fiercely. For in the words of St. John Chrysostom: “The greater the darkness, the more the light is seen.”⁷

We must become the sanctuary our society no longer offers. If Parliament will no longer defend life, then families, parishes, and faithful communities must become places where every life—weak or strong, born or unborn, joyful or suffering—is received as a gift from God.

To those now tempted to despair, I say this: do not give up. Do not retreat into bitterness or silence. Let this moment sharpen our vision and renew our mission. For we are not called to be conformed to this world, but to bear witness to a Kingdom in which death is defeated and life is sacred.

In this dark hour, we are called not to abandon the battlefield, but to remain—faithful, prayerful, unyielding. For the Judge of all the earth shall do right (Gen. 18:25), and the blood of the innocent cries out still.

And it is time—long past time—for orthodox Christians, like other religionists, to speak boldly once more into the public discourse. We are not second-class citizens. We enjoy the same civil rights and legal protections afforded to every protected characteristic: the right to speak, to believe, to worship, to live and share our culture without coercion or silence. The Christian vision of life does not demand the destruction of others—it seeks the common good and the supreme good of all.

Footnotes

¹ Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 93–95.
² Pius XII, Address to Italian Catholic Doctors, AAS 32 (1940), pp. 465–468.
³ Pius XII, Address to the International Congress on Psychotherapy, 13 April 1953.
⁴ David Hume, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 1751, Section I.
⁵ Gregory of Nyssa, De Hominis Opificio, ch. 5.
⁶ Tertullian, Apologeticus, ch. 9.
⁷ John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, Homily 23.

Originally published on Selsey Substack

Nuntiatoria LX: Fidelis Restauratio

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

w/c 22/06/25

A calendar for the week of May 18, 2025, includes various liturgical observances, feast days, and notes for the Old Roman Apostolate.

ORDO

Dies22
SUN		23
MON		24
TUE		25
WED		26
THU		27
FRI		28
SAT		29
SUN
OfficiumS. Paulini Episcopi et ConfessorisFeria II infra Octavam Corporis ChristiIn Nativitate S. Joannis BaptistæS. Gulielmi
Abbatis		In Octava Sanctissimi Corporis ChristiSacratissimi Cordis Domini Nostri Jesu ChristiS. Leonis
Papæ et Confessoris		SS. Apostolorum Petri et Pauli 
CLASSISDuplexSemiduplexDuplex SimplexDuplex Duplex majusSemiduplexDuplex I. classis
Color*AlbusAlbusAlbusAlbusAlbusAlbusAlbusRubeum
MISSASacerdotes tuiCibávitDe ventreOs justiCibávitMiserebiturStátuitNunc scio
Orationes2a. Dominica II Post Pentecosten
3a. Octava SSmi. Corporis Christi		2a. In Vigilia S. Joannis Baptistæ2a. Feria III infra Octavam Corporis Christi2a. Feria IV infra Octavam Corporis Christi
3a. Die II infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ		2a. Ss. Joannis et Pauli Martyrum
3a. Die III infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ		2a. Die IV infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ2a. In Vigilia Ss. Petri et Pauli Apostolorum
3a. Die V infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ
2a. Dominica III Post Pentecosten
3a. Die VI infra Octavam Nativitatis S. Joannis Baptistæ
NOTAEGl. Cr.
Pref. de sanctissima Trinitate		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Sacratissimo Cordis Iesu		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Communis		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Apostolis
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva
* Color: Albus = White; Rubeum = Red; Viridis = Green; Purpura = Purple; Niger = Black [] = in Missa privata
** Our Lady of Fatima, a votive Mass may be offered using the Mass Propers for the Immaculate Heart of Mary, August 22nd 🔝

Fidelis Restauratio

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

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With paternal blessing and enduring affection, I remain 🔝

Text indicating a liturgical schedule for the week beginning April 5th, 2025, including notable feast days and rituals.

Recent Epistles & Conferences

Liturgical Notes

THE FEAST OF CORPUS CHRISTI (Thursday after Trinity Sunday)

I. Mass: Cibavit eos

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

II. Ceremonial Particularities for the Day

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

III. The Eucharistic Procession

  • The Blessed Sacrament, now exposed in the monstrance, is carried solemnly beneath a canopy.
  • Incense is used, and candles are carried in procession.
  • The faithful sing hymns, particularly Pange lingua and other Eucharistic chants.
  • The procession concludes with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, following the usual ceremonial.
THE OCTAVE OF CORPUS CHRISTI (Friday to following Thursday)

Nature of the Octave: Privileged Octave of the First Class

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

Office:

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

Octave Day (following Thursday):

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

Other Liturgical Notes:

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

The Feast of St. Paulinus of Nola – June 22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missalettes (Corpus Christi/Sacred Heart)

Latin/English
2nd Pentecost after Corpus Christi with processionDownload
Feast of the Sacred HeartDownload
Latin/Español
sagrado_corazon_jesusDownload
Latin/Tagalog
IKA-2-LINGGO-MAKALIPAS-ANG-PENTECOSTES_LAT-TAG_LMSCDownload
MAHAL-NA-PUSO-NI-HESUS_LAT-TAG-LMSCDownload

Spiritual Reflection for the Sunday within the Octave of Corpus Christi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A sermon for Sunday

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

Second Sunday after Pentecost/Within the Octave of Corpus Christi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nativity of St. John the Baptist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacred Heart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apostolate Guidance Handouts

ORA Formation Guide
Give me that old time religion
Hosting Mass at home
Guidance on attire
Catechesis for hosts of Domestic and Chapel Masses
Chapel Welcome Team Sheet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us! 🔝

Guidance For Examination and Confession

Baptism and the Citizenship of Heaven: A Primer for Traditional Catholics
A guide to examining your conscience: recognising venial sin and repenting of it
A guide to examining your conscience: recognising mortal sin and returning to God
A Primer on Venial and Mortal Sins
The Sacrament of Confession Admonitions from the Saints and Theologians
The Healing Power of Confession a Remedy for the Soul Mind and Heart
How to Make a Good Confession: A Primer for Traditional Catholics

Forgotten Rubrics: The Pinched Fingers of the Priest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CURRENT AFFAIRS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortly after the abortion vote, Archbishop Lloyd declared:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Leo XIV Revives Papal Summer Tradition with Castel Gandolfo Retreat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Léon of Peru: Vatican Media Releases Documentary Honouring Missionary Bishop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we need today is not deconstruction but restoration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Pius XII, Humani Generis, 36: “It is not enough for social justice to be promoted through human effort; it must be guided by the natural law, which upholds the dignity of the human person and the common good.”
  2. Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 79: “In its essence, the principle of subsidiarity means that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization that can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization.”
  3. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 10: “The Church’s social doctrine has always had as its guiding principle the dignity of the person and the natural law, which must be respected in every economic, social, and political structure.”
  4. Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 17: “The State must recognize and respect the dignity of the human person, fostering, but not replacing, individual enterprise and private property, which are necessary for the common good.”
  5. John Paul II, Laborem Exercens, 20: “A society is not truly just unless it recognizes the solidarity between individuals and groups, protecting the weakest members and promoting their integral development.”
  6. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 46: “The natural law is nothing else than the light of reason placed in us by God, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil.”
A schedule for the week of April 5, 2025, detailing liturgical events, feasts, and notable observances.

In Other News…

A gathering in a grand library featuring a diverse group of people, including clergy, scholars, and families, engaged in reading and discussions, with bookshelves filled with various books in the background, and a prominent logo reading 'FORUM' in the foreground.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations
The audit offers twelve primary recommendations, including:

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

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

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

Grooming Gang Deniers Did More Damage Than a Thousand Tommy Robinsons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As one MP stated this week:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case Examples and Hypothetical Harms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet Ahmed remains firm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pilgrimage to Rome & the Holy Door – November 2025

Join the Titular Archbishop of Selsey on a deeply spiritual pilgrimage to Rome in the Jubilee Year 2025. This five-day journey will offer pilgrims the opportunity to deepen their faith, visit some of the most sacred sites of Christendom, and participate in the graces of the Holy Year, including the passing through the Holy Door at St. Peter’s Basilica.

A bishop walking on a cobblestone street in Rome, approaching St. Peter's Basilica in the background, dressed in traditional clerical attire.

What to Expect

🛐 Daily Mass & Spiritual Reflection
Each day will begin with the celebration of Holy Mass in the Eternal City, surrounded by the legacy of the early Christian martyrs and the countless Saints who sanctified its streets. This will be followed by opportunities for prayer, reflection, and spiritual direction.

🏛 Visits to the Major Basilicas
Pilgrims will visit the four Papal Basilicas, each housing a Holy Door for the Jubilee Year:

  • St. Peter’s Basilica – The heart of Christendom and the site of St. Peter’s tomb.
  • St. John Lateran – The cathedral of the Pope, often called the “Mother of all Churches.”
  • St. Mary Major – The oldest church in the West dedicated to Our Lady.
  • St. Paul Outside the Walls – Housing the tomb of St. Paul the Apostle.

⛪ Pilgrimage to Other Sacred Sites

  • The Catacombs – Early Christian burial sites and places of refuge.
  • The Holy Stairs (Scala Sancta) – Believed to be the steps Jesus climbed before Pilate.
  • The Church of the Gesù & the tomb of St. Ignatius of Loyola.
  • The Church of St. Philip Neri, renowned for his joyful holiness.

🌍 Exploring the Eternal City
The pilgrimage will include guided sightseeing to some of Rome’s historic and cultural treasures, such as:

  • The Colosseum and the memories of the early Christian martyrs.
  • The Roman Forum and the heart of ancient Rome.
  • The Pantheon and its Christian transformation.
  • Piazza Navona, the Trevi Fountain, and other landmarks.

🍽 Time for Fellowship & Reflection
Pilgrims will have opportunities to enjoy the unique culture and cuisine of Rome, with time set aside for fellowship, discussion, and personal devotion.

Practical Information

  • Estimated Cost: Up to €15000-2000, covering accommodation, guided visits, and entry to sites.
  • Travel Arrangements: Pilgrims must arrange their own flights or transport to and from Rome.
  • Limited Spaces Available – Those interested should register their interest early to receive further details.

📩 If you are interested in joining this sacred journey, express your interest today!

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

🔝

A diverse group of individuals gathered in a library-like setting, engaging in conversation and reading, with shelves filled with books in the background.

Join the Old Roman Apostolate Forum!

🔹 Faithful. Traditional. Uncompromising. 🔹

Looking for a place to discuss, learn, and live out the Catholic Faith as handed down through Sacred Tradition? www.oldroman.live is the official discussion forum of the Old Roman Apostolate, bringing together clergy, religious, and laity committed to preserving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in its unchanging truth.

Why Join?

📜 Engage in Catholic Discussion📜
Explore doctrine, moral theology, liturgy, and history
from a fully traditional perspective.
✝️ Grow in Faith & Spirituality✝️
Participate in prayer threads, catechesis,
and reflections on Catholic life.
📢 Stay Updated📢
Get the latest Apostolate news, clergy announcements,
and mission updates.
🗣 Fraternal Community🗣
Connect with like-minded Catholics who uphold the
Traditional Latin Mass and perennial teachings.

Whether you’re a longtime traditional Catholic or just discovering the beauty of authentic Catholicism, this forum is your home.

🌍 Be part of the Old Roman Apostolate today!🌍
Sign up now at www.oldroman.live and join the conversation!

🔝

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 🔝

YouTube player
subscribeSubscribe to my channel
«
Prev
1
/
1126
Next
»
loading
play
Today's homily: St Didacus of Alcalá (2026)
play
The Daily Mass: St Didacus of Alcalá
play
Angelus
play
The Daily Mass: St Martin I of Rome
play
Live Q&A with HE ✠Jerome Lloyd
play
Angelus
play
Angelus
play
Today's homily: St Martin I of Rome (2026)
play
Angelus
play
The Daily Mass: St Martin of Tours
play
Old Romans Unscripted S2. EpXIV: Cui bono?
play
Angelus
play
✠Challoner Meditation: November 11th
play
Angelus
play
Today's homily: St Martin of Tours (2026)
«
Prev
1
/
1126
Next
»
loading

Support the Old Roman

If you appreciate this newsletter, Nuntiatoria and Old Roman TV, and value the effort and time involved in their creation, please consider supporting us with a donation below. Your generosity enables us to continue providing thoughtful and enriching content. Every contribution, no matter the size, makes a meaningful difference. Thank you for your support!

Alternatively, please consider showing your support by sharing it with others. Referring friends, colleagues, or family members helps our readership grow and ensures that our content continues reaching those who will value it most.

Thank you for helping us spread the word!

🔝

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 Redeemerpray 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 Christpray for us.
Minister of salvationpray 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 householdAnd 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)

🔝

Statement: On the House of Commons Vote on the Assisted Dying Bill

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment
Coat of arms featuring a shield with a fleur-de-lis and elements of ecclesiastical symbolism, inscribed with 'DEUS CARITAS EST'.

With a heavy heart, I acknowledge the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill through Parliament. This moment marks a grave turning point for our nation’s understanding of life, dignity, and care.

Together with my deep disappointment at the vote earlier this week to decriminalise abortion, these decisions represent a profound failure to uphold the sanctity of human life at all stages. They reflect a troubling shift away from protecting the most vulnerable—unborn children, the terminally ill, the disabled, and the elderly—and toward a society that places subjective judgments of suffering above the intrinsic dignity of every human person.

It must be said plainly: without the right to life—the most basic, foundational human right—no other rights can stand. When society denies the right to life, it nullifies the very basis of justice and the entire framework of human rights protections. This is the true cost of these votes.

I stand in solidarity with the many medical professionals, disability advocates, faith leaders, and citizens who believed the bill was not fit for purpose, raising serious concerns about its safeguards, its ethical implications, and the risks it poses to vulnerable individuals.

While I hold deep compassion for those who suffer and face the profound challenges of terminal illness, I must reiterate that permitting the state’s involvement in ending life diminishes the inherent worth of each individual and risks pressuring the vulnerable to choose death over care.

True compassion calls us to accompany those who suffer, to provide better palliative care, and to uphold a culture of life.

In the days and years ahead, I pledge to continue advocating for those most at risk, to support families and carers, and to call our society back to a vision that cherishes every life as sacred and inviolable.

May God grant us wisdom and courage to walk together in charity and justice.

+In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Signature of Jerome Seleisi in elegant script.

Brichtelmestunensis
S. Silverii Papæ et Martyris MMXXV A.D.

LETTER TO SUSSEX MPS ON THE ASSISTED DYING BILL

PASTORAL EPISTLE ON DECRIMINALISATION OF ABORTION LAW IN BRITAIN

Oremus

Deus Miserator, Qui vitam humanam in tuae imaginis dignitate creasti, da nobis gratiam ut sanctitatem vitae semper tueamur. Fortitudinem tribue iis qui infirmantur et iis qui curant, ut in tribulatione non deficiant in spe, nec deficit caritas. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Merciful God, Who created human life in the dignity of Your image, grant us the grace always to defend the sanctity of life. Give strength to the infirm and to their carers, that in suffering they may not fail in hope nor in love. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.

(©)The Titular Archbishop of Selsey 2012-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Archbishop of Selsey Urges Sussex MPs to Reject Assisted Dying Bill

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

Brighton, 19 June 2025 – On the eve of tomorrow’s decisive vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Most Reverend Dr Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, has directly appealed to all Sussex Members of Parliament. His letter urges them to oppose the Bill, highlighting profound moral, medical, and legal concerns.

A Broader Moral Crisis

Archbishop Lloyd warns that this vote follows closely on the heels of Parliament’s decision to decriminalise abortion up to birth. He states, “The pattern is unmistakable: when the law ceases to defend the beginning and end of life, its commitment to human dignity is not merely weakened—it is shattered.”

In a memorable reference, he cites anthropologist Margaret Mead’s insight that the earliest sign of human civilisation was not a tool but a healed femur, evidence of compassion and communal care—a stark contrast to laws permitting legalised death.

Safeguards That Fail

Despite amendments for panel reviews and conscience protections (notably Clause 25), the Archbishop contends these are insufficient and may create pressure on healthcare providers and religious institutions. He cautions that Catholic hospitals, hospices, and charities may be forced to comply or risk losing funding—echoing concerns raised by Cardinal Vincent Nichols in describing Parliament’s approach as a “deeply irresponsible shambles” and accusing legislators of spending more time debating foxhunting than this life-and-death measure.

Medical Opposition Unanimous

Leading professional bodies including the BMA, Royal Colleges of Physicians, Psychiatrists, Pathologists, Disability Rights UK, and the Coalition of Frontline Care have united in opposition. They have criticised the Bill’s prognostic unreliability, inadequate capacity assessments, and the removal of coroner oversight—all of which threaten patient safety and ethical standards in medicine.

Slippery Slope to Compassion or Convenience?

Archbishop Lloyd emphasises the risks evidenced in countries like Canada, Belgium, and Oregon—where assisted-dying regimes have expanded beyond intended limits. He echoes Cardinal Nichols’ warning that what begins as a “right to die” quickly morphs into a “duty to die” under social and economic pressures.

A Defining Moment

In his powerful conclusion, the Archbishop frames the vote as an existential choice for the nation:

“Do we walk with the suffering, or do we wash our hands, legalise their death, and call it compassion?”
“True civilisation is measured by how we treat the most vulnerable… The right to die soon becomes a duty to die.”

He urges all Sussex MPs to vote ‘No’, protecting not just individual lives, but the ethical integrity of society itself.

Assisted-Dying-Bill-Sussex-MPs IIDownload

The Archbishop’s previous letter to Sussex MPs

Assisted Dying Bill Sussex MPsDownload

Statement: On the House of Commons Vote to Decriminalise Abortion to Birth

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment
Coat of arms featuring a shield with a fleur-de-lis and elements of ecclesiastical symbolism, inscribed with 'DEUS CARITAS EST'.

It is with profound grief and moral clarity that I respond to yesterday’s vote in the House of Commons approving Amendments NC1 and NC20 to the Criminal Justice Bill—amendments that effectively strip away all remaining protections for unborn children in the United Kingdom.

This is a watershed moment. Parliament has now declared, by law, that human life possesses no inherent dignity, no objective worth—only value when it is subjectively desired. A child in the womb may now be legally killed up to the very moment of birth. This is not progress. It is not compassion. It is the codification of cruelty.

By reducing life to a commodity, this legislation severs the foundation of all human rights. For if there is no right to life, then no other right—of speech, of conscience, of personhood—can stand. This is not a private moral issue. It is a public act of injustice. It is a declaration by the State that innocent human life is disposable.

In the name of women’s rights, Parliament has in fact turned back the clock on women’s safety. By removing legal safeguards and entrenching the unsupervised use of abortion pills at home, it has enabled a return to unsafe, unregulated, and often coercive abortions—in private settings, with no medical oversight, and no protection from pressure, abuse, or isolation. Women are left alone to suffer, sometimes haemorrhaging, sometimes traumatised, and sometimes misled about what these pills will do. This is not empowerment. It is abandonment. It is policy that protects institutions, not persons—and it fails women precisely when they are most in need of care and truth.

Far from defending womanhood, this law strips women of their own dignity—not by affirming their capacity to give life, but by reducing that capacity to a private license to destroy it. The feminine genius is not honoured, but hollowed out.

The Apathy of Apostasy

It must also be said, and said plainly: the vast majority of those who claim the name of Christ today—across denominations—are Christians in name only. Nominal. Superficial. Formed more by sentiment than by doctrine, shaped more by the culture than by the Cross. Their religion is subjective, their morality relativistic, their public witness nearly silent.

And the hierarchies?
Too often, little better. Bureaucratic. Cautious. Politically attuned. Paralysed by the fear of controversy.

We are told abortion is “sensitive,” “divisive,” “too hot to handle.” But what are we speaking of, if not the deliberate killing of persons made in the image and likeness of God?

Every unborn child is willed into being by the Creator, imbued with eternal purpose, and destined for a life that could bring immeasurable good to others. To describe this reality as “complex,” while retreating from moral clarity, is not pastoral prudence—it is moral failure.

This is not a matter of ecclesial strategy. It is a matter of truth.
And to tolerate the shedding of innocent blood in silence is not charity—it is apostasy by omission.

Let this statement serve not only as a condemnation of an evil act enshrined in law, but as a call to repentance for the silence that enabled it—and as a rallying cry for the faithful to reawaken, to speak boldly, and to defend life without compromise.

+In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Signature of Jerome Seleisi in elegant script.

Brichtelmestunensis
SS. Marci et Marcelliani Martyrum MMXXV A.D.

PASTORAL EPISTLE ON DECRIMINALISATION OF ABORTION LAW IN BRITAIN

Oremus

Deus, vitae auctor et custos animarum, qui omnes homines ad imaginem tuam creasti, et in utero matris eos sanctificare dignatus es, intuere propitius ad parvulos nondum natos, quos leges humanae ab omni tutela solvere conantur. Infunde timorem tuum in corda legislatorum, ut legem tuam super omnem consilium humanum agnoscant, et innocentes a morte tueantur. Beatae Mariae Virgini, Matri Vitae, nos committimus, ut per eius intercessionem natio nostra a caecitate cordis liberetur, et iterum legem vitae eligat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

O God, Author of life and Guardian of souls, who created all people in Thine image and didst sanctify them in their mother’s womb, look with mercy upon the unborn children whom human laws now seek to cast off from all protection. Pour Thy holy fear into the hearts of lawmakers, that they may recognize Thy law above all human counsel, and defend the innocent from death. To the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Life, we commend ourselves, that through her intercession our nation may be delivered from the blindness of heart, and choose again the law of life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Please note that all material on this website is the Intellectual Property (IP) of His Grace, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and protected by Copyright and Intellectual Property laws of the United Kingdom, United States and International law. Reproduction and distribution without written authorisation of the owner is prohibited.

(©)The Titular Archbishop of Selsey 2012-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Nuntiatoria LIX: Tradere Quod et Accepi

Published on by The EditorLeave a comment

w/c 15/06/25

A calendar for the week of May 18, 2025, includes various liturgical observances, feast days, and notes for the Old Roman Apostolate.

ORDO

Dies15
SUN		16
MON		17
TUE		18
WED		19
THU		20
FRI		21
SAT		22
SUN
OfficiumDominica Sanctissimæ TrinitatisS. Barnabæ
Apostoli		S. Basilii Magni
Confessoris et Ecclesiæ Doctoris		SS. Marci et Marcelliani MartyrumFestum Sanctissimi Corporis ChristiFeria Sexta infra octavam Corporis ChristiS. Aloisii Gonzagæ
Confessoris		S. Paulini Episcopi et Confessoris
CLASSISDuplex I. classisDuplex majusDuplex SimplexDuplex I. classisSemiduplexDuplexDuplex
Color*AlbusRubeumAlbusRubeumAlbusAlbusAlbusAlbus
MISSABenedícta sitMihi autemIn médioSalus autemCibávitCibávitMinuístiSacerdotes tui
Orationes2a. Dom. I post Pentecosten
3a. Ss. Viti, Modesti atque Crescentiæ Mm		NANA2a. A cunctis
3a. de S. Maria (vel ad libitum)		NA2a. S. Silverii Papæ et Martyris
2a. Sabbato infra octavam Corporis Christi
2a. Dominica II Post Pentecosten
3a. Octava SSmi. Corporis Christi
NOTAEGl. Cr.
Pref. de sanctissima Trinitate		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Apostolis		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Communis		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Communis		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Communis		Gl. Cr.
Pref. de Nativitate Domini
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva
* Color: Albus = White; Rubeum = Red; Viridis = Green; Purpura = Purple; Niger = Black [] = in Missa privata
** Our Lady of Fatima, a votive Mass may be offered using the Mass Propers for the Immaculate Heart of Mary, August 22nd 🔝

Tradere Quod et Accepi

To hand on what I also received — expresses the apostolic mission of fidelity to the deposit of faith, unaltered and undiluted. It affirms that the task of Nuntiatoria is not innovation, but transmission: to pass on, with clarity and conviction, the truth once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3).

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

As we come to the solemn celebration of Trinity Sunday, and prepare for the feast and octave of Corpus Christi, the Church lifts our minds from the confusion of the present moment to the eternal majesty of the Godhead and the abiding reality of Christ’s Eucharistic Presence. Yet these feasts are not liturgical ornaments; they are doctrinal anchors. In celebrating them, the Church is not inventing mysteries but handing on what she received. As St Paul writes to the Corinthians: Tradidi enim vobis in primis quod et accepi — “For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received” (1 Cor. 11:23).

This apostolic motto — Tradere quod et accepi — must now be ours. We are not the authors of the Faith, nor its editors. We are its custodians. Our mission is not to refashion the Church in our image, but to conform our lives to what has been handed down: through the Apostles, the martyrs, the Councils, and the sacred liturgy itself.

The Trinity: Reality, Not Analogy
On Trinity Sunday, we affirm the most fundamental truth of divine revelation: that God is One in essence and Three in Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This is not a poetic image or a model of community. It is a metaphysical and revealed truth: one God in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, distinguished by relation, not divided in nature. Any theology that diminishes the majesty or mystery of this doctrine is no theology at all, but capitulation to sentimentality or sociology.

The so-called “synodal” project in Germany exemplifies this drift — recasting divine mysteries in terms of human consensus, flattening doctrine into dialogue, and abandoning metaphysical truth for ideological relevance. But such movements do not renew the Church; they hollow her out. This year’s dismal priestly ordination numbers in Germany, compared with the growth in vocations among the FSSP and SSPX, offer a hard lesson: where tradition is preserved, faith flourishes. Where it is replaced by process, the Church withers.

Corpus Christi: Christ Our God, Present and Adored
The Solemnity of Corpus Christi, with its octave and procession, reminds us of another truth that modernity cannot abide: that Jesus Christ is truly present — Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — in the Holy Eucharist. Not symbolically. Not figuratively. But really and substantially. This is why the Tridentine Rite treats the Eucharist with such awe: a second Host is consecrated and enthroned; the celebrant never turns his back on the Sacred Species; every genuflection, every veil, every rubric teaches the truth by how it worships.

Yet today, in too many places, this sacred Presence is doubted, diminished, or desecrated. As we saw recently, the US National Eucharistic Pilgrimage was met with protestors who mocked the monstrance as a “monstrosity.” But the deeper tragedy is that such irreverence often originates not from without, but from within — from bishops and priests who no longer believe what they celebrate, or who treat the Eucharist as merely a communal meal rather than the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross.

Against this tide, Nuntiatoria testifies that to restore belief, we must restore the act of handing on: in doctrine, in liturgy, in sacramental discipline. We must worship as we believe, and believe as the Church has always worshipped.

Faithfulness in the Face of Cultural Collapse
Our commitment to tradere quod et accepi also demands that we speak into the public moral crisis with clarity and courage. This month, the UK Parliament will debate radical amendments to decriminalise abortion up to birth — removing every safeguard for the unborn and every legal protection for vulnerable women. This is not just legislative cruelty; it is spiritual blindness. When a nation refuses to recognise the divine image in the most defenceless, it has cut itself off from the Source of its own dignity.

Likewise, we have tracked with concern the case of Stephen Ireland and the wider safeguarding failures in UK schools, where radical gender ideology has been allowed to override parental rights and expose children to irreversible harm. This is not compassion — it is abuse under the banner of inclusion. To such confusion, we answer not with outrage alone, but with witness: the clarity of Christian anthropology, the beauty of chastity, the dignity of fatherhood, and the truth that God made them male and female.

All of this reflects a deeper malaise in our civilisation. As we have recently explored in Nuntiatoria, the warnings of men like David Betts and Dominic Cummings about the coming civil unrest in Britain are not unfounded. When you hollow out belief, erase identity, undermine family, and forsake the transcendent, society becomes ungovernable. As one commentator noted, “diversity is our strength” has become the lie we tell ourselves while we unravel.

Handing On the Faith — Not Just Defending It
Yet Nuntiatoria is not only a critique. It is a catechesis. That is why we continue to publish reflections on the liturgy, pastoral tools for chapels, formation for catechists, and apologetics for young men rediscovering their faith. Our work on “The Mastery of Self,” the critique of modernism, the sacramental catechism series, and our meditations on the traditional Holy Week — all form part of our response: to live what we have received, to teach it clearly, and to transmit it unchanged to the next generation.

Whether in the silence of adoration, the solemnity of procession, the clarity of a sermon, or the witness of a life ordered to God — the call is the same: Tradidi quod et accepi. I have handed on what I also received.

Let that be our motto — in liturgy, in doctrine, in protest, and in praise.

Let us adore the Most Holy Trinity. Let us honour the Most Holy Sacrament. Let us defend the Image of God in the child, the woman, the man, the family, the priesthood, the Church. And let us not falter.

With every blessing as these great feasts approach,
and in fidelity to the Faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), 🔝

Text indicating a liturgical schedule for the week beginning April 5th, 2025, including notable feast days and rituals.

Recent Epistles & Conferences

Liturgical Notes

TRINITY SUNDAY

1. Rank and Classification
Trinity Sunday is a First Class Feast in the Roman Rite. It is celebrated on the Sunday after Pentecost, marking the beginning of the second half of the liturgical year, focused on the life of the Church animated by the Holy Ghost.

2. Liturgical Color
The color of the day is white, symbolizing the glory and purity of the Most Holy Trinity.

3. Office and Mass

  • The Divine Office is of the feast, with the Te Deum at Matins and a proper hymn at each Hour reflecting the mystery of the Trinity.
  • The Mass is proper: Missa “Benedícta sit Sancta Trínitas”.

4. Propers of the Mass

  • Introit: Benedícta sit Sancta Trínitas — a doxological entrance expressing praise to the Triune God.
  • Collect: A petition to profess the true Faith and be ever defended from adversity.
  • Epistle: Romans 11:33-36 — A profound doxology on the inscrutable wisdom and providence of God.
  • Gradual & Alleluia: Both trinitarian in content, including the triple invocation “Blessed be the Holy Trinity…”
  • Gospel: Matthew 28:18-20 — Christ’s commission to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
  • Offertory: Another trinitarian verse praising the triune unity.
  • Secret: Requests sanctification of offerings in the name of the Trinity.
  • Preface: The Proper Preface of the Holy Trinity, used only on this day and, thereafter, on all Sundays after Pentecost that do not have a proper preface.
  • Communion: The verse again praises the Blessed Trinity.
  • Postcommunion: A prayer that reception of the Sacrament may increase our devotion to the triune God.

5. Special Rubrics

  • Gloria and Credo are said.
  • The Proper Preface (Qui cum Unigenito Filio tuo) replaces the common Sunday preface.
  • The Feast takes precedence over any commemoration that would fall on the same day.

6. Liturgical Spirituality and Theology
Trinity Sunday is not merely a doctrinal feast, but a culmination of the mystery unfolded through the liturgical seasons:

  • Advent and Christmas revealed the Father sending the Son;
  • Lent and Easter the Son’s redemptive work;
  • Pentecost the sending of the Holy Ghost.

Now, the Church adores the Triune God, not through speculation, but in light of revelation and salvation history. The mystery is to be confessed, adored, and lived. 🔝

THE FEAST OF CORPUS CHRISTI (Thursday after Trinity Sunday)

I. Mass: Cibavit eos

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

II. Ceremonial Particularities for the Day

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

III. The Eucharistic Procession

  • The Blessed Sacrament, now exposed in the monstrance, is carried solemnly beneath a canopy.
  • Incense is used, and candles are carried in procession.
  • The faithful sing hymns, particularly Pange lingua and other Eucharistic chants.
  • The procession concludes with Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, following the usual ceremonial.
THE OCTAVE OF CORPUS CHRISTI (Friday to following Thursday)

Nature of the Octave: Privileged Octave of the First Class

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

Office:

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

Octave Day (following Thursday):

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

Other Liturgical Notes:

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

Festum Sanctissimæ Trinitatis: Missa “Benedícta sit”

The Mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Completion of the Work of Redemption
The Sunday following Pentecost in the ancient Roman Rite is crowned with the majestic feast of the Most Holy Trinity—a celebration instituted not at the behest of any particular event in salvation history, but to honour the eternal mystery of God Himself. As Dom Prosper Guéranger notes, the feast is the “summing up and crown of all the mysteries.”¹ After the cycle of Christ’s redemptive work is liturgically recapitulated from Advent to Pentecost, the faithful turn in adoration to the source of that work: the ineffable unity and trinity of the Godhead.

Liturgical Structure and Theological Weight
In the Tridentine Missal, the Mass of the Most Holy Trinity retains a venerable form, rich in doctrinal clarity and contemplative intensity. The Introit, Benedicta sit sancta Trinitas, invokes a blessing on the Holy Trinity and its indivisible unity, drawing us immediately into the central paradox of Christian faith. Goffine observes that the Church places this mystery before the faithful so that they may “adore it, not comprehend it,” as reason must give way to worship before the infinite.²

The Collect, deeply rooted in scholastic theology, beseeches the Lord to keep us steadfast in faith in the Trinity and in the unity of divine majesty. Here, the Missal reflects the mature thought of the Church, echoing the Trinitarian confessions of the early Councils, from Nicaea to Constantinople.

Epistle and Gospel: The Theological and Soteriological Frame
The Epistle, taken from Romans 11, underscores the unsearchable judgments and inscrutable ways of God. Fr. Pius Parsch remarks that this passage fittingly reminds us that the Trinity is not a doctrine to be dissected, but a mystery to be adored in humble silence.³ The doxology which ends the reading (To Him be glory for ever. Amen) points directly to liturgy as the proper response to divine revelation.

In the Gospel (Matthew 28:18–20), Our Lord sends forth the Apostles with the Trinitarian formula of baptism: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This pericope affirms not only the divine nature of each Person of the Trinity, but also the Church’s mission to incorporate souls into this mystery through sacramental life. Baur emphasizes that this is the capstone of the Church’s teaching authority, founded on the revelation of the Triune God.⁴

The Preface and Unity of Worship
The Preface of the Holy Trinity, which replaces the Preface of the Nativity used in the older Roman Rite before the 9th century, gives full liturgical expression to the mystery being adored. It is a theological masterpiece in miniature: praising the “Unity in substance and Trinity in Persons,” affirming the “proper to each Person” while confessing their indivisibility. Gueranger sees in this the fruit of centuries of doctrinal struggle against Arianism, Sabellianism, and Modalism, now triumphantly proclaimed in the sacred liturgy.¹

Spiritual Application and the Virtue of Humility
As Goffine aptly observes, the practical response to the mystery of the Trinity is not speculation, but humility and sanctification: to live in the presence of the Triune God, baptized into His name, shaped by His grace, and destined for eternal communion with Him.² The faithful are invited on this day not to unravel, but to adore—to let the mystery of God draw them into deeper faith, hope, and charity.

Conclusion: The Feast as a Liturgical Doxology
Trinity Sunday thus stands as a liturgical Gloria Patri over the entire work of redemption. It is not merely a doctrinal postscript, but a reminder that all the Church’s prayers, sacraments, and labours are ad Patrem, per Filium, in Spiritu Sancto—to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost.

To paraphrase Guéranger, this is the day on which the Church, taught by the Spirit who has been poured forth upon her at Pentecost, dares to pronounce the great and dread Name of God, in all its fulness—*and with this Name she blesses her children, seals her sacraments, and begins and ends all her works.*¹ 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. VIII: Time after Pentecost, Trinity Sunday.
² Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year: An Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, Trinity Sunday.
³ Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, Vol. 3, p. 274–276.
⁴ Ludwig Baur, The Light of the World: An Introduction to the Liturgy, Trinity Sunday.

Missalettes (Trinity/Corpus Christi)

Latin/English
Trinity-Sunday-MissaletteDownload
corpuschristiDownload
Latin/Español
domingo_trinidadDownload
fiesta_corpus_christiDownload
Latin/Tagalog
SANTISSIMA-TRINIDAD_LAT-TAG_LMSCDownload
CORPUS-CHRISTI_LAT-TAG_LMSCDownload

The Feast of Corpus Christi in the Traditional Latin Rite

The Feast of Corpus Christi, celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, stands as one of the most theologically rich and devotionally profound feasts in the traditional Roman Rite. Instituted in the 13th century, it is the Church’s solemn public thanksgiving and adoration of the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament. In the Tridentine liturgy, this feast is marked by sublime liturgical expression, deeply rooted in doctrinal precision, and celebrated with particular solemnity in both the Mass and the Procession.

Historical and Liturgical Origins
Corpus Christi owes its origin to the Eucharistic vision of St. Juliana of Liège, and its universal institution by Pope Urban IV in 1264 with the bull Transiturus de hoc mundo. The pope commissioned the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, to compose the Office and Mass of the feast, resulting in some of the most exquisite hymns of Eucharistic devotion in the Church’s treasury—Pange lingua, Lauda Sion, Adoro te devote, Verbum supernum, and Sacris solemniis.

Dom Prosper Guéranger, in his monumental Liturgical Year, notes that “the Holy Eucharist is the mystery of faith; it is the miracle of love… and therefore the Church, after celebrating the glory of the Blessed Trinity, hastens to pay homage to the mystery which flows from It.”¹ Corpus Christi, then, is a doctrinal feast that both proclaims the truth of the Real Presence and draws the faithful into acts of profound adoration.

Structure of the Traditional Liturgy
The Mass of Corpus Christi in the Tridentine Rite is framed around the theme of sacrificial worship. The Introit, Cibavit eos, taken from Psalm 80, proclaims: “He fed them with the finest wheat, and filled them with honey from the rock.” This antiphon is both literal and mystical—a declaration of Christ’s nourishing presence in the Eucharist.

The Epistle (1 Cor. 11:23–29) contains St. Paul’s apostolic account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, warning of the danger of unworthy reception. The Gospel (John 6:56–59) includes the Lord’s words on eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood—passages that modernist theologians have too often allegorized, but which the traditional liturgy proclaims with unwavering literal faith.

Fr. Martin von Cochem, in his Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, emphasizes the harmony between Corpus Christi and the daily offering of the Mass: “What is here celebrated with great pomp is the same Sacrifice renewed each day on every altar—Christ present, Christ offered, Christ adored.”²

Lauda Sion and Eucharistic Doctrine
A unique feature of the Mass is the sequence, Lauda Sion Salvatorem, also composed by St. Thomas Aquinas. In this majestic hymn, the Church confesses the full doctrine of transubstantiation—“sub diversis speciebus, signis tantum, et non rebus,” under different appearances, mere signs, and not the reality of bread and wine remain.³ Fr. Pius Parsch calls Lauda Sion “a sung summa of Eucharistic theology,” where Thomistic clarity is married to liturgical poetry.⁴

The Procession and Public Witness
Following the Solemn Mass, the faithful participate in the Eucharistic Procession, a manifestation of the Church Militant adoring her Eucharistic Lord and claiming the world for Christ. The canopy, the incense, the ringing of bells, and the strewing of flowers all serve to honour the King hidden beneath the sacramental veils.

According to Fr. Leonard Goffine, the Procession “represents the journey of the Israelites through the desert with the Ark of the Covenant, and more so the journey of Christ through His Church until the end of time.”⁵ The faithful join in singing Pange lingua, culminating in the Tantum ergo before Benediction—another moment where doctrinal clarity and devotional intensity meet.

Spiritual Meaning and Devotional Invitation
The Feast of Corpus Christi, in the traditional rite, is not merely a theological celebration but a summons to Eucharistic life. As Fr. Johannes Baur puts it: “The Body of Christ is not only to be adored but to be received worthily, to transform us into Him Whom we worship.”⁶ The very structure of the liturgy presses upon the soul this dual call: reverent adoration and sanctifying communion.

In the modern context of Eucharistic neglect and irreverence, the traditional Latin Rite’s observance of Corpus Christi stands as a necessary corrective. It unites catechesis, worship, and witness in one glorious outpouring of the Church’s love for her Eucharistic Lord. 🔝

  1. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year: Time after Pentecost, Volume I (Fitzwilliam: Loreto Publications, reprint), p. 238.
  2. Fr. Martin von Cochem, Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (TAN Books, 1896), p. 303.
  3. Lauda Sion Salvatorem, Sequence for Corpus Christi, lines 31–32.
  4. Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, Vol. 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1953), p. 288.
  5. Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year, 1875 English edition, Corpus Christi entry.
  6. Fr. Johannes Baur, The Light of the World: Liturgical Meditations (Herder, 1954), p. 357.

A sermon for Sunday

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

Trinity Sunday/First Sunday after Pentecost

All power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.

Today, we celebrate Trinity Sunday, as well as commemorating the First Sunday after Pentecost. The doctrine of the Trinity is often seen as a product of abstract theological speculation unrelated to everyday life. In fact, as today’s Gospel reading from St. Matthew shows, it is fundamental to the Christian understanding of God. St. Matthew records a resurrection appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee in which he said that all power had been given to him in heaven and earth, in other words he fully shared in the divine sovereignty over all things. He told his disciples to teach all nations the good news of salvation through his life, death and resurrection, to baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that he had commanded them and promising his abiding presence with them to the end of the age.

In the commandment to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is implicitly contained the doctrine of the Trinity. The early Church had a great deal of difficulty in finding an adequate terminology to explicate this doctrine, but it was necessary to do this, not for the purposes of abstract theological speculation, but to guard the deposit of the faith once delivered to the saints. Christianity was first and foremost a way of life rather than a system of dogmas, but some dogmas were necessary to safeguard the basis of the Christian life, and to prevent the Church from falling into error. There was only one God, the maker of all things and judge of all men, but he had taken our human nature upon himself in the coming of Jesus into the world and revealed his glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. Against Arius it was necessary to state at the Council of Nicea that the Son fully shared in the nature of God, being of one substance with the Father. But, as St. Athanasius also affirmed, the Father is different from the Son solely in that he is Father and not Son. Likewise, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Church at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit fully shared in the nature of God, but the Holy Spirit was also distinct from the Father and the Son. There were not three Gods, but one God, but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were really distinct, being three Persons in one substance, for that which we believe of the Father, the same we believe of the Son and of the Holy Ghost without any difference or inequality.

It is important to emphasise this point today because it is sometimes supposed that we can replace the language of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with that of Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. However, the problem this creates is that it does not give us a language where we can clearly distinguish three Persons in one God. If we speak just of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier, we are either left with describing three different gods, the creator, the redeemer and the sanctifier, or we are reduced to simply describing three aspects of the one God and have no way of clearly distinguishing them. Speaking of one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the Holy Trinity, three Persons in one God, enables us to safeguard the Christian doctrine of God from error.

Having said all this, it is also important to recognise that all our human language about God is limited and imperfect, for we can never truly comprehend God in this life. St. Paul emphasises this point when he speaks in today’s epistle of the “depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever.” The doctrine of the Trinity is necessary to safeguard the distinctive nature of the Christian doctrine of God, but we must be humble enough to recognise the limitations of all our language about God and that we can never fully comprehend God.

It is fitting that the Gospel for the First Sunday after Pentecost (which we are commemorating today) is from St. Luke, when Jesus warned his disciples about the danger of judging others. Our fallen human nature leads us to look at the mote in our brother’s eyes, when we often do not address the problem caused by the beam in our own eye. It is important to speak the truth in charity. We cannot pass any final judgment on another human being because we cannot fully see into their hearts, for the heart of man is known only to God. When we discern that by the standards of the orthodox Christian faith others have fallen into error, we must be clear that if say we cannot follow their principles, we cannot judge their persons, because we ourselves are also fallen and fallible human beings. Throughout Christian history there have been those who have been so convinced that others are in error that they have harshly condemned and persecuted them. They have thought in so doing they were being faithful to the Triune God, and they may well have technically been more orthodox than their opponents. However, the nature of the Triune God is charity, and we ourselves are being unfaithful to the Triune God if we do not ourselves manifest the spirit of charity in our Christian witness. It is all too easy to see the mote in our brother’s eye and be blind to the beam in our own eye. God has declared his divine power most chiefly in showing mercy and pity, and we must pray for grace to forgive others as we too have been forgiven. There is an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. The best way for us to manifest our faithfulness to the orthodox Christian faith is by showing charity in our dealings with one another, praying that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with us all evermore.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. 🔝

Corpus Christi

Today we celebrate the great feast of Corpus Christi, the institution of the Christian Eucharist, the bread from heaven which gives life to the world. The principal day for celebrating the institution of the Eucharist is the Mass on Maundy Thursday, when we relive the moment on the night on which he was betrayed, when Jesus invested his death with sacrificial significance, in broken bread and poured out wine. But there is in a sense too much also going on in the great liturgies of Holy Week and Easter for us to fully focus on this one theme. Hence, in the thirteenth century, the Church set aside the Thursday after Trinity Sunday for the celebration of the institution of the Eucharist.

Indeed, the Church sets aside not only this day but an octave for this theme. Devotion to the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar is especially associated with St. Thomas Aquinas, and it is his hymns that are sung in the offices in the Breviary for this octave.

While the Church has always honoured the Eucharist as the principal act of Christian worship, devotion to the sacramental presence of Christ was especially strong in the middle ages. The host came to be elevated after the words of institution in the Canon of the Mass to show to the faithful that the bread and wine had now been consecrated. A bell was rung and lights were held before the sacrament. A procession was held with the sacrament on this day, and the sacrament was exposed in worship for the veneration of the faithful. A custom also arose of blessing the people with the sacrament, which formed the basis of the later service of Benediction.

But, we might say, surely the sacrament was instituted in order to be eaten? Many of these devotions arose at a time when communion was infrequent and the adoration of the presence of Christ in the sacrament was often a substitute for the regular reception of the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. The belief that these practices were an abuse of the true purpose of this sacrament led to their abolition in the countries of the Reformation. The Protestant Reformers said that the sacrament had been instituted for the communion of the faithful and it was wrong to use the sacrament outside of this context. While this might seem to be a return to the period before the extra- liturgical cultus of the sacrament had become prominent, in practice it led to the increasing marginalisation of the sacrament from the consciousness of the faithful in the Protestant churches. Celebrations of the sacrament came to be restricted to occasions when a sufficient number of communicants could be secured.

As is so often the case, it is not a case of either or, but both and. It is certainly true that in the middle ages the extra- liturgical cultus of the sacrament came to be more prominent in the minds of the majority of the faithful than the regular reception of Holy Communion. But that is not an adequate reason for suppressing the cultus of the sacrament. The experience of the Protestant Reformation shows that abolishing the extra-liturgical cultus of the sacrament and placing all the emphasis on the reception of Holy Communion led the sacraments to become less prominent in Christian worship, while communion remained infrequent. Christ should be adored wherever he is especially present, and it is therefore right that the presence of Christ in this sacrament should be adored. If we are truly conscious of the real presence of Christ we ought to desire to be partakers of his Body through the regular reception of Holy Communion. The Christian Eucharist is not simply an occasion in which Christ is worshipped and adored, nor an occasion for the reception of Holy Communion, but is both the central act of Christian worship and adoration, and an occasion when we become partakers of the living bread which gives life to the world in Holy Communion.

It is important to understand the nature of the sacramental presence of Christ. If we ask ourselves where Christ is present now, our answer must be that he is risen, ascended and glorified, he ever lives as our great high priest who presents before the Father his perfect and all sufficient sacrifice offered for us in time and history. But in the Christian sacrament he is re-presented before us as the great drama of our redemption is replayed, as we make a solemn memorial of how he invested his death with sacrificial significance in broken bread and poured out wine. It is rather like how a tape recording enables us to share in an event that has already happened. It is not a repetition of the event, for the event has already happened once and for all, but it is a replaying of the event to us. In the same way the Christian Eucharist is not a repetition of the sacrifice which Christ offered once for all in time and history as an atonement for our sins, but rather an occasion in which the great events that led to our redemption are re-presented to us in the here and now. Though we seem to see many different celebrations from our limited perspective within the realm of time and space, in truth there is only one celebration, one sacrifice, one Eucharist, one Mass. Now that Christ is risen, ascended and glorified, he ever lives to re- present before the Father his perfect sacrifice made once for all in time and history. Just as the incarnation is not about the conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but rather the taking up of manhood into God, so the sacrament is not about the division of Christ into separate celebrations, but rather the identification of the separate celebrations with his sacrifice. It is not so much that we receive him, as that he receives us, so that we can become by grace what he is by nature. It is a sacrament of unity rather than of dispersion.

Here, beneath these signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden;
Signs, not things are all we see:
Flesh from bread and blood from wine,
Yet is Christ in either sign
All entire, confessed to be.

They too, who of him partake,
Sever not, nor rend, nor break,
But entire their Lord receive.
Whether one or thousands eat,
All receive the self same meat,
Nor the less for others leave.

Nor a single doubt retain,
When they break the host in twain,
But that in each part remain,
What was in the whole before.
Since the simple sign alone
Suffers change in state or form,
The signified remaining one
And the same for evermore.

Thou, who feedest us below!
Source of all we have or know!
Grant that with thy saints above,
Sitting at the feast of love,
We may see thee face to face. 🔝

The Mystery of the Trinity and the Filioque Controversy: Doctrine and Deviations

At the very heart of the Catholic faith lies the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, “The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the hierarchy of the truths of faith” (CCC §234). Yet no dogma has been more frequently challenged or more central to schism than this one—from ancient heresies to the enduring division between East and West over the word Filioque. This article explores both the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the historical controversies that surround its expression.

The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity
The Church confesses that in one divine essence (ousia) there are three coequal and coeternal Persons: the Father, unbegotten; the Son, eternally begotten of the Father (ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula); and the Holy Ghost, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son (qui ex Patre Filióque procédit). These three Persons are distinct in relation but share one and the same divine nature.

The mystery is not a human construct, but divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and fully manifested in the Incarnation of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. St. Gregory Nazianzen (†390) expressed this mystery poetically: “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One.”¹

The doctrine is defined dogmatically in the Council of Nicaea I (325) and the Council of Constantinople I (381). The Creed of these Councils, known today as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, proclaims belief in the Holy Ghost “who proceeds from the Father.” The Western Church, however, would come to add the word Filioque—“and the Son”—a development that would become a point of great contention.

The Filioque Controversy
The Filioque was introduced into the Latin version of the Creed in the 6th century, first in Spain, as a response to Arianism. It spread gradually throughout the Frankish lands and was officially adopted in Rome under Pope Benedict VIII (†1024). The revised Creed thus read:
“Et in Spiritum Sanctum… qui ex Patre Filióque procedit.”

While the Western Church viewed this addition as a legitimate theological clarification of the Spirit’s eternal relation to the Son, the Eastern Church rejected both the theological content and the unilateral modification of a Creed established by an Ecumenical Council.

Eastern theologians, most famously St. Photius of Constantinople (†893), condemned the Filioque as a distortion of Trinitarian theology. The East maintains that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone, as the sole “fountain of divinity” (monarchia tou Patros). They argue that adding Filioque undermines this monarchy and confuses the persons of the Trinity.

Doctrine or Division?
The question arises: does the Filioque actually represent a difference in doctrine, or is it a difference in theological expression?

The Western Church, following St. Augustine (†430), taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son—not as from two sources, but as from one principle. As the Council of Florence defined in 1439: “The Holy Ghost is eternally from the Father and the Son; He has His essence and His subsistent being at once from the Father and the Son, and proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and a single spiration.”²

Augustine had stated: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally, but not without the Son.”³

The East, however, while rejecting the Filioque formula, does not reject the idea that the Holy Ghost is sent by the Son or that He proceeds “through the Son” in the economy of salvation. Some Eastern Fathers, such as St. Epiphanius and St. Cyril of Alexandria, explicitly used the formula “from the Father through the Son”—a phrase that closely resembles the Latin tradition’s per Filium.

In this light, many contemporary theologians and official Church statements have concluded that the difference is not a contradiction in dogma, but a divergence of theological emphasis:

  • The East safeguards the monarchy of the Father as the sole origin of divinity.
  • The West stresses the communion between Father and Son, with the Spirit as their shared gift of love.

The 1995 clarification by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity acknowledged this convergence: “The Greek and Latin traditions are complementary rather than contradictory: both traditions affirm the same mystery of the Spirit’s origin from the Father, while the West adds that He proceeds through and with the Son.”⁴

Historical Heresies on the Trinity
To better grasp the significance of the Church’s precision in Trinitarian doctrine, it is helpful to recall the principal heresies the Church has condemned:

  1. Modalism (3rd century): Claimed the Trinity is merely one Person in three modes or roles.
    Condemned by Pope Callixtus I.
  2. Arianism (4th century): Denied the divinity of the Son, calling Him a creature.
    Condemned at Nicaea I (325).
  3. Semi-Arianism: Asserted the Son was only similar in substance (homoiousios) to the Father.
    Rejected at Constantinople I (381).
  4. Macedonianism: Denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost.
    Condemned at Constantinople I (381).
  5. Tritheism: Claimed the Trinity is three separate gods.
    Refuted by St. John of Damascus.
  6. Subordinationism: Held that the Son and Holy Ghost were inferior to the Father.
    Contrary to Catholic dogma of consubstantiality.
  7. Unitarianism (post-Reformation): Denies the Trinity altogether.
    Still influential in some sects today.

These heresies arose not merely from ignorance, but from rationalistic attempts to reduce divine mystery to human comprehension. As St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote: “There is no degree in the Trinity; all are coequal, coeternal, consubstantial.”⁵

Conclusion: Unity in Mystery
The mystery of the Trinity is not a dead formula but a living reality—God’s own inner life into which we are invited through grace. While the Filioque remains a wound in East-West relations, there is growing recognition that the division may be more historical and ecclesial than dogmatic.

As Pope Benedict XVI once said, “Where there is shared faith, there is hope for reconciliation.” And as the Church Fathers taught, fidelity to the Trinity is fidelity to the very nature of divine love: unum in essentia, trinum in personis—one in essence, three in Persons. 🔝

  1. St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 31.14
  2. Council of Florence, Laetentur caeli, July 6, 1439 (Denzinger 1300)
  3. St. Augustine, De Trinitate, XV.17.29
  4. Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit (1995)
  5. St. Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book II

Apostolate Guidance Handouts

ORA Formation Guide
Give me that old time religion
Hosting Mass at home
Guidance on attire
Catechesis for hosts of Domestic and Chapel Masses
Chapel Welcome Team Sheet

The Feast of Corpus Christi in the Traditional Latin Rite

The Feast of Corpus Christi, celebrated on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, stands as one of the most theologically rich and devotionally profound feasts in the traditional Roman Rite. Instituted in the 13th century, it is the Church’s solemn public thanksgiving and adoration of the Real Presence of Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament. In the Tridentine liturgy, this feast is marked by sublime liturgical expression, deeply rooted in doctrinal precision, and celebrated with particular solemnity in both the Mass and the Procession.

Historical and Liturgical Origins
Corpus Christi owes its origin to the Eucharistic vision of St. Juliana of Liège, and its universal institution by Pope Urban IV in 1264 with the bull Transiturus de hoc mundo. The pope commissioned the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, to compose the Office and Mass of the feast, resulting in some of the most exquisite hymns of Eucharistic devotion in the Church’s treasury—Pange lingua, Lauda Sion, Adoro te devote, Verbum supernum, and Sacris solemniis.

Dom Prosper Guéranger, in his monumental Liturgical Year, notes that “the Holy Eucharist is the mystery of faith; it is the miracle of love… and therefore the Church, after celebrating the glory of the Blessed Trinity, hastens to pay homage to the mystery which flows from It.”¹ Corpus Christi, then, is a doctrinal feast that both proclaims the truth of the Real Presence and draws the faithful into acts of profound adoration.

Structure of the Traditional Liturgy
The Mass of Corpus Christi in the Tridentine Rite is framed around the theme of sacrificial worship. The Introit, Cibavit eos, taken from Psalm 80, proclaims: “He fed them with the finest wheat, and filled them with honey from the rock.” This antiphon is both literal and mystical—a declaration of Christ’s nourishing presence in the Eucharist.

The Epistle (1 Cor. 11:23–29) contains St. Paul’s apostolic account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist, warning of the danger of unworthy reception. The Gospel (John 6:56–59) includes the Lord’s words on eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood—passages that modernist theologians have too often allegorized, but which the traditional liturgy proclaims with unwavering literal faith.

Fr. Martin von Cochem, in his Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, emphasizes the harmony between Corpus Christi and the daily offering of the Mass: “What is here celebrated with great pomp is the same Sacrifice renewed each day on every altar—Christ present, Christ offered, Christ adored.”²

Lauda Sion and Eucharistic Doctrine
A unique feature of the Mass is the sequence, Lauda Sion Salvatorem, also composed by St. Thomas Aquinas. In this majestic hymn, the Church confesses the full doctrine of transubstantiation—“sub diversis speciebus, signis tantum, et non rebus,” under different appearances, mere signs, and not the reality of bread and wine remain.³ Fr. Pius Parsch calls Lauda Sion “a sung summa of Eucharistic theology,” where Thomistic clarity is married to liturgical poetry.⁴

The Procession and Public Witness
Following the Solemn Mass, the faithful participate in the Eucharistic Procession, a manifestation of the Church Militant adoring her Eucharistic Lord and claiming the world for Christ. The canopy, the incense, the ringing of bells, and the strewing of flowers all serve to honour the King hidden beneath the sacramental veils.

According to Fr. Leonard Goffine, the Procession “represents the journey of the Israelites through the desert with the Ark of the Covenant, and more so the journey of Christ through His Church until the end of time.”⁵ The faithful join in singing Pange lingua, culminating in the Tantum ergo before Benediction—another moment where doctrinal clarity and devotional intensity meet.

Spiritual Meaning and Devotional Invitation
The Feast of Corpus Christi, in the traditional rite, is not merely a theological celebration but a summons to Eucharistic life. As Fr. Johannes Baur puts it: “The Body of Christ is not only to be adored but to be received worthily, to transform us into Him Whom we worship.”⁶ The very structure of the liturgy presses upon the soul this dual call: reverent adoration and sanctifying communion.

In the modern context of Eucharistic neglect and irreverence, the traditional Latin Rite’s observance of Corpus Christi stands as a necessary corrective. It unites catechesis, worship, and witness in one glorious outpouring of the Church’s love for her Eucharistic Lord. 🔝

  1. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year: Time after Pentecost, Volume I (Fitzwilliam: Loreto Publications, reprint), p. 238.
  2. Fr. Martin von Cochem, Explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (TAN Books, 1896), p. 303.
  3. Lauda Sion Salvatorem, Sequence for Corpus Christi, lines 31–32.
  4. Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, Vol. 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1953), p. 288.
  5. Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year, 1875 English edition, Corpus Christi entry.
  6. Fr. Johannes Baur, The Light of the World: Liturgical Meditations (Herder, 1954), p. 357.

Guidance For Examination and Confession

Baptism and the Citizenship of Heaven: A Primer for Traditional Catholics
A guide to examining your conscience: recognising venial sin and repenting of it
A guide to examining your conscience: recognising mortal sin and returning to God
A Primer on Venial and Mortal Sins
The Sacrament of Confession Admonitions from the Saints and Theologians
The Healing Power of Confession a Remedy for the Soul Mind and Heart
How to Make a Good Confession: A Primer for Traditional Catholics

Forgotten Rubrics: The Seventh Candle

The Apostolic Flame in the Traditional Pontifical Mass
If you have ever attended a Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Traditional Roman Rite—or in certain reverent Novus Ordo celebrations—you may have noticed something unusual. On the high altar, there are not merely six candles. A seventh candle stands in the center, just behind the crucifix. Its presence is deliberate, not decorative. What does it signify?

Six Candles: Fullness of the Priesthood
Traditionally, six altar candles symbolize the light of Christ radiating from His ordained ministers. They echo the Menorah of the Old Covenant, whose seven branches burned continually before the presence of God in the Temple sanctuary¹. In the New Covenant, these six lights evoke the ministerial priesthood, which, though real and effective, does not bear the plenitude of the apostolic office.

The Seventh Candle: Apostolic Presence
When a bishop—a successor of the Apostles—celebrates Mass, the Church in her liturgical tradition adds a seventh candle. This extra flame is a rich theological symbol. It proclaims that the Apostolic Church is visibly present. The bishop alone possesses the plenitude of the sacrament of Holy Orders; he governs, teaches, and sanctifies in the name of Christ, not merely by delegation but by divine institution².

The seventh candle, therefore, is not a privilege of personal rank, but a sacramental sign: the Apostle is among us.

Scriptural and Patristic Symbolism
This symbolism is deeply rooted in Scripture. In the Apocalypse, St. John sees seven golden candlesticks, which Christ explains are the seven churches (Apoc. 1:20). The bishop, as visible head of the local church, is the living image of this apostolic unity. He is a sign that Christ walks among His churches.

The Fathers also affirm the bishop’s central role. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: *“Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”*³

Positioned Behind the Crucifix
Why is the seventh candle placed behind the crucifix and not above it? Because the bishop is not superior to Christ. He stands at the altar not in his own name, but in persona Christi Capitis. His light is not his own; it is drawn from the light of the Cross. As the Crucifixion is the source of all priestly power, so too is it the source of episcopal authority.

A Rare Sign of Fullness
A simple priest does not light a seventh candle, for he does not bear the plenitudo potestatis. Only the bishop, who wears the ring of spiritual espousal and carries the pastoral staff, may rightly illumine the seventh light. It is a reminder of both apostolic authority and the heavy burden it carries: to teach the truth, govern with justice, and sanctify with holiness.

Conclusion: Heaven Touches Earth
Next time you see that seventh candle burning, pause. You are witnessing a mystery. The visible Church is gathered in her apostolic fullness. The bishop stands at the altar, not as a functionary, but as a successor of those whom Christ sent into the world. And in that sacred moment, heaven touches earth. 🔝

¹ Cf. Exodus 25:31–40; cf. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, vol. I, Advent, p. 325.
² Lumen Gentium, §21: “Episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, also the office of teaching and ruling…”
³ St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:2.

“This Is My Body”: The Forensic Consistency of Eucharistic Miracles and the Relics of the Passion

Visible Signs of an Invisible Mystery
Throughout her history, the Catholic Church has taught and believed that at every Mass, the bread and wine offered on the altar are truly changed into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This doctrine of transubstantiation, dogmatically defined at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545–1563), is not based on sensory evidence but on the words of Christ and the authority of the Church⁷. Nevertheless, in certain rare instances, the veil of the sacrament is momentarily lifted by divine intervention, and the Real Presence becomes manifest not only to the eyes of faith but to the senses and even to forensic analysis.

Such Eucharistic miracles, though exceptional, are well documented. They serve not to establish doctrine, but to confirm faith, especially in times of confusion, sacrilege, or disbelief. What is particularly striking is that in multiple cases, across different continents and centuries, the same anatomical, biological, and pathological features have been discovered in consecrated Hosts that have become visibly altered.

Recurring Forensic Features
The most consistent and scientifically examined Eucharistic miracles share a remarkable unity. Among the best documented are:

  • Lanciano, Italy (8th century): A Basilian monk doubting the Real Presence witnessed the Host turn into visible flesh and the wine into blood. Scientific analysis conducted in 1970 by Dr Edoardo Linoli revealed that the flesh was human myocardial tissue from the left ventricle, and the blood was type AB, containing all proteins normally found in fresh human blood¹.
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina (1996): A desecrated Host was stored in water to dissolve, in accord with liturgical norms, but later took on the appearance of bloody tissue. Analysis by Dr Ricardo Castañón Gómez found it to be human heart muscle, with living white blood cells, indicating vitality at the time of sampling⁴.
  • Sokolka, Poland (2008): A Host accidentally dropped during distribution was similarly stored to dissolve but later revealed red tissue. Two pathologists, Prof Maria Sobaniec-Łotowska and Prof Stanisław Sulkowski, determined that the tissue was living cardiac muscle that had fused with the structure of the bread³.
  • Tixtla, Mexico (2006): During a parish retreat, a Host began to exude a red substance. It was later confirmed by independent forensic examination to be human heart tissue from the left ventricle, rich in macrophages and leukocytes, again consistent with living tissue undergoing extreme stress⁶.

These cases all reveal:

  • Human cardiac tissue, specifically myocardium from the left ventricle¹²³⁴⁶
  • Blood type AB²⁴⁵⁶
  • Indicators of traumatic injury or agony¹³⁴⁶
  • Cellular vitality at the time of analysis, especially in Buenos Aires and Tixtla³⁴⁶
  • No detectable artificial insertion or tampering, and in the case of Sokolka, an unexplainable biological integration of the tissue with the Host³

Such convergence cannot be attributed to environmental factors, fraud, or local piety. It suggests a singular origin and meaning: the revelation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, sacrificed for mankind, truly present in the Most Holy Eucharist.

Correspondence with Relics of the Passion
What renders these findings even more significant is their striking match with ancient relics associated with Christ’s Passion, especially the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.

The Shroud of Turin, venerated as the burial cloth of Christ, bears the image of a crucified man consistent with Gospel descriptions. Forensic studies led by Dr Frederick Zugibe and Dr Baima Bollone confirmed that:

  • The blood on the Shroud is human and of type AB².
  • The stains show high concentrations of bilirubin, indicating trauma-induced blood degradation typical of torture and asphyxiation².
  • The image reveals wounds of scourging, crowning with thorns, crucifixion, and post-mortem piercing, consistent with Christ’s Passion.

The Sudarium of Oviedo, a linen cloth historically associated with Christ’s face in death (cf. John 20:7), also exhibits:

  • Human blood of type AB⁵
  • Blood and serum separation, confirming death by suffocation
  • Geometric congruence with bloodstains on the Shroud, indicating it covered the same person’s face after death⁵

The forensic correspondence between these relics and the Eucharistic miracles is profound:

FeatureEucharistic MiraclesShroud/Sudarium
Blood TypeABAB²⁵
Tissue TypeCardiac (left ventricle)Cardiac implications from stains²
Signs of TraumaInflammation, leukocytesBilirubin, scourge wounds²⁵
Tissue/Blood VitalityEvidence of living cells at samplingBlood separation at death²⁵

This biological coherence across centuries forms a pattern that is not only medically impressive but theologically consistent with the Catholic doctrine of sacrificial love, revealed in Christ’s Passion and perpetuated in the Holy Eucharist.

Theological Implications
The Eucharistic miracles do not establish new doctrine, but they illuminate the Church’s unchanging faith. That the Hosts reveal heart tissue, and that this tissue shows signs of agony and love, is a visible sign of the doctrine that the Eucharist is not merely the presence of Christ, but the presence of Christ crucified, offered anew in an unbloody manner on the altar.

The Council of Trent taught:

*“In the blessed sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”*⁷

In the Eucharist, we receive not merely Christ’s glorified presence but His Passion, as He continues to intercede for us as priest and victim. That the sacred tissue revealed in these miracles consistently comes from the left ventricle of the heart, the very source of blood and symbol of divine charity, recalls the words of Pope Pius XII in Haurietis Aquas:

“The Heart of Jesus is the chief sign and symbol of that love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all mankind.”

Conclusion
In an age marked by doubt, sacrilege, and forgetfulness of the sacred, these Eucharistic miracles, when faithfully interpreted, do not call for credulity but for reverence. They do not replace the doctrine of the Church, but reinforce it with visible witness. They invite us to return to the altar with renewed awe, and to recognise in the Sacred Host not a symbol, but the living, suffering, and glorified Lord.

The same Blood, the same Heart, the same agony—given in every Mass, that we might live. 🔝

¹ Dr Edoardo Linoli, Relazione Medico-Scientifica sul Miracolo Eucaristico di Lanciano, 1970.
² Dr Frederick Zugibe and Dr Baima Bollone, Shroud of Turin Forensic Studies, 1998–2002.
³ Prof Maria Sobaniec-Łotowska and Prof Stanisław Sulkowski, Histopathological Report on the Sokolka Host, 2009.
⁴ Dr Ricardo Castañón Gómez, Forensic Report on the Buenos Aires Host, 1999.
⁵ Dr M. Whiting, Forensic Study of the Sudarium of Oviedo, Spanish Centre for Sindonology, 2001.
⁶ Diocesan Commission Report on the Eucharistic Event at Tixtla, Diocese of Chilpancingo–Chilapa, 2013.
⁷ Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter IV; cf. Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae, §1374.
⁸ Pope Pius XII, Haurietis Aquas, 1956, §54.

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Israel and Iran on the Brink: War Erupts Amid Years of Escalating Tensions

Direct conflict between Israel and Iran has erupted after decades of covert warfare and proxy entanglements, as Israel launched an unprecedented aerial assault deep into Iranian territory, striking nuclear and military facilities. Iran has responded with force, triggering fears of a regional conflagration.

Operation Rising Lion: Israel’s High-Stakes Offensive
In the early hours of 13 June 2025, Israel deployed nearly 200 aircraft in what it dubbed Operation Rising Lion, launching coordinated strikes against approximately 100 sites across Iran. Among the targets were the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities, IRGC bases, missile depots, and suspected command-and-control centres. Initial reports confirm the deaths of several high-ranking Iranian military officials, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) chief Hossein Salami and General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s top military commander¹.

These are among the most significant military casualties suffered by Iran in decades. Israel has not officially confirmed its targets, but IDF sources have briefed that the strikes were intended to cripple Iran’s nuclear weapons capability and disrupt the IRGC’s regional operations.

Iran’s Response: ‘A Declaration of War’
The Iranian government swiftly condemned the attacks, calling them a “declaration of war” and vowed a “severe and decisive” response². Within hours, Tehran launched over 100 drones and ballistic missiles toward Israeli targets, most of which were intercepted by Israel’s advanced Iron Dome and Arrow defence systems. Iran has also begun mobilising its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, heightening the risk of a multi-front escalation.

U.S. and International Reaction
Washington confirmed it had prior warning of the Israeli operation but denies direct involvement. President Harris called for restraint, stating: “The United States supports Israel’s right to self-defence, but urges all parties to avoid regional escalation.” Meanwhile, European capitals have urged urgent diplomatic intervention. A joint statement from the UK, France, and Germany urged the UN Security Council to convene “without delay”³.

Oil prices spiked by over 7% following the strikes. Major airlines rerouted flights away from Iranian and Israeli airspace, citing fears of further attacks. Tel Aviv and Tehran remain on high alert, with emergency measures in place.

From Cold Conflict to Hot War: Historical Background
Hostilities between Iran and Israel have long simmered below the surface. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s regime designated Israel the “Little Satan” and severed all diplomatic ties. Since then, both nations have engaged in decades of proxy conflict: Iran through Hezbollah, Hamas, and Shi’a militias across the region; Israel through cyber-operations, covert assassinations, and precision strikes against Iranian assets in Syria.

Previous flare-ups have included:

  • April 2024: Iran launched a massive drone and missile barrage dubbed Operation True Promise. Israel intercepted most projectiles and responded with limited retaliation against radar sites near Natanz⁴.
  • October 2024: Israel conducted Operation Days of Repentance, targeting Iranian military infrastructure in Iraq and Syria, as Iran resumed uranium enrichment at nearly weapons-grade levels⁵.

But until now, direct strikes on Iranian soil — particularly on nuclear facilities and top leadership — have been avoided. This marks a fundamental escalation.

Theological and Geopolitical Stakes
The conflict pits two competing visions of regional order. For Iran, the resistance axis (through Hezbollah and others) serves its apocalyptic Shi’a theopolitical worldview. For Israel, nuclear Iran is an existential threat — one it has vowed repeatedly to confront if diplomacy fails.

Many analysts note that the Iran-Israel struggle increasingly defines the strategic fault lines of the Middle East. Sunni Arab regimes, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have grown closer to Israel through shared concern over Tehran’s ambitions. The Abraham Accords have further isolated Iran diplomatically, while China and Russia continue to court Tehran as a counterweight to Western influence.

A Broader Conflict Looms
What happens next is uncertain. Both sides have suffered losses, and mutual deterrence may still hold. But if Iran activates its proxies or if further Israeli strikes provoke internal Iranian destabilisation, the region could unravel.

The Church calls for prayers for peace and for the protection of innocents caught between empires. The Holy See has issued a statement urging immediate diplomatic efforts, “lest the smoke of missiles obscure the light of reason and justice.” 🔝

¹ The Times (London), “Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear programme and kills General Bagheri,” 13 June 2025.
² The Guardian, “Iran calls Israeli strikes ‘a declaration of war,’” 13 June 2025.
³ Financial Times, “Israel takes its biggest gamble yet,” 13 June 2025.
⁴ The Pillar, “Operation True Promise: What Iran’s attack revealed,” April 2024.
⁵ AP News, “Israel targets Iranian military sites in Iraq, Syria,” October 2024.

Pope and Indian Bishops Mourn Victims of Air India Crash as UK Confirms British Casualties and Survivor

AHMEDABAD, 12 June 2025 — Pope Leo XIV and the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) have expressed profound sorrow and solidarity after the catastrophic crash of Air India Flight 171, which claimed the lives of at least 241 people shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad International Airport. The London-bound Dreamliner, laden with fuel for a transcontinental flight, exploded after failing to gain height, crashing into a densely populated residential zone.

In a statement released from the Vatican, Pope Leo XIV said he was “deeply saddened by the tragedy,” offering “heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of those who have lost their lives” and commending “the souls of the deceased to the mercy of the Almighty.”¹

The CBCI likewise called the crash “heartbreaking,” urging all Catholics and people of goodwill to pray “for the eternal rest of those who have died and for comfort to the bereaved.”²

Death Toll and Nationalities
The death toll officially stands at 241, including 181 Indian nationals (12 crew), 53 British nationals, and several others from Portugal and Canada. The aircraft, reportedly filled with fuel for over 7,000 miles, was unable to gain altitude and crashed into the compound of BJ Medical College, damaging multiple buildings and reportedly killing at least five medical students.³

Several multistory residential blocks were shattered and scorched in the explosion, adding to fears of further casualties on the ground.

British Response and the Sole Survivor
Among the passengers were 53 British nationals, many of them dual British-Indians. In a remarkable development, officials have identified Vishwash Kumar Ramesh, a 38-year-old British-Indian man, as the sole survivor of the crash. He was seated near an emergency exit and managed to escape before the fire consumed the wreckage. He is currently in hospital, reportedly conscious and communicating.⁴

The UK Foreign Office has activated a crisis centre, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer described the crash as “devastating,” assuring the families of victims that they will receive full consular support.⁵ Investigators from the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) have joined Indian and U.S. teams in examining the cause of the crash.⁶

King Charles III and Queen Camilla also released a statement expressing their sorrow and prayers for the victims and their families.⁷

Local Catholic Witness

Archbishop Thomas Macwan of Gandhinagar, who heads the Catholic Church in Gujarat, told CNA:

“There are no words to describe this tragedy. I went through the list of passengers and could identify the names of at least four or five Christians. There could be more, as surnames are common to different religions and only first names will reveal the identity.”⁸

He added that “the visuals of charred buildings at the crash site adds to fears of more deaths.”

Among those reported on the manifest was Vijay Rupani, former chief minister of Gujarat, though his fate has not yet been confirmed.

Prayers Amid Grief
The Catholic bishops concluded their statement with a message of hope and solidarity:

“We stand in solidarity with the victims and their families, and with all the rescue personnel working tirelessly at the crash site.”

As India and the international community mourn, the Church joins in commending the victims to the mercy of God, praying for healing and peace. 🔝

¹ Pope Leo XIV, Message of Condolence, 12 June 2025.
² Statement of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, 12 June 2025.
³ CNA report; BJ Medical College casualty update, 12 June 2025.
⁴ The Guardian, “Briton is sole survivor of Air India crash,” 12 June 2025.
⁵ UK Prime Minister’s Office statement, 12 June 2025.
⁶ AAIB briefing, 12 June 2025.
⁷ Royal Family Communications Office, 12 June 2025.
⁸ Interview with Archbishop Thomas Macwan, CNA, 12 June 2025.

A Line in the Sand: Parliament Considers Full Abortion Decriminalisation in England and Wales

On Tuesday 17 June, Members of Parliament will consider one of the most extreme abortion measures ever proposed in the United Kingdom: the full decriminalisation of abortion for women, permitting the procedure up to birth for any reason, with no criminal penalties and without medical oversight. If adopted, this would amount to the effective abolition of all remaining protections for unborn children in English and Welsh law.

The key amendment, tabled by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi to the Criminal Justice Bill, seeks to repeal sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (sections 58 and 59), along with related provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, removing criminal liability for women who procure or perform their own abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

This would make England and Wales one of the most radically permissive jurisdictions on abortion in the world—outpacing even Canada, which has no gestational limit in law, but maintains regulated clinical oversight. In the UK, no such clinical requirement would remain for abortions carried out by the mother herself.

A Legacy of Legal Drift
Since the Abortion Act 1967, abortion has been legally permitted under certain medical grounds, initially constrained to 28 weeks’ gestation, and later reduced to 24 weeks under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Crucially, abortion remains a criminal offence in the UK unless carried out under those legal parameters. The 1967 Act provides doctors with a defence from prosecution—not a general right to abortion.

While prosecutions have been rare, the criminal law still serves an important purpose: deterring late-term or unsafe abortions and protecting the life of the viable unborn child. Under the proposed change, all criminal penalties would be removed for women, even for self-induced abortions at full term, with no requirement for medical supervision, assessment of gestational age, or inquiry into coercion, abuse, or sex-selection.

Supporters of the amendment claim it will “modernise” the law and protect women from punishment. But critics argue it will dismantle the last legal recognition of unborn life, render viable children unprotected, and expose vulnerable women to greater exploitation and danger.

Medical and Legal Warnings
Hundreds of doctors, nurses, and midwives sounded the alarm last year when a similar amendment was tabled by Labour MP Diana Johnson. Their open letter to MPs warned:

“If offences that make it illegal for a woman to perform her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth for any reason including abortions for sex-selective purposes, as women could mistakenly or wilfully mislead abortion providers about their gestational age.”¹

They further cautioned against the grave health risks to women posed by self-administered late-term abortions. A government review of abortion data between 2017 and 2021 found that:

“The complication rate for medical abortions that happen in a clinical setting is 160 times higher for abortions at 20 weeks and over compared with those under 10 weeks.”²

Without legal boundaries, women—especially those under duress, in abusive relationships, or subject to trafficking—would have no external protection or accountability. Providers would have no mandate to investigate red flags. Pro-life commentators have described the proposals as a form of abandonment, not liberation.

Polls Defy the Narrative
Contrary to abortion lobby claims, public opinion in the UK remains firmly against decriminalising abortion to birth. A May 2025 nationally representative poll commissioned by SPUC and conducted by Whitestone Insight found:

  • Only 5% support abortion up to birth
  • 60% oppose abortion on demand at any stage for any reason
  • 53% oppose abortion when the child could survive outside the womb
  • 64% believe abortion is a matter of life and death and that the law should reflect that
  • 46% support reducing the 24-week limit
  • 62% support retaining abortion as a criminal offence in some cases
  • 58% believe the cost-of-living crisis pressures women into abortions they don’t truly want³

These figures reflect consistent trends across several years of polling. A ComRes survey commissioned in 2019 showed that 70% of women supported lowering the gestational limit from 24 weeks. A Savanta poll in 2023 showed that only 1% of British women favoured extending the time limit to birth⁴.

An Ideological Agenda
The push for decriminalisation stems not from medical necessity but from ideological activism. Major abortion providers such as BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) have long lobbied for “abortion on demand, for any reason, up to birth.” BPAS CEO Clare Murphy said in 2022:

“We need to get abortion out of the criminal law altogether… the time has come to treat it as we would any other form of healthcare.”⁵

But abortion is not like other healthcare procedures. It uniquely involves the taking of innocent human life. Stripping it of all legal gravity trivialises its moral and medical seriousness—and leaves both women and unborn children at risk.

The Catholic Response
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has not yet issued a public statement on this particular amendment. However, numerous bishops including the Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate and Catholic lay organisations—including the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), CitizenGO, and March for Life UK—have called upon Catholics to contact their MPs and attend the protest in Westminster on 17 June.

Archbishop John Wilson of Southwark, writing in 2023 on related legislative threats, warned:

“There can be no true progress in a society that ignores the rights of the most vulnerable. Our moral duty is to protect life from its very beginning to its natural end.”⁶

A Way Forward
This is not merely a political matter but a profound question of moral anthropology. What does it mean to be human? Does viability grant protection? Is abortion a right—or a grave injustice cloaked in euphemism?

If Parliament accepts this amendment, it will mark a point of no return—a declaration that unborn life has no legal value, and that women may be left to endure trauma, coercion, and medical harm without recourse.

Pro-lifers are calling on all people of good will to:

  • Sign the petition hosted by SPUC and CitizenGO
  • Contact your MP and express your opposition to the decriminalisation amendment
  • Attend the demonstration in Westminster on Tuesday, 17 June, if at all possible
  • Pray and offer penance for the conversion of our nation and its lawmakers

As Pope Benedict XVI once stated, “A society is judged by how it treats its weakest members.” By that standard, the soul of Britain stands at the edge of a precipice. 🔝

¹ Open Letter from Healthcare Professionals to MPs on Decriminalisation of Abortion, 2024
² UK Government Complications Review, 2017–2021, Department of Health and Social Care
³ Whitestone Insight Polling for SPUC, May 2025
⁴ ComRes Survey, January 2019; Savanta ComRes for The Telegraph, July 2023
⁵ BPAS Statement, BBC Radio 4, Woman’s Hour, 2022
⁶ Archbishop John Wilson, Statement on the Value of Life, August 2023

Carlo Acutis to Be Canonized: Pope Leo XIV to Declare First Millennial Saint on 7 September

Pope Leo XIV has announced that Blessed Carlo Acutis will be canonized a saint of the Catholic Church on Sunday, 7 September 2025, marking a historic first: the Church’s recognition of a millennial as a canonized saint. Acutis will be canonized alongside Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati, symbolically uniting two lay witnesses of sanctity across generations.

A Saint for the Digital Age
Born in 1991 in London and raised in Milan, Carlo Acutis is often called “God’s influencer” for his deep devotion to the Eucharist and his pioneering use of the internet to evangelize. By the age of 11, he had built a website cataloguing Eucharistic miracles around the world—an effort that combined technical brilliance with theological depth¹.

Acutis died at age 15 in 2006 from fulminant leukemia. His cause for canonization was opened in 2013, and he was beatified by Pope Francis in Assisi in 2020 following the recognition of a miracle involving the healing of a Brazilian boy with a rare pancreatic disease².

In a speech to pilgrims earlier this year, Pope Leo XIV praised Acutis as “a sign that sanctity is possible in every age—even in ours, amid screens and social networks,” urging young people to “live online with the same integrity with which the saints lived in the world.”

The Second Miracle
In May 2025, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Causes of Saints confirmed a second miracle attributed to Acutis: the inexplicable recovery of a 21-year-old Costa Rican woman following a catastrophic brain injury sustained in a bicycle accident in Florence in 2022. According to medical documentation, she awoke from a coma days after her mother prayed at Acutis’s tomb in Assisi³.

This second miracle cleared the final hurdle for canonization.

Frassati and Acutis: Two Lay Apostles United
Pope Leo XIV also confirmed that Acutis will be canonized together with Pier Giorgio Frassati, a 20th-century layman known for his charity and devotion to the poor. Frassati died in 1925 at the age of 24, and was beatified by John Paul II in 1990, who called him “the man of the Beatitudes.”⁴

The joint canonization will underscore the holiness of lay life, especially among the young—a message Pope Leo has emphasized repeatedly since his election in April.

A Delayed Celebration Rescheduled
Acutis’s canonization had originally been planned for 27 April 2025 to coincide with the Jubilee of Teenagers during the Holy Year. However, the sudden death of Pope Francis on 21 April 2025 delayed the ceremony. Pope Leo XIV, elected just days later, recommitted to the canonization and set the new date during a June meeting with cardinals and Vatican officials⁵.

Significance and Anticipation
The 7 September canonization is expected to draw tens of thousands of young Catholics to St Peter’s Square. For many, Acutis represents a bridge between faith and modern life: a teenager who enjoyed video games, Pokémon, and social media, yet pursued daily Mass, Eucharistic adoration, and selfless charity.

His mother, Antonia Salzano Acutis, told reporters she hopes her son’s life inspires “a generation that does not fear holiness.”

The Church’s recognition of Carlo Acutis stands as a powerful affirmation: sainthood is not reserved for the past. It is alive, relevant, and within reach—even in a digital age. 🔝

¹ See: “Who was Carlo Acutis, the Italian teen set to become the first millennial saint?”, Times of India, June 13, 2025.
² “First millennial saint: Carlo Acutis to be canonized Sept. 7,” AP News, June 13, 2025.
³ Ibid.
⁴ “Pope Leo to canonize Carlo Acutis and Pier Giorgio Frassati,” Reuters, June 13, 2025.
⁵ Ibid.

Vatican-China Relations Shift: Pope Leo XIV Appoints Underground Bishop as Auxiliary with Beijing’s Approval

In what may signal a new phase in the uneasy détente between the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China, Pope Leo XIV has appointed Bishop Joseph Lin Yuntuan — a formerly unrecognized “underground” bishop — as auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Fuzhou. Notably, the appointment originated in Rome and was subsequently accepted by Beijing, reversing the usual sequence under the controversial 2018 Vatican-China agreement.

An Unprecedented Development
The Holy See announced the papal appointment on June 11, confirming that Pope Leo had signed it into effect on June 5. This timeline aligns with Beijing’s formal recognition of the bishop — a rare convergence between Rome and the Chinese Communist Party’s Religious Affairs authorities. According to senior mainland clerics cited by The Pillar, the appointment marks a noteworthy break from precedent, whereby the Chinese state typically names bishops first, with Rome offering ex post facto acknowledgment, if any.

One source framed the change memorably: “It was a case of the cat letting the mouse eat the grain this time.”

Bishop Lin’s Long Road to Public Office
Joseph Lin Yuntuan, now 73, was clandestinely consecrated a bishop in 2017. A product of the Fuzhou diocesan seminary, Lin has long served the faithful of the underground Church, particularly as apostolic administrator during leadership vacancies from 2003–2007 and 2013–2016. Despite his episcopal consecration, until this month he had held no recognized office in either the eyes of the state or the Vatican’s official records.

Fuzhou has been a flashpoint in the fraught ecclesial landscape of China. After the 2018 provisional agreement, many of its clergy and faithful rejected state control via the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA). Archbishop Peter Lin Jiashan — Lin Yuntuan’s predecessor but not relative — was similarly an underground bishop who was only accepted by the state in 2020, ten years after his appointment by Pope Benedict XVI. Jiashan died in 2023.

A Papal Move, Not a Political One?
Archbishop Joseph Cai Bingrui, who succeeded Jiashan in January, reportedly requested the appointment of an auxiliary bishop. Sources suggest that Cai, considered acceptable to local state officials, persuaded them to approve Lin’s appointment — indicating that the papal decision may have been shepherded through by local goodwill rather than negotiated from Rome.

If this is indeed a Vatican-driven initiative rather than a concession to Beijing’s authority, it may point to a shift in strategy under Pope Leo XIV, who is widely viewed as less ideologically aligned with the Vatican Secretariat of State’s conciliatory approach to China than his predecessor. Whether this shift is systemic or symbolic remains to be seen.

Contrast: The Xinxiang Controversy
The Lin appointment comes in stark contrast to the April 29 unilateral “election” of Fr. Li Janlin as bishop of Xinxiang during the sede vacante. This was orchestrated entirely by the CPCA and occurred in defiance of canonical procedure and Roman oversight. The Vatican has issued no statement on Li, despite Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin’s claim that his name was approved by Pope Francis before his death.

This raises canonical tensions: Bishop Joseph Zhang Weizhu, the underground bishop of Xinxiang since 1991, remains unacknowledged by the Chinese government and under effective house arrest. His status — and that of many other underground bishops — remains a source of painful ambiguity for Chinese Catholics.

Looking Ahead
The Vatican-China agreement, renewed for another three years in October 2024, continues to be criticized for its opacity and apparent concessions. Nevertheless, Bishop Lin Yuntuan’s appointment may offer a modest but significant precedent: a canonical episcopal nomination by the Successor of Peter, accepted — rather than dictated — by the Communist state.

If replicated, this could point to a recalibration in the balance of ecclesiastical authority between Rome and Beijing. Yet the Church in China remains a divided body: underground bishops remain imprisoned or unrecognized, and state-backed “bishops” often operate in spiritual and doctrinal ambiguity.

Whether Pope Leo’s move signals the beginning of a firmer papal hand or a momentary exception remains to be tested — not least in the hearts and minds of China’s long-persecuted Catholic faithful. 🔝

  1. The Pillar, “Leo names underground bishop as auxiliary, Beijing agrees,” June 11, 2025.
  2. Vatican Press Office, Bollettino 11/06/2025.
  3. “China’s State-Sanctioned Bishops and Rome’s Silence,” AsiaNews, April–May 2025.
  4. Pope Benedict XVI, Letter to Chinese Catholics, 2007.
  5. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, interview with Avvenire, May 2025.
  6. “Who is Bishop Joseph Zhang Weizhu?”, Catholic World Report, June 2025.

‘We Will Take the Beauty for as Long as We Can Have It’: Young Catholics, Priests, and Public Push Back Against Charlotte’s Latin Mass Restrictions

The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) in Charlotte, North Carolina, has received a temporary reprieve—but not a permanent solution. On June 3, Bishop Michael Martin announced a delay in implementing diocesan restrictions that would have suppressed the ancient rite in parish churches, consolidating it instead into a single non-parochial chapel. The decision, which postpones the directive from July to October 2, came amid vigorous grassroots and clerical protest—and has left the faithful both relieved and wary.

The Announcement and Its Immediate Effect
Bishop Martin’s original May 23 policy aligned with the Vatican’s Traditionis custodes (2021), restricting the celebration of the usus antiquior to designated locations. The plan would have ended TLM in four parishes, relocating it to a single chapel with two permitted Sunday Masses. His reversal, announced after widespread outcry, extended the timeline to the date when the current Vatican dispensation expires.

“It’s really great that our bishop is very involved in the diocese and is among the people and seems to have been listening,” said Patrick Gallagher, 20. “We are just relieved that our bishop is listening to us.”¹ Others, like 24-year-old Augusta Westhoff, described the moment with cautious gratitude: “I just had so much joy and gratitude to God that we are able to attend Latin Mass for at least a few more months.”²

Young Voices, Lingering Doubts
While many young Catholics were encouraged by the delay, most remain skeptical about the bishop’s ultimate intentions. “I certainly hold no hope that the bishop will support the faithful in requesting an additional extension from Rome,” said Filumena Martin, 29.³ Gallagher added, “The people I have talked to all feel like he does not want the Latin Mass in his diocese.”⁴

Michael Kissam, a layman who attends both forms of the Roman Rite, agreed: “At the end of the day, the statement does not reverse the intention of Bishop Martin’s original statement. It is a pause… but I fear… we are going to repeat this again in September.”⁵

Priests and Pastors Join the Appeal
Support for the Traditional Latin Mass has not come solely from the laity. Four pastors of affected parishes have formally urged Bishop Martin to reconsider, asking that he request a further dispensation from Rome. According to Catholic Culture, the priests warned that the proposed changes “marginalize and discriminate” against faithful Catholics, and invited the bishop to engage directly with Latin Mass communities.⁶

This pastoral intervention gives added weight to lay concerns, revealing that tensions are not limited to a “young trad” demographic but are also shared by clergy tasked with shepherding these communities.

The Leaked Liturgical Norms and Further Disquiet
The controversy intensified with the leak of draft diocesan liturgical norms. According to America Magazine and OSV News, the document proposed restrictions on Latin usage, the elimination of altar rails, and the normalization of Communion in the hand—proposals interpreted by many as a further attempt to reshape liturgical identity in the diocese. The diocese responded by stating that the norms were under internal review and not yet promulgated.⁷

Still, traditionalists reacted with alarm. “To imply that Catholics were sitting in Mass like dumb animals… is bonkers. And kind of insulting,” one lay commenter noted.⁸

A Broader Survey of Catholic Opinion
The situation in Charlotte reflects a growing tension across the Church. A First Things analysis noted that 69% of American Catholics support continued access to the TLM, and 76% believe those who prefer it should be accommodated. Only 21% think its adherents harm Church unity.⁹ This data challenges the narrative that traditionalists are divisive or marginal, revealing instead a majority who favour liturgical plurality.

Strategic Delay or True Listening?
Some see the delay as a political calculation rather than a pastoral concession. Gallagher remarked, “I think that moving the deadline… may be an attempt for Bishop Martin to get some of the heat off of his back.”¹⁰

Others, like Westhoff, interpret it as an opening: “It seems many Church leaders may be awaiting instruction from Pope Leo XIV… we will pray fervently that our new pope brings true unity through restoration of the Latin Mass.”¹¹

A satirical take from the Bellarmine Forum condemned the diocese’s communications strategy as “patching a stained-glass window with tape,” and likened the public messaging to crisis PR rather than episcopal leadership.¹²

Conclusion: Not a Goodbye—Yet
For now, the faithful in Charlotte continue to attend the Mass of Ages—but under a cloud of uncertainty. “We will take the Latin Mass for as long as we can because it’s really good and beautiful and I love attending it,” Gallagher said.¹³

But many remain on alert, fearing that October will bring the final blow to their parish celebrations of the TLM—unless either the Vatican, or their bishop, has a further change of heart. 🔝

  1. Jack Figge, The Pillar, June 6, 2025.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Catholic Culture, “Charlotte priests urge bishop to reconsider,” June 7, 2025.
  7. America Magazine, “Leaked liturgical norms in Charlotte spark backlash,” June 2025.
  8. Rorate Caeli, user commentary thread, June 2025.
  9. First Things, “Bishop Martin is Out of Touch,” June 2025.
  10. Figge, The Pillar, June 6, 2025.
  11. Ibid.
  12. Bellarmine Forum, “Latin Mass in Charlotte and the PR Catastrophe,” June 2025.
  13. Figge, The Pillar, June 6, 2025.

Resignation of Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke: A Quiet Reproach of the Synodal Path

On 8 June 2025, Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke, O.S.B., quietly submitted his resignation from the Diocese of Eichstätt, Bavaria—five years before reaching the customary age of retirement. His stated reasons, “inner fatigue” and doubt over the spiritual fruitfulness of the German Church’s current direction, offer a subdued but striking commentary on the crisis afflicting German Catholicism.

Monk, Bishop, Pastor
Born on 20 July 1954 in Elsendorf, Lower Bavaria, Gregor Hanke entered the Benedictine Abbey of Plankstetten in 1972 and made his solemn profession five years later. He was ordained a priest in 1981 after theological studies at the University of Salzburg and the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt.¹ In 1993 he was appointed prior of the Abbey, becoming abbot a year later. His early leadership was marked by a Benedictine emphasis on liturgical life and ecological stewardship of the Abbey’s extensive landholdings.

In October 2006, Pope Benedict XVI appointed him Bishop of Eichstätt, the youngest diocesan bishop in Germany at the time.² He took as his episcopal motto In Sapientia Christi—“In the Wisdom of Christ”—a phrase that would come to frame his final reflections on episcopal ministry.

A Difficult Episcopate
The Diocese of Eichstätt, home to Germany’s only Catholic university, has been the locus of several conflicts in recent decades. Hanke’s episcopate witnessed a damaging financial scandal involving overseas property investments, public disagreements with the university’s board over leadership appointments, and the continuing fallout of clerical abuse revelations. In 2024, he took a temporary leave due to surgery, a moment which appears to have crystallized his decision to withdraw from active episcopal governance.³

In his resignation letter to diocesan staff, Hanke wrote:

“I feel an inner fatigue… Given the upheaval and the decline, we are necessarily developing pastoral programs and concepts for the future. But to what extent is our ‘system’ of the Church in Germany proving spiritually fruitful?”⁴

His concern was not merely managerial. It was spiritual. Hanke questioned whether the Church’s current emphasis on structure, programming, and institutional identity had eclipsed the primacy of conversion and sanctity.

A Gentle Rebuke of the Synodal Way
Hanke was one of four diocesan bishops—alongside Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, Bishop Stefan Oster, and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer—to openly express misgivings about the Synodal Path (Synodaler Weg).⁵ The initiative, a joint project of the German Bishops’ Conference and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), has called for controversial reforms including same-sex blessings, lay participation in governance, and a re-examination of the male-only priesthood.

Without polemic, Hanke challenged whether such reforms respond to the Church’s deepest need. He cited Pope Francis’s 2019 Letter to the Pilgrim People of God in Germany, which urged a return to evangelization rooted in personal conversion and the freshness of the Gospel:

“The Pope provided inspiration for a spiritual path… He spoke of the ‘bite’ of the Gospel, which must be felt, and of the primacy of evangelization, which begins with evangelizing oneself.”⁶

In resigning, Hanke signaled his belief that renewal cannot be legislated through structures but must flow from sanctity, sacramental life, and fidelity to the Church’s supernatural mission.

Retiring to the “Second Row”
What sets Hanke’s resignation apart is its tone. He announced that he would no longer wear episcopal insignia or perform pontifical functions unless requested by his successor. He intends to live out his remaining years simply as Fr. Gregor, offering pastoral ministry in a non-episcopal role, before eventually returning to his monastic community.⁷

His decision echoes that of other European bishops who have resigned early due to “inner fatigue,” including Bishop Valerio Lazzeri of Lugano (2022), who resigned at 59, and Msgr. Ivan Brient of Rennes, who declined episcopal consecration citing burnout.⁸ Such gestures reflect not only the personal strain of ecclesiastical office in an age of upheaval but perhaps a deeper recognition of the limitations of bureaucratic models of reform.

Praise and Caution from Peers
Reactions to Hanke’s resignation were mixed. Bishop Georg Bätzing, chairman of the German Bishops’ Conference and leading proponent of the Synodal Path, thanked him for his “mediating position” amid controversy and acknowledged his “increasing difficulty” with the process.⁹ Christian Gärtner, chair of Eichstätt’s diocesan council, praised Hanke’s modesty and longstanding advocacy of time-limited episcopal service.¹⁰

The next Bishop of Eichstätt will be appointed through the 1924 Bavarian Concordat, a rare arrangement in which the cathedral chapter submits candidates to the Vatican and the Bavarian government retains a limited veto right.¹¹

A Sign for the Church in Germany
Hanke’s departure may be viewed not merely as a personal retreat but as a symbol of the tensions tearing through the German Church: between pastoral charity and structural reform, between faithfulness and novelty, between the sacramental and the procedural.

In leaving the “first row,” Bishop Hanke may have delivered his most enduring pastoral act—witnessing to the truth that the Church’s deepest renewal will come not from reinvention, but from recollection of her soul. 🔝

¹ Wikipedia, “Gregor Maria Hanke,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Maria_Hanke
² Vatican Press Office, Bollettino, October 2006.
³ CNA Deutsch, “Bischof Hanke tritt zurück,” June 8, 2025.
⁴ Bishop Hanke, Letter to Diocesan Staff, June 8, 2025.
⁵ CNA Deutsch, “Vier Bischöfe gegen Synodalen Rat,” Jan 27, 2023.
⁶ Pope Francis, Letter to the Pilgrim People of God in Germany, 29 June 2019.
⁷ Hanke, Letter, June 8, 2025.
⁸ Bishop Lazzeri, Resignation Statement, Diocese of Lugano, 2022; Msgr. Brient, Public Statement, Archdiocese of Rennes, 2022.
⁹ Bishop Georg Bätzing, Statement, German Bishops’ Conference, June 8, 2025.
¹⁰ Christian Gärtner, quoted in CNA Deutsch, June 9, 2025.
¹¹ Bavarian Concordat, Article 5, signed 29 June 1924.

The Collapse of Catholicism in Germany: Synodal Failure, Financial Crisis, and a Traditionalist Countercurrent

The Catholic Church in Germany is undergoing a profound and multi-dimensional crisis. Despite being one of the wealthiest national churches in the world, it is haemorrhaging members, witnessing an unprecedented collapse in vocations, and selling off church properties at an accelerating pace. The much-heralded “Synodal Way” has not reversed the decline—it may even have deepened it. Meanwhile, traditionalist seminaries under the SSPX and FSSP are quietly growing, offering a stark theological and demographic counterpoint.

Falling Membership and Revenue
In 2024, the number of Catholics in Germany fell below 20 million for the first time, standing at approximately 19.77 million—just 23.7% of the population¹. Over 321,000 left the Church that year, a decline slightly less than 2023 (402,694) and 2022 (a record 522,821)². The trend is unmistakable: German Catholicism is in demographic freefall.

Since membership determines participation in Germany’s Kirchensteuer (church tax), the financial impact is stark. While church tax revenue nominally peaked in 2022 at €6.85 billion, inflation-adjusted figures show it was already in decline. In 2023, income fell by nearly €330 million to €6.51 billion³—its lowest real value since 2011. With continued departures, the German bishops’ conference has projected that one-third of church properties—up to 40,000 buildings—may be decommissioned or sold by 2060⁴.

The Synodal Way’s Unfulfilled Promise
The Synodal Way, launched in 2019 and concluded in 2023, was intended to rejuvenate the Church by promoting structural reform and democratization. It focused on issues such as women’s ordination, blessings for same-sex couples, and governance restructuring. But it has not brought renewal.

Pope Francis warned the German bishops in 2022 that the Synodal Way risked creating “parallel churches” and could sever unity with the universal Church⁵. Many German Catholics, however, appear more disillusioned than invigorated. Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German bishops’ conference, admitted that the record departures are “alarming” and show “the Church is in a wide-ranging crisis”⁶.

Ordinations Collapse Across the Dioceses
The vocations crisis is especially acute. In 2024, only 29 men were ordained to the diocesan priesthood across all of Germany⁷. That is a 76% drop from the 122 ordained in 2004. Eleven of the country’s 27 dioceses—including once-vibrant sees like Limburg and Münster—recorded zero ordinations this year. In the five East German dioceses, only two ordinations took place, both involving older men⁸.

Benedictine Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke of Eichstätt, who resigned in June 2025 citing “inner fatigue,” expressed grave concern about the spiritual fruitfulness of the Church in Germany, suggesting that structural reform alone cannot answer the deeper malaise⁹.

Parish Closures and Clerical Contraction
Alongside falling ordinations, parish closures are accelerating. From 2023 to 2024, the number of official parishes dropped from 9,418 to 9,291¹⁰. In Trier, Bishop Stephan Ackermann’s plan to consolidate 903 parishes into just 35 pastoral units has been described as a transformation of the Church’s presence in entire regions¹¹.

Church buildings, including heritage structures, are being demolished or deconsecrated due to lack of use. In Immerath, North Rhine-Westphalia, the town’s 19th-century church was demolished in 2018 after the congregation dwindled to fewer than 60¹².

Traditionalist Countercurrent: SSPX and FSSP
While the diocesan Church falters, traditionalist communities are quietly growing.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), which remains in full communion with Rome and offers the traditional Latin Mass, reported 201 seminarians in 2023—the highest number in its history—including 10 Germans¹³. Its Wigratzbad seminary remains a beacon for traditional vocations.

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), canonically irregular but influential, reported 268 seminarians and 707 priests globally as of June 2025¹⁴. Its German seminary in Zaitzkofen ordained two priests and three deacons in 2024¹⁵.

Theological clarity, reverence in worship, and resistance to doctrinal relativism are the main attractions for young men discerning vocations in these institutes. In contrast to diocesan structures marked by ambiguity and experimentation, these seminaries offer continuity with the Church’s liturgical and theological heritage.

Conclusion: A Fork in the Road
Germany’s national Church is in collapse. Reformist strategies centred on institutional democratization and accommodation to secular culture have failed to reverse decades of decline. Financial pressures, demographic implosion, and a crisis of priestly identity point to a bleak trajectory.

And yet, a small but resilient counter-movement persists. Traditionalist communities—however controversial—are bearing fruit where modernist initiatives wither. For many, they represent not nostalgia, but hope: a re-rooting of Catholic life in timeless worship and unambiguous truth.

The coming decades will reveal whether the Church in Germany doubles down on its failed strategies or learns from those quietly thriving on the margins. 🔝

¹ Statista, Membership of Catholic Church in Germany 2001–2024.
² DBK Jahresstatistik 2023 (German Bishops’ Conference).
³ Kirchensteuerbericht 2023, Finanzkommission der DBK.
⁴ Tagesschau.de, “Wie viele Kirchen in Deutschland künftig schließen müssen” (2023).
⁵ Vatican News, “Pope to German bishops: Synodal path must stay linked to the Church” (2022).
⁶ DBK Press Release, June 2024.
⁷ Katholisch.de, “Priesterweihen auf historischem Tief” (2024).
⁸ Domradio.de, June 2024.
⁹ Bistum Eichstätt, Presskonferenz, 8 June 2025.
¹⁰ DBK Jahresstatistik, 2024.
¹¹ Trierer Volksfreund, “Die neue Pfarrstruktur in Trier” (2022).
¹² Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, “Abriss der Immerather Kirche” (2018).
¹³ FSSP, Seminarians and Ordination Report, 2023.
¹⁴ SSPX.org, Global Statistics, June 2025.
¹⁵ SSPX Zaitzkofen, Ordinationsbericht 2024.

Poland’s Primate Removed from Abuse Commission Project Amid Internal Church Dispute

Commission now led by John Paul II postulator Bishop Sławomir Oder; Survivors and critics express doubt over renewed delays

At the close of their plenary session this week, the Polish bishops announced that Archbishop Wojciech Polak, Primate of Poland and chief delegate for the bishops’ child protection office, will no longer oversee the creation of an independent commission into clerical sexual abuse. In his place, they appointed Bishop Sławomir Oder, a canonist best known as the postulator for the canonization of Pope John Paul II.

The commission, first proposed in March 2023, had stalled for two years amid growing public and internal ecclesiastical tensions. While Polak supported a robust, independent investigation covering abuses by clergy from 1945 onward, his stance was reportedly opposed by several fellow bishops wary of its investigative scope and legal implications.

Survivors’ advocate Robert Fidura, who helped coordinate a landmark 2024 meeting between bishops and victims, remarked that the change signals a likely restart from scratch: “The slate has been wiped clean.” Journalist Tomasz Terlikowski, a frequent critic of the Church’s handling of abuse, was more scathing: “One of the few committed, knowledgeable, and truth-seeking hierarchs has been removed. This is a clear signal that the episcopate does not want the truth, does not want justice, does not even want ordinary human keeping of one’s word.”

Internal Legal Objections
In a development that may have precipitated Polak’s removal, the bishops’ legal council issued a damning February 2025 memo contesting the commission’s draft operating statutes. The council, in which Oder has served since March 2023, challenged both the form and scope of decisions taken in June 2023 to authorize the commission. They claimed the vote lacked procedural notice and that the intended commission appeared more judicial than historical, potentially infringing on the Holy See’s exclusive authority over bishops.

Polak dismissed the council’s opinion as non-binding and denied that the commission was ever intended to interrogate bishops. Nevertheless, these criticisms laid the groundwork for a shift in leadership.

Oder’s Appointment and Plans
Speaking on June 12, Bishop Oder emphasized the need for “precision in legal formulations” and promised that his team would draw on lessons from foreign commissions to avoid past mistakes. He said that revised documents will clarify the commission’s mandate, structure, access to archives, and funding. However, no concrete timeline has been announced, nor have the new team’s members been named.

Oder’s legal credentials and proximity to the late Pope John Paul II—a figure increasingly scrutinized for his handling of abuse cases while Archbishop of Kraków—raise further questions about how independent and far-reaching this body will be. The timing of the original commission’s proposal in 2023 followed the release of a critical documentary alleging that Karol Wojtyła knowingly re-assigned abusive priests prior to becoming pope.

Broader Context
Poland’s bishops initially committed to a historical inquiry with access to both ecclesiastical and state archives, following the example of similar commissions in France, Germany, Portugal, and Spain. Yet the persistent delays and internal resistance have led many to suspect institutional foot-dragging.

A March 2025 plenary session had insisted that the commission remained necessary and would move forward. But this week’s decision suggests a significant retreat from the model envisioned by Polak. His five-year tenure as delegate for the bishops’ child protection office saw some steps toward greater accountability, including initiatives in victim support and transparency. His sidelining, however, may now stall momentum.

What happens next—and how much public trust can be salvaged—will depend not just on whether the commission is established, but on whether it is empowered to tell the full truth. 🔝

¹ Statement of the Polish Bishops’ Conference, Katowice, 12 June 2025.
² Robert Fidura, cited in press response, 12 June 2025.
³ Tomasz Terlikowski, Facebook/X commentary, 12 June 2025.
⁴ Legal Council Memorandum, Polish Bishops’ Conference, February 2025.
⁵ Oder, S., Press Conference, Katowice, 12 June 2025.
⁶ “Francuska komisja niezależna” et al., precedents in European episcopal abuse inquiries, 2019–2023.
⁷ Documentary: Franciszkańska 3, TVN24, March 2023.

Washington Bishops Sue Over Law Threatening Seal of Confession

A constitutional confrontation between Church and State has erupted in Washington, where the bishops of the three Catholic dioceses have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new law that would compel priests to violate the seal of the confessional under threat of civil penalty.

On 2 May 2025, Washington Governor Robert Ferguson signed into law legislation designating clergy as mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse and neglect—without exemption for sacramental confession. This final version of the bill, Senate Bill 5375, departed from earlier drafts by explicitly excluding priests from protections afforded to other confidential relationships, such as attorney–client or spousal communications.

The law is scheduled to take effect in July. Violations carry a penalty of up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine¹.

‘Temporal punishment or eternal damnation’
On 29 May, the Archdiocese of Seattle, the Diocese of Yakima, and the Diocese of Spokane jointly filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. They are joined by individual priests and represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, First Liberty Institute, and WilmerHale.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and Article I, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution². In particular, it accuses the state of:

  • Religious discrimination, by targeting clergy uniquely for exclusion from confidentiality protections;
  • Coercion, by forcing priests to choose between “temporal criminal punishment and eternal damnation”;
  • Interference, by intruding into the internal governance of the Catholic Church.

Jean Hill, Executive Director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, stated: “Confession offers the faithful a confidential space to seek God’s mercy and guidance. This trust is sacred, and any law that jeopardizes it risks discouraging those who recognize the harm they have caused from seeking moral guidance.”

The inviolable seal
The sacramental seal of confession, established in divine law and defended in canon law, is absolute. Canon 983 §1 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states: “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” A direct violation of the seal incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See³.

As such, no priest may comply with the law without risking eternal consequences. Washington’s bishops have declared they cannot and will not comply with the mandate, insisting that the law asks the impossible.

Disparate treatment under the law
The lawsuit highlights the statute’s discriminatory wording:

“Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication.”

While secular confidences are shielded—attorney–client, spousal, domestic partner—priests alone are denied this safeguard, an exclusion the bishops argue amounts to an unconstitutional targeting of religion⁴.

Ironically, the dioceses’ internal safeguarding policies already exceed those required by state law. Both clergy and lay employees must report any suspected abuse—except what is learned in sacramental confession, which remains protected by unbroken ecclesiastical tradition⁵.

Federal attention and broader implications
The U.S. Department of Justice announced on 5 May that it had opened an investigation into the law’s compatibility with the First Amendment. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated the department would evaluate whether Washington’s statute constituted “coercion of religious actors to violate core tenets of their faith”⁶.

Washington now becomes the first state to mandate reporting by clergy without any exception for the confessional. By contrast, most other U.S. states explicitly include such an exemption. In 2016, the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the seal of confession as immune from state compulsion⁷.

A test case for the soul of religious liberty
This case now stands as a major legal and moral test. If upheld, the law could undermine the Church’s sacramental discipline across the United States. If struck down, it may reassert the strength of constitutional protections for religious practice in the face of political pressure.

As Archbishop Paul Etienne and his fellow bishops await judicial response, one thing is certain: the sacramental seal is not negotiable. 🔝

¹ SB 5375, Washington State Legislature, 2025.
² Archdiocese of Seattle et al. v. State of Washington, filed 29 May 2025, U.S. District Court.
³ Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), can. 983 §1.
⁴ Becket Fund Press Release, 29 May 2025.
⁵ “Washington bishops sue over seal of confession,” CNA, 29 May 2025.
⁶ DOJ Religious Liberty Division Statement, 5 May 2025.
⁷ State v. Seal, Louisiana Supreme Court, 2016.

FBI Disseminated Anti-Catholic Memo to Over 1,000 Staff: Concerns Over Targeting of Traditional Catholics Deepen

Newly released documents reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation distributed an internal memo portraying traditionalist Catholic groups as potential domestic threats to over 1,000 employees before retracting the controversial document.

The Richmond Memo: A Wider Distribution Than Previously Known
The original memo, leaked in early 2023 from the FBI’s Richmond Field Office, identified so-called “Radical Traditionalist Catholics” (RTCs) as likely recruitment targets for “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists.” While the FBI swiftly rescinded the memo after public backlash, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Heritage Foundation has now revealed that 1,241 FBI employees received the document before its withdrawal¹.

Critics argue this shows a systemic failure within the Bureau, not just a local lapse in judgment. “The memo never should have been approved, distributed, or drafted,” said Mike Howell, director of the Heritage Oversight Project, which obtained the documents. He added that the sheer scale of distribution “makes it impossible to write this off as one rogue analyst.”

Misunderstanding or Malice? Bureau Scrutiny of Traditional Catholics
The memo described RTCs as those who “reject the Second Vatican Council” and adhere to “anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, and white supremacist ideology,” a generalisation many believe grossly misrepresents Catholic traditionalists. Catholic leaders, including Bishop Barry Knestout of Richmond and members of Congress, condemned the document as a serious threat to religious liberty².

At the heart of the memo was the linking of legitimate Catholic religious practice—particularly the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II teachings—with extremist ideology. The FBI even cited the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a source, an organisation long criticised for ideological bias and for labeling mainstream Christian groups as hate groups³.

Fallout and Broader Implications
While the FBI issued a retraction and claimed the memo did not reflect its institutional views, internal damage and public mistrust linger. A Congressional report released in August 2023 suggested the FBI had used surveillance tools to monitor Catholic churches and clergy under the guise of investigating extremism—a claim the Bureau denied, though it admitted to exploring “tripwire” informants within religious communities⁴.

This new revelation that over 1,200 employees received the memo raises renewed concerns about internal vetting procedures, ideological bias, and the potential for federal overreach into constitutionally protected religious spaces.

A Growing Pattern of Ideological Targeting?
This case is seen by many traditional Catholics as part of a broader cultural pattern. As theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski commented in the wake of the original memo, “What the memo revealed is not a legitimate security concern but a theological and liturgical prejudice masked in bureaucratic language.”⁵

Similarly, historian Tom Holland has warned of a creeping secular fundamentalism that regards orthodox Christianity as a cultural threat rather than a moral anchor⁶.

Conclusion
The disclosure that the FBI’s anti-Catholic memo reached such a large audience within the agency undermines prior claims of a localised misjudgment. It intensifies the call for accountability and greater transparency, especially as America’s Catholics—particularly traditionalists—navigate an increasingly hostile political and bureaucratic landscape. 🔝

¹ Heritage Foundation FOIA request results, as reported in Ground News, 12 June 2025.
² Bishop Barry Knestout, Statement on FBI Memo, Diocese of Richmond, February 2023.
³ SPLC report cited in the FBI memo, later criticised for ideological bias by National Review and First Things.
⁴ U.S. House Judiciary Committee Interim Report on FBI surveillance of Catholic groups, August 2023.
⁵ Peter Kwasniewski, Tradition and Treachery: How Bureaucracy Misreads the Faith, 2023.
⁶ Tom Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, Harper, 2019.

“The Monstrance Is a Monstrosity”: Public Mockery of the Eucharist and the Catholic Response

A Two-Front Assault on the Real Presence
Catholics across the United States are encountering a fresh wave of blasphemy and hostility toward the Holy Eucharist — not from legislatures or courts, but from streaming platforms and sidewalk agitators. In May and June 2025, two television shows aired scenes that mock the Blessed Sacrament with sacrilegious irreverence. Simultaneously, the National Eucharistic Pilgrimage has come under coordinated verbal assault from anti-Catholic protestors who have stalked pilgrims through multiple dioceses.

The convergence of these profanations signals more than media vulgarity or street theatre. They reveal a fundamental truth: the Eucharist still provokes, because the Eucharist still matters.

Media Desecration: From Sarcasm to Sacrilege
On May 24, Your Friends & Neighbors (Apple TV+) broadcast a scene in which a man enters a Catholic church, removes the ciborium from the tabernacle, mocks the Sacred Host as “crackers,” and distributes them to his ex-wife before initiating a sexual act on a pew¹.

On June 3, Hacks (HBO Max) featured a character irreverently receiving Communion and then splashing the Precious Blood on a priest’s vestments during a conflict².

CatholicVote responded with a public letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook on June 5, denouncing the broadcast and launching a petition that exceeded 350,000 signatures in 72 hours³.

Fr. Gerald Murray, pastor and canonist, called the Apple episode “a vicious and intentional attack” and said it reflected “a mindset of hatred and venomous contempt for God and the Church”⁴. Fr. Robert Sirico added that the scene, however absurd, demonstrated the enduring symbolic weight of the Eucharist: “They want to attack Christ, so they attack the Eucharist”⁵.

The Pilgrimage Confronted: Mockery on the March
Meanwhile, the 3,340-mile National Eucharistic Pilgrimage, which began in Indianapolis on May 18 and will conclude in Los Angeles on June 22, has been increasingly disrupted by organized protestors. Most visibly, members of the Church of Wells — a controversial sect based in East Texas — have followed the pilgrimage from Peoria through Oklahoma to Dallas⁶.

On June 4, protestors in Dallas shouted through bullhorns, carried children with inflammatory signs (“The monstrance is a monstrosity!”), and attempted to block parish entrances⁷.

“This is no longer incidental opposition,” said Jason Shanks, president of the National Eucharistic Congress. “They’re trying to bait Catholics into a viral video moment. But we’ve instructed pilgrims to keep their eyes on the Eucharist and ignore them”⁸.

Bearing the Cross in Silence
Despite the harassment, pilgrims report spiritual growth. “My heart hurts,” said Leslie Reyes-Hernandez on June 6. “But it draws me deeper into prayer”⁹.

Fellow pilgrim Ace Acuña described the experience as a living Passion: “I didn’t expect this. But I’ve never prayed more fervently. It’s like walking the Way of the Cross”⁹.

Bishops and Clergy Speak Out
Several bishops have condemned both the media mockery and the protestors’ disruptions. Bishop Thomas Paprocki stated plainly: “This is Satan doing his work through the false lens of ‘art.’ But he only attacks what is true. The Eucharist is Jesus”¹⁰.

Archbishop Thomas Wenski reminded Catholics that hostility toward Christ’s Sacramental Presence mirrors His earthly ministry: “This should not surprise us”¹¹.

Msgr. Charles Pope wrote, “Satan doesn’t mock Methodist wafers. He mocks what is holy, because he fears it”¹².

Reparation, Not Retaliation
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that reparation for sin and sacrilege is made through “prayer, an offering, works of mercy, voluntary self-denial, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross”¹³.

Anthony DeStefano echoed this call in militant terms: “When the Eucharist is mocked, we don’t wring our hands — we go to our knees. Not in surrender, but in defiance”¹⁴.

What Catholics Must Do

  • Make reparation: Organize Holy Hours, public Rosaries, and personal acts of penance.
  • Restore reverence: Encourage kneeling for Communion, Eucharistic Adoration, and silence in church.
  • Speak with clarity: Defend the Real Presence with words and actions.
  • Walk with Christ: Join the pilgrimage, spiritually or physically.

As Jason Shanks said when asked if families should still attend: “The protestors are bringing their children. And we’re bringing Jesus”⁸.

Conclusion: The Presence that Provokes
The world mocked Christ in the streets of Jerusalem; it mocks Him still in digital streaming and on suburban sidewalks. Yet He remains — in every tabernacle, in every procession, in every whispered “Amen.”

Let Catholics respond to mockery not with outrage, but with fidelity. Let us kneel before the monstrance, mocked though it may be — for there is Christ, truly present, truly exposed, truly adored. 🔝

  1. Your Friends & Neighbors, Apple TV+, Season 1, Episode 6, aired May 24, 2025.
  2. Hacks, HBO Max, Season 3, Episode 2, aired June 3, 2025.
  3. CatholicVote.org petition and letter, June 5, 2025.
  4. Fr. Gerald Murray, statement to National Catholic Register, June 11, 2025.
  5. Fr. Robert Sirico, interview with Register, June 11, 2025.
  6. Jack Figge, The Pillar, “NEC pilgrims face protestors,” June 5, 2025.
  7. The Pillar, ibid.
  8. Jason Shanks, quoted in The Pillar, June 5, 2025.
  9. Press conference, Reyes-Hernandez and Acuña, June 6, 2025.
  10. Bp. Thomas Paprocki, National Catholic Register, June 11, 2025.
  11. Abp. Thomas Wenski, ibid.
  12. Msgr. Charles Pope, ibid.
  13. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1459.
  14. Anthony DeStefano, Register, June 11, 2025.

The Time to Repent—or the Time to Manage? Fr. McTeigue’s Jeremiad on Vocations in America Contrasted with Global Trends

In a searing reflection on the collapse of priestly vocations and Catholic identity in the United States, Fr. Robert McTeigue paints a picture of institutional death masked by managerial optimism. His critique, trenchant and unrelenting, suggests not merely a personnel crisis but a spiritual one: a Church that no longer forms, attracts, or inspires its men.

Yet this American crisis does not look the same everywhere. While McTeigue outlines a Church in the West beset by apostasy, banality, and bureaucratic liturgy, Catholicism in the Global South—particularly in Africa and parts of Asia—shows markedly different signs. This expanded analysis will contrast McTeigue’s diagnosis with current global data and question whether the real division is not just geographic, but theological and anthropological.

McTeigue’s American Crisis
McTeigue locates the crisis of vocations in three principal failures:

  1. The destruction of the Catholic family, brought about by an uncritical acceptance of contraception, divorce, and economic structures hostile to traditional life.
  2. The desacralisation of worship, replaced by therapeutic moralism, insipid music, and effeminate liturgy incapable of inspiring masculine self-gift.
  3. The refusal to name past errors, particularly the failure of postconciliar reforms in catechesis, religious life, and priestly formation.

The result? Parishes shuttering, young men absent from seminaries, and bishops offering index cards in pews while sidestepping the hard questions of doctrine and culture.

The African and Asian Exception
Yet, while dioceses in Boston and Chicago declare bankruptcy, the seminaries of Nigeria and Vietnam are overflowing. Consider the following data points:

  • Nigeria now produces more vocations than nearly any country in the world. In 2023, the Diocese of Enugu had over 600 seminarians in formation—more than most entire countries in the West¹.
  • In Vietnam, despite government persecution, vocations remain strong and are growing in some dioceses. Families in rural areas frequently encourage priestly vocations as a mark of honor and sacrifice².
  • Uganda, home of the heroic St. Charles Lwanga and the martyrs, reports continued growth in both male and female vocations. The Church remains counter-cultural and robust³.

This begs the question: what accounts for the difference?

Culture, Worship, and Sacrifice
Where McTeigue sees tepid worship as inimical to male formation, global experience supports his thesis. Vocations flourish in communities that emphasize:

  • Strong family life, especially where traditional roles are respected and fatherhood is honored.
  • Reverent, beautiful liturgy, even where the Novus Ordo is celebrated, but done so with solemnity, chant, and seriousness.
  • A clear theology of the priesthood, not as a social worker or institutional manager, but as alter Christus—one who offers sacrifice on behalf of the people.

In much of Africa and Asia, Catholicism is embraced not as a diluted humanism but as a demanding religion that calls men to self-denial, leadership, and martyrdom if necessary.

European Data: A Warning
Conversely, the situation in much of Europe aligns closely with McTeigue’s American diagnosis:

  • In Germany, despite billions in Church tax revenue and an advanced bureaucracy, vocations have collapsed. In 2022, only 48 men were ordained in the entire country⁴.
  • In France, dubbed “the eldest daughter of the Church,” the number of diocesan ordinations in 2023 was 88, despite a population of over 65 million. The archdiocese of Paris—once a powerhouse—now often ordains fewer than 5 men a year⁵.

The difference? In these countries, the “synodal path” has been fully embraced, preaching inclusion, listening, and structural reform rather than penitence, doctrine, and conversion.

Latin America: A Divided Picture
Latin America presents a more complex picture. While still producing many vocations, especially in rural areas, countries like Brazil are witnessing serious declines. As liberation theology, Pentecostalism, and cultural secularism grow, priestly vocations falter. The Amazon region in particular—where the 2019 Synod suggested relaxing celibacy—has become a battleground over the very meaning of the priesthood.

What the Global Trends Confirm
Fr. McTeigue’s conclusion that young men are not inspired by therapeutic religion but by heroic sacrifice finds clear support worldwide. The data suggest:

  • Where family, liturgy, and doctrine are strong, vocations rise.
  • Where bureaucracy, ambiguity, and horizontalism dominate, vocations collapse.

This aligns with Pope Benedict XVI’s oft-repeated observation: “The world offers you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.”⁶

Conclusion: The Church Must Choose
Fr. McTeigue’s American Jeremiad is not an isolated lament, but a warning echoed by global experience. Where the Church proclaims Christ crucified, forms men in sacrifice, and worships with awe and reverence, she continues to bear fruit. Where she flatters the culture and forgets her supernatural mission, she dies.

If there is to be a revival of priestly vocations, the Church in the West must stop managing decline and begin preaching repentance—not because the Church is doomed, but because her mission is eternal, and her God is not mocked. 🔝

  1. Enugu Diocese Vocations Report 2023, Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria
  2. Vietnam Catholic Bishops’ Conference 2023 Statistical Yearbook
  3. Uganda Episcopal Conference Annual Report, 2023
  4. German Bishops’ Conference Vocations Summary 2022
  5. La Croix, “Ordinations en baisse,” June 2023
  6. Benedict XVI, Homily at the Inauguration of His Pontificate, April 24, 2005
YouTube player

USCCB Abuse Report 2024: Decline in Allegations, but Structural Problems Persist

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has released its latest annual report on the implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, covering the period from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024. Despite a noticeable decline in the number of abuse allegations since the post-McCarrick peak in 2019, the 2024 report reveals that the crisis of clerical sexual abuse—and its underlying cultural and theological dimensions—remains far from resolved.

902 Allegations, 717 Accused Clerics
A total of 902 new allegations of sexual abuse were reported by 855 survivors during the audit period, involving 717 clerics. This represents a significant drop from the 4,434 allegations reported in 2019, but remains a sobering figure. The majority of reports (61%) were submitted through attorneys, indicating a continued preference for legal intermediaries over ecclesiastical processes or pastoral outreach¹.

Current-Year Cases: A Minority, But Not Absent
Only 26 allegations involved abuse said to have occurred during the current reporting year. Of these, seven involved male minors, seventeen female minors, and two were of unspecified gender due to lack of detail². Just two cases were substantiated, while thirteen remain under investigation. Four were unsubstantiated, and four could not be proven. Notably, three cases were not reported to public authorities at the time of the audit³.

Credibility and Homosexual Abuse

Of the 902 allegations:

  • 7% were deemed credible
  • 5% unsubstantiated
  • 26% under investigation
  • 62% unable to be proven

More significantly, among allegations that were found credible:

  • 84% of those involving diocesan clergy and
  • 74% involving religious order members
    entailed same-sex abuse (i.e., male-on-male sexual misconduct)⁴.

This trend—long observed in previous reports—continues to challenge the post-conciliar narrative that frames the abuse crisis solely in terms of power and clericalism, ignoring the evident correlation with homosexual predation.

Financial Cost: Over $266 Million This Year Alone
The abuse crisis continues to exert a heavy financial toll on the Church in the United States. In the 2023–24 period, dioceses and eparchies paid out $242,799,401, including:

  • $163.1 million in settlements
  • $6.1 million in other payments to victims
  • $63.4 million in attorneys’ fees
  • $4.1 million in additional costs⁵

Religious institutes reported a further $23,565,150 in costs—likely an underestimate, given that only 64% of male religious institutes submitted data to the report⁶.

Since 2013, the total financial burden related to abuse claims has exceeded $2.28 billion, not including indirect costs such as declining trust, parish closures, and vocational attrition.

Child Protection Efforts Continue
On a more hopeful note, dioceses and religious orders together spent $36.5 million in 2023–24 on safeguarding programs and child protection initiatives⁷. These include safe environment training, background checks, and the work of diocesan review boards. Yet the marginalization of traditional Catholic teachings on sexual morality and the ongoing presence of dissent within seminaries and diocesan leadership undermine these otherwise sincere efforts.

Conclusion: Symptoms Treated, Causes Ignored
While the decline in current-year abuse cases reflects improved safeguards and perhaps some healing, the 2024 report underscores the unresolved root causes of the crisis: a loss of moral clarity, failures in seminary formation, and a culture of impunity in the episcopate. The persistence of same-sex abuse in substantiated claims demands renewed attention to the theological and spiritual dimensions of chastity and priesthood—areas largely neglected in the Charter’s implementation.

Without such reform, the Church in the United States risks managing the crisis administratively rather than confronting it prophetically. 🔝

¹ USCCB, 2024 Annual Report, p. 17.
² Ibid., p. 18.
³ Ibid., p. 19.
⁴ Ibid., p. 27.
⁵ Ibid., p. 31.
⁶ Ibid., p. 39.
⁷ Ibid., pp. 33, 41.

Beneath the Decline: Why the 2024 USCCB Abuse Report Should Not Reassure Too Quickly

The release of the 2024 annual report by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People reveals both progress and peril. At first glance, the numbers seem encouraging: a steep decline in abuse allegations, fewer current cases involving minors, and continued investment in safeguarding. But behind these metrics lies a sobering truth: the American Church risks mistaking administrative containment for authentic renewal.

A Crisis Shrinking—or Receding from View?
With 902 allegations reported in the most recent audit year—down from over 4,400 in 2019—many will rightly breathe a sigh of relief. But as CNA and Catholic World Report have observed, most of these new reports concern abuse that occurred decades ago. Over half of the clerics accused are deceased¹. This reality shifts the question: are there truly fewer abuses occurring, or has public reckoning merely run its course for the time being?

Complacency Is the New Threat
According to OSV News, a growing concern is institutional complacency². Diocesan review boards—critical instruments in vetting allegations—are not uniformly operational or transparent. Moreover, participation in mandatory safe environment training programs has decreased in some dioceses. These signs suggest that some bishops may interpret the statistical decline as a reason to scale back reforms, rather than deepen their commitment.

A Church that fails to be vigilant is a Church that invites repetition.

Clericalism is Not the Only Pattern
The 2024 report again confirms a critical—but often ignored—detail: among credible cases, 84% of diocesan clergy abuse and 74% in religious orders involved same-sex abuse³. Yet the USCCB, and most Catholic media, continue to avoid naming this reality, preferring a language of abstract “misconduct” or blaming “clericalism.” This intellectual evasion hinders authentic reform. Any genuine renewal must reckon not only with structural failures, but with moral and theological distortions—especially regarding sexuality, celibacy, and formation.

Accountability Must Extend to the Episcopate
One of the lingering scandals of the abuse crisis is the absence of episcopal accountability. As National Catholic Register and others have noted, the USCCB’s reporting system contains no direct mechanism for evaluating bishops’ performance in handling allegations, other than self-reporting and audits conducted by third-party firms paid by the dioceses themselves⁴.

This glaring deficiency undermines public trust. Survivors, families, and faithful clergy have long called for a system where bishops are not merely reviewers but reviewed. Pope Francis’s 2019 Vos Estis Lux Mundi has offered some structure for this, but implementation remains patchy and often opaque.

Survivors Need More Than Settlements
While financial compensation continues—$242.8 million by dioceses in 2023–24 alone—the report also notes that 1,434 survivors received pastoral or psychological care during the audit period⁵. This is commendable. But money alone cannot heal spiritual wounds. The Church must recommit to long-term accompaniment, truth-telling, and visible contrition.

Toward Reform Rooted in Holiness
If the Church hopes to emerge from this crisis purified, not merely less scandal-prone, it must renew its interior life: a return to holiness in the clergy, orthodoxy in teaching, integrity in governance, and justice for the wounded. Administrative reports, however necessary, are not substitutes for repentance. The true audit is not statistical but spiritual.

As one bishop recently told Nuntiatoria privately: “We cannot manage our way out of this crisis. We must be converted out of it.” 🔝

¹ Catholic World Report, “USCCB abuse report: Allegations and costs down,” June 10, 2025.
² OSV News, “Complacency is the next threat, not crisis,” June 11, 2025.
³ USCCB, 2024 Annual Report, p. 27.
⁴ National Catholic Register, “Credibility and oversight still lacking,” June 10, 2025.
⁵ USCCB, 2024 Annual Report, p. 20.

Pride and Apostasy at Canterbury: The Fall of a Sacred Trust — And Signs of Hope

The rainbow flag flew once more above one of the oldest Christian educational institutions in the world this June. The King’s School, Canterbury — founded in 597 by St. Augustine of Canterbury to bring the Gospel to the Anglo-Saxons — marked “Pride Month” by hoisting the banner of sexual revolution above its historic halls, nestled beside Canterbury Cathedral, the former seat of Catholic England.

The Rainbow Above Canterbury
That the school borne of England’s baptism now parades itself under the colours of disordered sexual ideology represents not only a local tragedy but a national one. Catholic theologian Gavin Ashenden, himself an alumnus of the school, mourns the capitulation: “Their morality is one that surrenders… the Christianity that has been celebrated in this place for over one and a half thousand years.”¹

As England forgets that June is traditionally consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the country’s once-Christian institutions now devote it to Pride — parades celebrating sin, not sacraments; ideology, not identity in Christ. The King’s School is not alone. Eton College and other prestigious schools now adopt the same programme of “inclusion,” publicly advancing what Ashenden rightly identifies as a “new pagan collectivism.”²

Canterbury Cathedral itself has not resisted the trend. In 2024, the Anglican dean, an openly homosexual clergyman, permitted multiple “silent discos” in the nave — including one on the Feast of the Assumption.³ The symbolism is unambiguous: sacred spaces, emptied of holiness, are repurposed for revelry in defiance of the Church’s moral witness.

A Wider Crisis: Middlesbrough’s Scandalous Apostasy
This capitulation is not confined to Canterbury. The Diocese of Middlesbrough, under Bishop Terence Drainey, offers perhaps the most egregious example of episcopal complicity in LGBT+ activism. In 2022, Bishop Drainey called for the Church to re-examine its teaching on “sexuality, gender and identity… in light of modern scientific discoveries and of the lived experience of people with different sexualities.”⁴

This agenda is now institutionalized in the diocese’s official LGBT+ Ministry, coordinated by Fr Tony Lester, whose April and May 2025 newsletters promote scandalous falsehoods and gender ideology. In April, Fr Lester celebrated “Brother” Christian Matson — a biological woman living as a man and styling herself the first “transgender religious.” Matson’s talk, advertised as “appropriate for the whole family,” was held up as a model of inclusion.⁵

In May, Fr Lester praised the activism of Maxwell Kusma, another biological woman identifying as a “transgender man,” who attacked the Vatican’s 2024 document reaffirming scientific reality and Church doctrine on sex and gender.⁶ Neither newsletter acknowledges the unambiguous biological and moral truths articulated in Catholic teaching:

“Sex is defined by how that organism is structured to function during the reproductive act… This is why sex is a binary trait.”⁷
“Intersex conditions are not additional sexes on a spectrum; they are rare disorders… not identities.”⁸
“Catholic health care services must not perform interventions… that aim to transform the sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex.”⁹

The Ministry’s chairman, Dr Johan Bergström-Allen — an openly homosexual layman — also called publicly on BBC Radio Five Live for the Catechism to be rewritten, arguing that Scripture and doctrine must be brought into line with “updated science.”¹⁰

A Wound in the Side of the Church
These distortions are not mere misunderstandings; they are organised campaigns to subvert Catholic moral teaching from within. The diocese’s leadership does not propose repentance or chastity, but affirmation and “celebration” of grave sin. Bishop Drainey’s silence in the face of heresy — and at times his explicit endorsement — is a wound in the side of the Church.

It is all the more tragic because it contradicts the clear and urgent witness of Pope Leo XIV. In his recent statement, the Holy Father affirmed that “harmonious and peaceful societies” depend on the family, founded on the union of man and woman — “a small but genuine society, and prior to all civil society.”¹¹

Faithful Catholics must therefore, in a spirit of charity and filial respect, resist these distortions. John Smeaton rightly exhorts the faithful to write to Bishop Drainey and respectfully oppose this scandal.¹²

Signs of Hope: Fewer Flags, More Faith
And yet, not all is lost. While rainbow flags still fly, they are fewer this year. Beneath the surface of this apostasy, signs of renewal stir. The English Dominicans recently announced their largest class of novices in three decades. Fr Thomas Crean OP commented: “Where sin abounded, grace did more abound” (Rom. 5:20).¹³

Gavin Ashenden proposes that the return to the Sacred Heart is not only fitting but necessary: “True love confronts disorder… Paganism fell once before at the feet of the Sacred Heart. If Catholics return to this most sacred of devotions, it will fall again.”¹⁴ 🔝

  1. Gavin Ashenden, quoted in Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, 11 June 2025.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Diocese of Middlesbrough Synod Consultation Synthesis, April 2022.
  5. Middlesbrough LGBT+ Ministry Newsletter, April 2025.
  6. Middlesbrough LGBT+ Ministry Newsletter, May 2025.
  7. The New Atlantis, Issue 50, Fall 2016.
  8. Sax, L. “How Common is Intersex?” J. Sex Res., Aug 2002.
  9. USCCB, Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body, 20 March 2023.
  10. BBC Radio Five Live interview, April 2025; cited in Voice of the Family Digest, May 2025.
  11. Pope Leo XIV, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, May 2025.
  12. John Smeaton, Catholic Action UK, 11 June 2025.
  13. National Catholic Register, 10 June 2025.
  14. Gavin Ashenden, The Catholic Herald, June 2025.

Catholics Urged to Resist Bishop Drainey’s Promotion of LGBT+ Ideology

John Smeaton’s 11 June 2025 commentary highlights growing concern among faithful Catholics regarding the activities of Bishop Terence Drainey of Middlesbrough, who continues to promote LGBT+ ideology under the guise of pastoral ministry. At a time when Pope Leo XIV has reaffirmed the Church’s perennial doctrine on marriage and the natural law, Bishop Drainey’s approach—explicitly calling for a re-examination of Church teaching in light of “modern scientific discoveries” and the “lived experience” of those identifying as LGBT+—has been seen as a direct challenge to the magisterium¹.

Fr Tony Lester, coordinator of the diocesan LGBT+ ministry, reinforces this dissent in successive newsletters. In April 2025, he promoted a talk by “Brother” Christian Matson, a woman living as a man, praised as “the first openly transgender religious,” and welcomed by Bishop Stowe in Lexington. In May, Fr Lester gave sympathetic attention to the complaints of Maxwell Kusma, a “transgender man” who criticised the Vatican’s rejection of gender ideology. In neither instance did Fr Lester acknowledge either Church teaching or the scientific consensus on human sexual dimorphism².

Smeaton contrasts this with clear Catholic moral guidance: the Church teaches that medical interventions aimed at “transforming” sexual characteristics are gravely immoral, even while affirming compassion for those suffering from gender dysphoria⁵. He cites respected scientific research affirming the binary nature of sex³ and clarifying that so-called “intersex” conditions are rare disorders, not alternative sexes⁴.

Equally troubling is the media activism of Dr Johan Bergström-Allen, openly homosexual chairman of the diocesan LGBT+ Ministry and member of the diocesan communications team. Following the election of Pope Leo XIV, Bergström-Allen appeared on BBC Radio to call for a revision of the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.” His views were rebutted by theologian Dr Alan Fimister, who affirmed that neither Scripture nor science provides grounds for doctrinal revision.

Smeaton concludes by calling on faithful Catholics to resist such scandal with respectful firmness. In light of Pope Leo XIV’s recent reaffirmation of the family as the foundation of a just society, Catholics have both the right and duty to defend the deposit of faith against ideological subversion. Letters of filial concern may be sent to Bishop Drainey at 16 Cambridge Road, Middlesbrough, TS5 5NN, or via email: bishopsecretary@rcdmidd.org.uk. 🔝

  1. Parish Consultation Diocesan Synthesis, Synod on Synodality, Diocese of Middlesbrough, April 2022.
  2. Transgender Belief in Pediatrics: A Call to Heal Minds, Embrace Bodies, Save Lives, The John Paul II Academy for Human Life and the Family, Spring 2025.
  3. McHugh, P.R. & Meyer, L.S. “Sexuality and Gender,” The New Atlantis, No. 50, Fall 2016, p. 90.
  4. Sax, L. “How Common is Intersex?” Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 39(3), 2002.
  5. USCCB, Doctrinal Note on the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body, 20 March 2023.

St. Charles Lwanga and the Ugandan Martyrs: A Witness Against Lust, Cowardice, and False Pride

A Light in the Fire
In an age obsessed with personal autonomy and the gratification of desire, the example of St. Charles Lwanga and his companions blazes like a fire of contradiction. The young Ugandan catechumen, martyred on June 3, 1886, stood not only against the political tyranny of his day but also against the spiritual tyranny of lust — a tyranny which still enslaves countless souls today.

Lwanga, chief page in the court of King Mwanga II of Buganda, protected his fellow pages from the predatory advances of the king. Many of these pages were young boys, vulnerable to the whims of a monarch given over to his passions. Lwanga, himself a convert and still new in the Faith, chose to become a spiritual father and guardian, risking his life to shield others from the violation of their innocence. This is the heart of fatherhood: to lay down one’s life for the good of the weak, to preserve their purity, to stand in the breach.

Purity is Power
Our world mocks chastity as repression and upholds lust as liberation. Yet St. Charles Lwanga proves the opposite. He was free because he was chaste. The king, despite his throne and harem, was enslaved — to pride, to lust, and finally to rage when his desires were thwarted. It was this spiritual slavery that drove him to murder.

As King Mwanga’s wrath intensified, Lwanga did not waver. The night before their arrest, he secretly baptized four catechumens, including St. Kizito, just 13 years old. He prepared them not only for martyrdom but for eternity. That courage, rooted in purity and fidelity, gives us a profound witness of what it means to live — and die — for Christ.

Spiritual Fatherhood in a Fatherless Age
Charles Lwanga was not a biological father. But in every way that matters, he fulfilled the vocation of fatherhood. He taught the Faith, guarded the weak, and gave his life rather than surrender those under his care to evil. In a culture that scorns the authority and responsibility of men — reducing fatherhood to a biological fact or a disposable role — Lwanga’s legacy is revolutionary. He proves that spiritual fatherhood is not only possible, but necessary.

He is the antidote to a world in which men are taught to abdicate, to seduce, or to hide. In the face of evil, he stood up. And when the flames reached his feet, he forgave. “You’re burning me,” he told his executioners, “but it’s like water you’re pouring to wash me. Please repent and become a Christian like me.”^1

A Prophetic Witness for Our Time
The Ugandan Martyrs are especially relevant in June, now widely known as “Pride Month.” Against the backdrop of celebration for identities built around the disordered use of human sexuality, the witness of these young men — many teenagers — offers a painful but hopeful contrast. They remind us that the body is not a tool for pleasure or power, but a temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 6:19). And they show us that true pride is found in fidelity to Christ, not in rebellion against His law.

The Church in Uganda Today
The blood of the martyrs has borne fruit. Uganda today is approximately 36% Catholic and 29% Anglican, with over 80% of the population professing Christianity. The Uganda Martyrs’ Shrine in Namugongo remains one of Africa’s most visited pilgrimage sites — a place where their sacrifice is remembered, and their intercession sought.

When Pope Paul VI canonized the 22 Catholic martyrs in 1964, he declared: “These African martyrs herald the dawn of a new age. If only the mind of man might be directed, not toward the pursuit of destruction, but toward the love of Christ and the building up of His Body, the Church!”^2

A Call to Courage
In a world increasingly hostile to Christian witness, especially in the realm of sexual ethics, St. Charles Lwanga and his companions challenge us not to compromise. They call bishops and priests to defend the purity of the young, to teach without fear, and to lead with the strength of martyrs. They call parents to raise saints. And they call young people to pursue holiness, even when it costs everything.

Ugandan Martyrs, pray for us — especially the young, especially the tempted, and especially the timid. 🔝

¹ From the Acta Sanctorum and traditional accounts cited during the canonization process of the Ugandan Martyrs.
² Homily of Pope Paul VI, Canonization of the Ugandan Martyrs, October 18, 1964.

Catholic Priest Abducted by Boko Haram in Borno State—Another Blow to Religious Freedom in Nigeria

A Nigerian Catholic priest formerly serving in the United States has been abducted by Boko Haram militants in the embattled northeastern state of Borno. The attack occurred on 1 June 2025, when Reverend Alphonsus “Daniel” Afina and his companions were ambushed by insurgents near a military checkpoint on the Gwoza–Limankara Road. One person was killed, several were injured, and nine others were seized alongside Fr Afina.

A Priest in the Line of Fire
Fr Daniel Afina had recently returned to Nigeria after years of missionary service in the Diocese of Fairbanks, Alaska (2017–2024), where he was known for his work in remote indigenous communities. At the time of his abduction, he was serving as project coordinator for a Christian NGO involved in humanitarian outreach in northern Nigeria.

According to reports, Boko Haram launched a sudden assault using rocket-propelled grenades against the convoy transporting Afina and NGO personnel. A staff member was killed during the attack, while others sustained injuries. Boko Haram later confirmed they had taken Fr Afina captive and allowed him to contact both his family and ecclesiastical superiors. His bishop in Alaska confirmed the communication.

A Pattern of Targeting Clergy
This abduction follows a disturbing pattern of escalating attacks on Catholic clergy and religious workers in Nigeria. According to the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria, dozens of priests and seminarians have been abducted in recent years, many by Islamist groups including Boko Haram and its splinter faction ISWAP (Islamic State in West Africa Province). Some have been murdered, others ransomed, and many remain missing.

Fr Afina’s capture reaffirms fears expressed by Nigerian bishops that the country is failing to protect Christian communities and religious personnel in zones plagued by jihadist insurgency. The Diocese of Maiduguri, which encompasses Borno State, has been among the hardest hit. Entire parishes have been destroyed, and priests continue to risk their lives to provide the sacraments and coordinate aid.

The Silence of the State
To date, there has been no official statement from the Nigerian government regarding Fr Afina’s abduction. Neither the military nor the Ministry of Internal Affairs has confirmed any efforts toward his rescue. This silence is consistent with the Nigerian authorities’ broader failure to stem the tide of Islamist violence, despite repeated international appeals and billions in security funding.

In a May 2025 statement, Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah of Sokoto lamented: “When pastors are abducted, it is not just the life of one man that is threatened. It is the voice of conscience being silenced, and a nation’s failure being exposed.”¹

The Witness of Martyrdom and Fidelity
The story of Fr Afina is not only one of violence but also of missionary courage. His willingness to return to Nigeria and minister in areas known for danger speaks to a deeper reality of priestly sacrifice. Like so many others—Bishop Michael Eneja of Enugu, martyred seminarians like Michael Nnadi, and the countless faithful who continue to worship under threat—Fr Afina embodies the Church’s undying witness in the face of evil.

As one former parishioner in Alaska noted, “He always said the Lord would never ask him to run away from danger if souls were in need. Now we see he meant it.”

A Call to Prayer and Advocacy
As the Church continues to face persecution across Nigeria, Catholics are urged to pray for Fr Afina and those kidnapped with him. Traditional Catholic communities are especially asked to offer Masses and Rosaries for their release and for the conversion of their captors.

International bodies and the Holy See must also renew pressure on the Nigerian government to prioritize religious freedom and civilian protection—not merely in words, but in coordinated action.

Latin Prayer for the Captives
Domine Iesu Christe, qui dixisti: “Pacem relinquo vobis, pacem meam do vobis,” libera famulum tuum Danielem et omnes capti, ab omni periculo, et da eis fiduciam in tua misericordia. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

English Translation
Lord Jesus Christ, who said: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you,” deliver your servant Daniel and all those taken captive from every danger, and grant them trust in your mercy. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. 🔝

¹ Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, Sokoto Diocese, statement on Christian persecution, May 2025.
² AP News, “Nigerian Catholic priest who had recently served in the US abducted by extremists,” June 2025.
³ Ground News, “Boko Haram Abducts Catholic Priest, 9 Others, Kills 1 in Borno,” June 2025.
⁴ Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria, “Annual Report on Clergy Safety,” 2024.

A schedule for the week of April 5, 2025, detailing liturgical events, feasts, and notable observances.

In Other News…

Riots in Ballymena: From Vigil to Violence in Northern Ireland

What began as a solemn show of support for a local victim of alleged sexual assault has rapidly devolved into some of the worst civil disorder seen in Northern Ireland in years. Riots have erupted in Ballymena and spread to surrounding towns, fuelled by anti-immigrant sentiment, social media agitation, and longstanding tensions over crime, identity, and community trust¹.

The Trigger: A Local Crime with Wider Consequences
On 7 June, two 14-year-old boys were arrested in connection with the attempted rape of a teenage girl in Ballymena². The appearance of a Romanian interpreter in court quickly became the focus of rumour and outrage, despite police caution against assumptions³. Though neither accused has been publicly identified by nationality, speculation on social media played a decisive role in inflaming tensions⁴.

A vigil was held on 9 June in support of the victim’s family. While initially peaceful, it soon fractured. A large crowd diverted to Clonavon Terrace—the site of the alleged attack—and a mob began attacking homes and vehicles, throwing petrol bombs, bricks, and fireworks at police and emergency responders⁵.

Escalation: Disorder Masquerading as Justice
The following nights saw further escalation. Over 32 PSNI officers were injured as police deployed water cannon and plastic baton rounds to regain control⁶. Violence extended to Larne, Carrickfergus, Newtownabbey, and Belfast, where fire was set to a leisure centre being used for emergency accommodation⁷. The PSNI have made multiple arrests and are pursuing further suspects with the help of CCTV and mobile footage⁸.

While initially justified by some rioters as a demand for justice, the violence has increasingly targeted immigrant families—many from Eastern Europe, the Philippines, and South Asia⁹. Some residents have placed Union Jacks or signs reading “Filipino family here” on their doors to avoid being attacked¹⁰.

Political and Ecclesial Reaction
Northern Ireland’s political leaders, including First Minister Michelle O’Neill, have condemned the riots unequivocally¹¹. PSNI Chief Superintendent Gillian Kearney described the events as “racist thuggery,” while urging the public not to allow “misinformation or prejudice” to drive violence¹².

There has been widespread public sorrow for the victim and concern for the welfare of vulnerable foreign families now caught in the crossfire. Some churches in the area have opened their doors as shelters and gathering points for community prayer and dialogue¹³.

Analysis: Moral Confusion and the Collapse of Order
What we are witnessing is not simply the reaction to a heinous crime, but the collapse of communal trust and the dangerous vacuum left by decades of moral relativism and political inconsistency¹⁴. A society unable to affirm the rule of law or the dignity of all human life—native or foreign—breeds chaos under the guise of justice¹⁵. Vigilantism and racism are not substitutes for righteousness.

For the faithful, this moment calls not only for prayer, but for firm witness: justice for the innocent, protection of the vulnerable, and peace based on truth, not hysteria. Catholics must remember the admonition of Pope St. John Paul II: *”A society that permits injustice, under whatever guise, lays the foundation for its own destruction”*¹⁶. 🔝

  1. Time Magazine, “What to Know About the Northern Ireland Riots,” 11 June 2025.
  2. The Times (UK), “Teenage Boys in Court After Ballymena Assault,” 8 June 2025.
  3. Belfast Telegraph, “Police Urge Calm Over Online Speculation,” 9 June 2025.
  4. Washington Post, “Anti-immigrant Riots Follow Sex Assault Arrests in Northern Ireland,” 11 June 2025.
  5. The Guardian, “Second Night of Rioting in Ballymena,” 10 June 2025.
  6. BBC News NI, “Over 30 Officers Injured in Ballymena Violence,” 11 June 2025.
  7. Irish News, “Larne Leisure Centre Set Alight Amid Spreading Disorder,” 11 June 2025.
  8. PSNI Press Release, “Update on Ballymena Public Disorder Investigation,” 12 June 2025.
  9. Sky News, “Immigrant Families Targeted in Northern Ireland Riots,” 11 June 2025.
  10. Times of India, “Filipino and Romanian Families Mark Homes to Avoid Attack,” 11 June 2025.
  11. Northern Ireland Executive Press Office, “First Minister Condemns Riots,” 11 June 2025.
  12. PSNI Media Centre, Remarks by C.Supt. Kearney, 11 June 2025.
  13. Church Times, “Local Churches Open Doors to Riot Victims,” 11 June 2025.
  14. Benedict XVI, Address to the German Bundestag, 22 September 2011.
  15. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§1956–1960; cf. Romans 2:14–15.
  16. Pope St. John Paul II, Homily at Yankee Stadium, New York, 2 October 1979.

Britain on the Brink: Civil Unrest, Identity Collapse, and the Crisis of Legitimacy

As Britain faces its gravest legitimacy crisis in generations, serious voices—from former Downing Street advisers to academic specialists—are warning that the country may be sliding toward civil unrest. While officialdom continues its self-soothing rituals, a growing body of evidence points to a nation at risk of fragmentation along lines of identity, class, and trust.

The Crisis of Legitimacy
According to David Betts, an academic affiliated with King’s College London, Britain exhibits many of the key markers of a state drifting toward internal collapse. Drawing on established civil conflict literature, Betts highlights three central symptoms: elite overreach, collapsing trust in institutions, and factional polarization based on identity rather than policy¹. These are not speculative claims. Betts’s analysis is grounded in official government data on social cohesion, academic consensus on civil war causes, and the observable breakdown in Britain’s political and civic life.

Dominic Cummings, former adviser to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, corroborates this grim picture. In recent interviews, Cummings described the UK government as a hollowed-out administrative state where unelected bureaucrats wield more power than elected ministers². He states that ordinary voters increasingly view politics as a “fake TV show,” and now speak of civil conflict not as a fringe fantasy but a practical concern.

Multiculturalism Without Integration
One of the core themes in Betts’s recent writings is the structural instability produced by decades of immigration policy divorced from integration. He argues that Britain has become a “jigsaw puzzle of identity-based tribes”³—communities living in cultural isolation, often competing over access to public resources. In such a society, the traditional foundations of law, norms, and national identity cannot hold. Without a shared pre-political loyalty, civic cohesion dissolves into tension and factionalism⁴.

This concern has been echoed by politicians across the spectrum, including David Cameron, who in 2011 conceded that “state multiculturalism has failed.” Yet policies have not only remained unchanged—they have intensified, with successive governments adopting frameworks (such as anti-Islamophobia definitions) that critics say criminalize dissent⁵.

The Expectation Gap
Another concept central to Betts’s thesis is the “expectation gap”—the distance between what citizens believe democratic participation can achieve, and the unchanging reality of political paralysis. British voters have repeatedly demanded lower immigration, safer streets, and improved public services. Yet nothing changes. Politicians make promises, but courts, treaties, and bureaucratic inertia prevent action. This leads to a sense of betrayal and fuels public contempt for all institutions⁶.

Cummings describes this as a kind of mass political despair. Britons outside Westminster increasingly feel abandoned: wages have stagnated, infrastructure crumbles, and crime is visible and unpunished. In contrast, elites remain insulated from these pressures—retaining wealth, access, and cultural authority⁷.

Precursor Incidents and Flashpoints
Betts and Darnton draw attention to recent riots in Northern Ireland as an example of how quickly identity-based violence can erupt. There, masked youths attacked police in response to an alleged sexual assault involving foreign nationals. While such an event might once have remained localized, it quickly escalated, drawing in national media and igniting broader resentment⁸.

Similar dynamics are unfolding across Europe and the United States. In Los Angeles, violent protests erupted after immigration enforcement actions. Betts warns that Britain often lags behind the U.S. by five to ten years—meaning such scenes may soon play out here.

Statistical Forecast and Policy Paralysis
Betts estimates, based on civil conflict literature, that in a country exhibiting the risk factors Britain now does, the chance of civil conflict each year is roughly 4%. Over five years, this accumulates to an 18.5% probability of unrest or insurgency⁹. These numbers are not absolute predictions, but serious indicators derived from existing models and data.

Meanwhile, political responses remain wholly inadequate. Both major parties—Labour and Conservative—acknowledge voter concerns but are unable or unwilling to address them. Britain remains shackled to international treaties, judicial activism, and administrative inertia. Even senior civil servants privately admit the system cannot reform itself¹⁰.

Low-Level Lawlessness and Social Resentment
The perception that Britain now operates a two-tier justice system is widespread. High-profile incidents—from lenient sentences for violent crimes to obvious failures to stop illegal immigration—convey a message of selective enforcement and institutional bias¹¹. Petty crimes, unpunished fare-dodging, and nightly reports of illegal Channel crossings all feed the sense that the rule of law no longer applies equally.

As Betts notes, this leads to what he calls the “breaking of the spell” of legitimacy. Once citizens no longer believe that the system is just, trust evaporates and political violence becomes thinkable. In Betts’s chilling words: “If you have legitimacy, you have no insurgent problem. If you lose it, you will.”

What Comes Next?
Betts warns that civil conflict in Britain is unlikely to begin as a dramatic rupture. Instead, it will resemble a Latin American–style “dirty war,” starting with chronic low-level violence and growing into something more destructive. Strategic attacks on urban infrastructure, rising rural-urban division, and increasingly hardened identity blocs could spiral into systemic failure.

Unless a radical, truthful reckoning takes place soon—one that restores national cohesion, renews legitimacy, and insists on real integration—the conditions for unrest will only deepen. Britain, Betts and Cummings suggest, is not unique in this. France, the U.S., and other Western nations are walking the same knife-edge. But Britain, they warn, may be among the first to fall. 🔝

¹ Betts, David. “The Coming Crisis of the West,” UnHerd, 2024.
² Cummings, Dominic. Interview with Sky News, May 2025.
³ Betts, David. “Multiculturalism Without Integration,” The Telegraph, April 2025.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ “Labour’s Islamophobia Definition Could Criminalise Free Speech,” The Critic, February 2025.
⁶ Betts, David. “Expectation Gap and Civil Disorder,” The Darnton Report, March 2025.
⁷ Cummings, Dominic. “Collapse of Trust in Westminster,” The New Culture Forum, 2025.
⁸ “Riots in Ballymena After Sexual Assault Allegations,” The Telegraph, June 2025.
⁹ Betts, David. “Conflict Forecasting in the UK,” The Darnton Report, 2025.
¹⁰ “System Paralysis and the Deep State,” UnHerd Interviews, 2025.
¹¹ “Two-Tier Justice System?” Justice Watch UK, May 2025.

YouTube player

Britain’s Burden of Elite Guilt: How Moral Psychosis Undermines the Nation

In a searching and provocative conversation with Winston Marshall, Times columnist and former Olympian Matthew Syed offered a wide-ranging critique of Britain’s ruling class and their tendency toward moral self-flagellation. What emerged was not only a defence of British civilisational achievement, but an urgent warning: the internalised shame of Western elites is not merely misguided—it is disabling our national ability to think and act in our own defence.

A Moral Psychosis at the Heart of Power
Syed’s thesis is stark. “A succession of ministerial flubs,” he writes, “has jeopardised our future with a moral psychosis that has spread through elite consciousness.”¹ This psychosis manifests most clearly in post-colonial guilt—a pervasive belief among those in law, politics, and culture that Britain’s historical record is not only imperfect (a reasonable position) but irredeemably evil. Such a framework encourages leaders to see Britain not as a nation worth preserving, but as an empire that must continually pay penance.

This explains, in part, our government’s repeated retreats in cases like the Chagos Islands, where Britain has already paid reparations to displaced islanders but now finds itself subject to fresh demands driven by international lawyers such as Philippe Sands. These actors, Syed argues, seem emotionally invested in British defeat.² The same applies to the asylum crisis, where judicial interpretations of outdated post-war treaties render deportation nearly impossible—despite public opposition and repeated electoral mandates.

The Rewriting of British History
According to Syed, this elite guilt distorts our moral lens: Britain’s abolition of the slave trade, the Africa Squadron’s tireless patrols, and the empire’s foundational role in spreading the rule of law are buried beneath a selective narrative of exploitation.³ Celebrated historians like Nigel Biggar, who attempt to offer a more nuanced view of empire, find themselves marginalised.⁴ Publishing houses and media institutions, Syed notes, now fear even the suggestion that Britain’s legacy might include anything good.

This self-contempt is not merely academic. It undergirds policies on net zero (“We polluted first, therefore we must pay first”), immigration (“We oppressed their ancestors, therefore we must accept all who arrive”), and military spending (“We are unworthy of national self-defence”).⁵ And because this narrative is rarely challenged, the working-class majority—who remain instinctively patriotic—are governed by people increasingly alienated from their own nation.

How Britain Became “WEIRD”
To explain the psychological root of this phenomenon, Syed draws on the work of Joseph Henrich, whose acronym WEIRD—Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic—captures the unique moral outlook of modern liberal societies.⁶ Unlike clan-based cultures where trust is localised and nepotism expected, the West historically built systems of trust that transcended kinship: the common law, impartial judiciary, merit-based hiring, and the moral universality of Christian ethics.

Much of this transformation, Syed observes, stemmed from the Church’s medieval prohibition on cousin marriage, a rule which broke down tribal structures in Europe and fostered intermarriage across local boundaries.⁷ Over time, these restrictions led to the emergence of the nation-state. In England, St. Augustine’s mission initiated a cultural shift that ultimately enabled King Alfred to unite warring tribes through a shared religion, language, legal code, and history.

In contrast, in tribal societies like Pakistan—where Syed’s father was born—cousin marriage and clan-based loyalty remain strong. Syed recounts how bribes are seen not as corruption but as moral redistribution within the tribe.⁸ The lesson? Britain’s rise was not inevitable but the product of deep, long-standing cultural reform that fostered trust, cooperation, and broad-based civic identity.

The Weaponisation of Guilt
Today, those hard-won civilisational goods are under attack—not from without, but from within. The elite narrative reduces British identity to a one-dimensional story of oppression, inviting international courts and activist lawyers to rewrite our sovereignty. Meanwhile, external adversaries like Russia and China exploit this guilt, knowing that destabilising the developing world increases migration pressure on the West.⁹ As Syed notes: “Asylum is asymmetrical.” Migrants do not flee to Beijing or Tehran. They come to London, Paris, and New York. Why? Because Western civilisation works.

Yet our leaders seem determined to apologise for its success. Elite lawyers like Richard Hermer, Syed notes, have built careers on defending individuals who joined ISIS or fought against British interests.¹⁰ The refusal to deport dangerous individuals is not due to lack of evidence—but due to an inherited ideology that interprets Western power as inherently unjust.

Diversity, Unity, and the Purpose of Nations
In one of the most passionate sections of the interview, Syed tackles the modern obsession with “diversity.” He draws a crucial distinction between cognitive diversity, which strengthens problem-solving, and box-ticking identity quotas, which weaken meritocracy and obscure real forms of difference.¹¹ Unity, he argues, is a necessary precondition of diversity. Without a shared national purpose—without being British together—diversity becomes fragmentation.

Syed compares this to sports: Olympic patriotism involves cheering for one’s nation while respecting others. It is not chauvinism, but constructive pride.¹² Nationalism, rightly understood, is a force for cohesion and common good. But today, nationalism is smeared as xenophobia, even while foreign authoritarian regimes cultivate intense national loyalty.

Conclusion: Time for Moral Clarity
Syed’s analysis invites a sober but necessary conclusion. Britain is not suffering from a deficit of resources or ability—it is suffering from a deficit of moral confidence. Our elite institutions are trapped in a cycle of performative guilt, blind to their hypocrisy, and disconnected from the majority they claim to lead. They have mistaken shame for virtue and forgotten that nations, like individuals, cannot thrive if they despise themselves.

If the West is to endure, its leaders must learn to tell the truth about its past—not to glorify it, but to see it whole. The story of Britain includes injustice, yes, but also immense courage, sacrifice, invention, and global good. To erase that legacy is not humility. It is historical vandalism. And in the world we now face, such moral confusion is not only indulgent—it may prove fatal. 🔝

¹ Matthew Syed, The Times, “How Elite Guilt Is Undermining Britain,” 2024.
² Syed criticises Sands’s The Last Colony for emotionally driven, partial advocacy against Britain.
³ The Africa Squadron (1807–1867) captured over 1,600 slave ships and freed an estimated 150,000 slaves.
⁴ See Nigel Biggar, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (William Collins, 2023).
⁵ On net zero ideology as elite penance, see Syed interview timestamp 25:00–26:00.
⁶ Joseph Henrich, The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (FSG, 2020).
⁷ Bans on cousin marriage were enforced by the Church from the 6th century, encouraging exogamy and state formation.
⁸ Syed recounts visiting Pakistan, where bribery and nepotism are culturally endorsed within clan networks.
⁹ See Syed, timestamp 37:00–38:00, on Russia’s strategic interest in refugee flows destabilising the West.
¹⁰ Hermer represented Shamima Begum, al-Qaeda affiliates, and argued against deportation of convicted terrorists.
¹¹ See Syed’s Rebel Ideas: The Power of Diverse Thinking (John Murray, 2019).
¹² See Syed, timestamp 56:44–57:03, on nationalism in sport as a model of civic solidarity.

Faith, Fiction, and the Meaning Crisis
Why Christianity Alone Offers a Path Through the West’s Cultural Collapse

We cannot solve the meaning crisis without Christianity. That is the central claim running through a recent long-form interview with commentator Conor Tomlinson—a claim increasingly echoed across the post-liberal right, in pulpits, podcasts, and print alike. In a wide-ranging discussion that touches on masculinity, political decay, online radicalism, and spiritual hunger, Tomlinson returns repeatedly to the idea that the West is perishing not for lack of data or democracy, but for lack of faith.

This essay evaluates the key arguments from that conversation, particularly where Christianity, narrative, and meaning intersect. In doing so, we draw upon the works of C.S. Lewis, Tom Holland, and, where helpful, Bishop Robert Barron, to illuminate and test the claims made.

Truth, Science, and the Collapse of Moral Authority
Tomlinson begins by challenging the New Atheist assumption that truth and morality can be derived from science alone. Scientific knowledge, he argues, is not self-justifying: without an ethical framework that values truth as a good in itself, science becomes a mere tool of power.

“You can’t build a binding consensus off the basis of scientific observations or rational thought experiments,” he says, “especially if you don’t start with a truthful premise.”

This echoes C.S. Lewis, who warned in The Abolition of Man that without a transcendent standard of value, societies produce “men without chests”—rationalists bereft of virtue¹.

Christianity and the Foundations of Human Dignity
One of the strongest themes in the discussion is that Christianity uniquely grounds the dignity of the human person. Tomlinson appeals to Tom Holland’s Dominion to argue that concepts such as human rights, the equal value of women and children, and the moral imperative to care for the weak did not emerge from secular Enlightenment rationalism, but from the radical claims of the Gospel.

“It was only Christianity that stated the revolutionary concept that children themselves will inherit the kingdom of heaven… that the weak and feebled have as much capacity for moral dignity as the strongest man.”

Holland himself, a secular historian, acknowledges that the idea of intrinsic human dignity—Imago Dei—is culturally Christian². Absent that foundation, Tomlinson argues, rights become little more than “wish lists,” easily ignored by those in power.

Faith vs. Delusion: Is Christianity Just Another Leap?
A provocative exchange compares belief in the Resurrection to belief in gender transition: both are said to contradict observable reality and require faith. Tomlinson rejects the comparison by distinguishing the fruit of belief. Christianity, he notes, fosters sacrifice, joy, and community; transgender ideology often leads to sterility, physical harm, and despair.

“Faith is an instrument to seek certainty. What matters is the conclusion you come to.”

This reframes faith not as irrational credulity, but as a necessary foundation for moral and spiritual agency. For Tomlinson—as for Pascal, Lewis, and many Christian thinkers—faith is not the enemy of reason, but its condition. We believe in order to understand.

The Trilemma Revisited—and Expanded
Tomlinson invokes Lewis’s famous “liar, lunatic, or Lord” trilemma, only to find it inadequate for modern sceptics who doubt the historicity of the Gospel accounts themselves. He counters by citing the coherence of the Gospel narratives and their power to inspire enduring ethical transformation across languages, styles, and cultures.

“If the ethic there is true for all peoples everywhere, then there must be something to it.”

Here again we find resonance with Bishop Barron, who often points to the explosion of the early Church, the martyrdom of the apostles, and the internal consistency of Christian doctrine as evidence of the Resurrection’s plausibility³.

The Narrative Void and the Death of Meaning
Perhaps the most culturally urgent section of the interview is the diagnosis of the loss of a shared narrative. Britain, like much of the West, is described as a “nation of strangers.” Multiculturalism, rootless consumerism, and the rejection of Christian heritage have produced a society in which no common story binds its people together.

“Without a shared and binding narrative, you cannot have a cohesive culture—but one does not exist at the moment.”

This claim recalls Alasdair MacIntyre’s thesis in After Virtue: our moral language persists, but the underlying metaphysical and theological framework has disintegrated⁴.

Faith, Meaning, and Male Despair
A recurring sub-theme is the crisis facing young men. Tomlinson links male despair—whether manifesting in inceldom, online radicalism, or pornography addiction—to the absence of meaningful ends. These men no longer believe the game of life can be won, and therefore retreat from it.

He argues that Christianity offers not only consolation, but a vocation—a path to virtue, self-mastery, and sacrifice. Secular ideologies, by contrast, offer only coping mechanisms or illusions.

“The beliefs you put faith into can be self-propagating or self-limiting. Christianity builds; trans ideology castrates.”

Here Lewis’s critique of subjectivism in The Abolition of Man is again apt. A generation raised on expressive individualism cannot build civilization—they can only dismantle it.

Conclusion: The West’s Only Path Forward
Tomlinson’s core thesis is as simple as it is subversive: you cannot build a civilization on secular humanism, algorithmic distraction, or political slogans. You need a creed. Christianity, for all its historical failures and present obscurity, remains the only moral and metaphysical framework with the depth, breadth, and beauty to answer the crisis of meaning.

“You can only run against the brick wall of reality for so long. Eventually, you break.”

What is needed now is not merely a political reformation but a spiritual one—a rediscovery of faith, narrative, and the sacred story of redemption that gave the West its soul. 🔝

¹ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, HarperOne, 2001 (orig. 1943)
² Tom Holland, Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, Little, Brown, 2019
³ Robert Barron, Catholicism: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith, Image Books, 2011
⁴ Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, 1981

YouTube player

The Meaning Crisis Misdiagnosed
Why Progressive Christianity Offers No Cure for the West’s Moral Amnesia

Progressive Christian voices today increasingly speak of the “meaning crisis.” They, too, lament alienation, youth depression, and a culture addicted to dopamine and distraction. But unlike traditional Christian responses—rooted in sin, sacrifice, and salvation—the progressive version offers therapy instead of theology, inclusion in place of conversion, and a gospel without repentance. In so doing, it only deepens the void it claims to fill.

This article contrasts the growing revivalist instinct among young men returning to orthodoxy (as explored in our recent piece on Conor Tomlinson’s interview) with the therapeutic, immanent, and often deconstructed gospel preached by mainline and liberal Christian institutions.

A Different Gospel for a Different Crisis
Where thinkers like C.S. Lewis or Tom Holland identify Christianity as the moral root of the Western conscience, progressive theology often regards Christianity as part of the problem—a power structure to be decolonized, reimagined, or post-critically reinterpreted.

For example, in progressive theological circles:

  • Sin is reframed as systemic oppression or personal shame, not rebellion against God.
  • Salvation is reinterpreted as psychological integration or social liberation, not the forgiveness of sins.
  • Christ’s Resurrection is sometimes described symbolically—as “the triumph of hope”—rather than as an historical, bodily event.
  • Faith becomes lived experience, not assent to truth.
  • The Church’s mission is seen as affirming identities, not transforming lives.

As Bishop Robert Barron has noted, this is the immanentizing of the Christian message: “When Christianity is reduced to a vague commitment to social justice, it loses its power to save because it ceases to be about the supernatural.”¹

Progressive Proposals: Ritual Without Repentance
In a culture starving for transcendent meaning, progressive Christianity offers rituals stripped of transcendence. Labyrinth walks, drag liturgies, climate lament services, and “inclusive eucharists” are attempts to fill the God-shaped hole without reference to the Cross.

These practices mimic the form of religion while discarding the substance. As Conor Tomlinson warned in his discussion, many today have “replaced faith with ritual.” But rituals detached from dogma do not heal—they pacify. They provide emotional relief but not spiritual rebirth.

Narrative Fragmentation: The Progressive Blind Spot
Traditional Christians argue that the loss of a shared narrative—the Gospel—is at the heart of the meaning crisis. Progressive Christians, however, tend to treat narrative as a problem to be pluralized. They avoid meta-narratives and elevate “lived experience,” insisting that all identities and stories are equally valid.

But this commitment to radical inclusivity prevents any binding story from emerging. If the Church has no right to declare one story true—that Christ died and rose to save sinners—then it has no foundation on which to build culture. The Church becomes just another NGO with incense.

As Alasdair MacIntyre warned, once moral discourse fragments into competing emotive claims, no real deliberation is possible. The result is not harmony but chaos².

Human Rights Without Christ
Progressive Christians often appeal to “human rights” and “dignity” without grounding these in Christian metaphysics. The assumption is that secular liberal values can carry moral weight on their own.

But as Tomlinson, Holland, and Lewis have argued, these values—equality, compassion, forgiveness—are not self-evident universal truths. They emerged from centuries of Christian thought. Remove Christ, and they begin to unravel. Humanism without the Incarnation is like a cut flower: it may appear vibrant for a while, but it is already dying.

The False Promise of Moral Neutrality
Progressive theology tends to present itself as the compassionate middle ground between secularism and orthodoxy. But its refusal to affirm moral absolutes—on sexuality, truth, or divine judgment—renders it morally paralyzed. It cannot oppose cultural collapse because it has already conceded to it.

“A God without wrath,” wrote H. Richard Niebuhr, “brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”³

This is precisely the gospel many progressive Christians now preach. It is not surprising, then, that it fails to inspire sacrifice, stir conversion, or build the cathedrals of tomorrow.

Conclusion: A Crisis Cannot Be Cured by Its Cause
Progressive Christianity mirrors the culture’s disease—individualism, moral relativism, and identity worship—instead of offering the cure. It affirms the wounds rather than binding them.

As young men and women begin to search, once again, for rootedness, certainty, and moral courage, it is not the progressive church they are flocking to—but the ancient one. They want meaning that costs something. They want a Cross. 🔝

¹ Bishop Robert Barron, “The Trouble with Reductionist Christianity,” Word on Fire
² Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, 1981
³ H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America, Yale University Press, 1937

A gathering in a grand library featuring a diverse group of people, including clergy, scholars, and families, engaged in reading and discussions, with bookshelves filled with various books in the background, and a prominent logo reading 'FORUM' in the foreground.

Pilgrimage to Rome & the Holy Door – November 2025

Join the Titular Archbishop of Selsey on a deeply spiritual pilgrimage to Rome in the Jubilee Year 2025. This five-day journey will offer pilgrims the opportunity to deepen their faith, visit some of the most sacred sites of Christendom, and participate in the graces of the Holy Year, including the passing through the Holy Door at St. Peter’s Basilica.

A bishop walking on a cobblestone street in Rome, approaching St. Peter's Basilica in the background, dressed in traditional clerical attire.

What to Expect

🛐 Daily Mass & Spiritual Reflection
Each day will begin with the celebration of Holy Mass in the Eternal City, surrounded by the legacy of the early Christian martyrs and the countless Saints who sanctified its streets. This will be followed by opportunities for prayer, reflection, and spiritual direction.

🏛 Visits to the Major Basilicas
Pilgrims will visit the four Papal Basilicas, each housing a Holy Door for the Jubilee Year:

  • St. Peter’s Basilica – The heart of Christendom and the site of St. Peter’s tomb.
  • St. John Lateran – The cathedral of the Pope, often called the “Mother of all Churches.”
  • St. Mary Major – The oldest church in the West dedicated to Our Lady.
  • St. Paul Outside the Walls – Housing the tomb of St. Paul the Apostle.

⛪ Pilgrimage to Other Sacred Sites

  • The Catacombs – Early Christian burial sites and places of refuge.
  • The Holy Stairs (Scala Sancta) – Believed to be the steps Jesus climbed before Pilate.
  • The Church of the Gesù & the tomb of St. Ignatius of Loyola.
  • The Church of St. Philip Neri, renowned for his joyful holiness.

🌍 Exploring the Eternal City
The pilgrimage will include guided sightseeing to some of Rome’s historic and cultural treasures, such as:

  • The Colosseum and the memories of the early Christian martyrs.
  • The Roman Forum and the heart of ancient Rome.
  • The Pantheon and its Christian transformation.
  • Piazza Navona, the Trevi Fountain, and other landmarks.

🍽 Time for Fellowship & Reflection
Pilgrims will have opportunities to enjoy the unique culture and cuisine of Rome, with time set aside for fellowship, discussion, and personal devotion.

Practical Information

  • Estimated Cost: Up to €15000-2000, covering accommodation, guided visits, and entry to sites.
  • Travel Arrangements: Pilgrims must arrange their own flights or transport to and from Rome.
  • Limited Spaces Available – Those interested should register their interest early to receive further details.

📩 If you are interested in joining this sacred journey, express your interest today!

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

🔝

A diverse group of individuals gathered in a library-like setting, engaging in conversation and reading, with shelves filled with books in the background.

Join the Old Roman Apostolate Forum!

🔹 Faithful. Traditional. Uncompromising. 🔹

Looking for a place to discuss, learn, and live out the Catholic Faith as handed down through Sacred Tradition? www.oldroman.live is the official discussion forum of the Old Roman Apostolate, bringing together clergy, religious, and laity committed to preserving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in its unchanging truth.

Why Join?

📜 Engage in Catholic Discussion📜
Explore doctrine, moral theology, liturgy, and history
from a fully traditional perspective.
✝️ Grow in Faith & Spirituality✝️
Participate in prayer threads, catechesis,
and reflections on Catholic life.
📢 Stay Updated📢
Get the latest Apostolate news, clergy announcements,
and mission updates.
🗣 Fraternal Community🗣
Connect with like-minded Catholics who uphold the
Traditional Latin Mass and perennial teachings.

Whether you’re a longtime traditional Catholic or just discovering the beauty of authentic Catholicism, this forum is your home.

🌍 Be part of the Old Roman Apostolate today!🌍
Sign up now at www.oldroman.live and join the conversation!

🔝

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 🔝

YouTube player
subscribeSubscribe to my channel
«
Prev
1
/
1126
Next
»
loading
play
Today's homily: St Didacus of Alcalá (2026)
play
The Daily Mass: St Didacus of Alcalá
play
Angelus
play
The Daily Mass: St Martin I of Rome
play
Live Q&A with HE ✠Jerome Lloyd
play
Angelus
play
Angelus
play
Today's homily: St Martin I of Rome (2026)
play
Angelus
play
The Daily Mass: St Martin of Tours
play
Old Romans Unscripted S2. EpXIV: Cui bono?
play
Angelus
play
✠Challoner Meditation: November 11th
play
Angelus
play
Today's homily: St Martin of Tours (2026)
«
Prev
1
/
1126
Next
»
loading

Support the Old Roman

If you appreciate this newsletter, Nuntiatoria and Old Roman TV, and value the effort and time involved in their creation, please consider supporting us with a donation below. Your generosity enables us to continue providing thoughtful and enriching content. Every contribution, no matter the size, makes a meaningful difference. Thank you for your support!

Alternatively, please consider showing your support by sharing it with others. Referring friends, colleagues, or family members helps our readership grow and ensures that our content continues reaching those who will value it most.

Thank you for helping us spread the word!

🔝

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 Redeemerpray 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 Christpray for us.
Minister of salvationpray 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 householdAnd 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)

🔝