Tag: Old Roman Apostolate

“O sacerdos! Tu quis es?” A pastoral epistle to the clergy for the New Year 2026

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment
Coat of arms featuring a heraldic design with a cross, fleur-de-lis, and decorative elements. Below the coat of arms, the Latin phrase 'DEUS CARITAS EST' is inscribed.

Carissimi Filii

Beloved Sons in Christ,

As we stand at the threshold of a new year of grace, I write to you not as an administrator issuing directives, nor as a supervisor evaluating outcomes, but as a father speaking to his sons in the priesthood—men marked by an indelible character, conformed sacramentally to Christ the Eternal High Priest, and entrusted with the care of souls in an age that scarcely remembers what a priest is meant to be.

The words of the Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, which I place before you at the opening of this year, cut through all illusion and sentimentality:

O sacerdos! Tu quis es?
Non es a te, quia de nihilo.
Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.
Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.
Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.
Non es tu, quia alter Christus es.
Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.¹

“O priest! What are you?
You do not come from yourself, for you come from nothing.
You do not belong to yourself, for you are ordered to God.
You do not live for yourself, for you must live for God alone.
You are not your own, for you are the servant of all.
You are not yourself, for you are another Christ.
What then are you? Nothing—and everything.”

This is not poetry for ornament’s sake. It is metaphysical truth. It expresses the very ontology of the priesthood. The priest does not possess his vocation as one might possess a skill or office; he is possessed by it. Holy Orders imprints a character that cannot be erased, a permanent configuration to Christ the High Priest, whether the world recognises it or not.² As I wrote to you last July, “the key to true discipleship and authentic spiritual progress lies not in being affirmed, promoted, or seen, but in the complete surrender of the possessive self.”³

In an age intoxicated with self-expression, self-definition, and self-sovereignty, the priest stands as a living contradiction. The modern world exhorts man to “be himself,” to assert his identity, to claim autonomy as a right. The priest, however, is commanded to do the opposite: to surrender selfhood, to disappear into Christ, to become transparent to Another.⁴

You were not ordained to affirm yourself, but to be consumed. You were not ordained to be affirmed by the age, but to be faithful to the Gospel. You were not ordained to speak your own word, but to hand on what you yourself received.⁵

This is why the priesthood has always been a sign of contradiction. It stands athwart the spirit of every age—not by political agitation, but by ontological witness. The priest is not his own property. He belongs to Christ, and therefore he belongs to the Church, and therefore he belongs to souls. And many of you—particularly the younger clergy—know what it is to “be treated as if you are irrelevant relics or even rebellious interlopers,” to be “ignored by chancelleries, snubbed by peers, questioned by family, and denied even the companionship of many once called brethren.”⁶

Such a vocation will never be comfortable.

You will be misunderstood. You will be ignored. At times you will be opposed—sometimes even by those within the household of faith. You may labour in obscurity, minister in small flocks, or carry burdens unseen and unacknowledged. Yet heaven measures differently than the world. A single faithful Mass offered in obscurity outweighs a thousand eloquent speeches. A single absolution pronounced in faith repairs more than a thousand editorials ever could. “The hiddenness you endure is not failure—it is purification.”⁷

Remember: the priesthood does not derive its dignity from visibility, numbers, or influence, but from sacrifice. The altar—not the platform—is its centre. The confessional—not the microphone—is its true tribunal. The tabernacle—not the crowd—is its true audience.⁸

You are not called to save the Church by strategy or reform. You are called to be holy. Holiness is the Church’s true reform. Every authentic renewal in the history of the Church has begun not with structures, but with saints.⁹

Therefore, I urge you, my sons: guard your interior life with vigilance. Be faithful to the daily offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Guard the silence of prayer. Love the sacred liturgy, not as a performance but as the action of Christ Himself. Teach sound doctrine without compromise, and do so with charity. Flee from the temptation to accommodate error for the sake of peace. Truth is never served by dilution.¹⁰

Above all, remain priests—priests of the altar, priests of the confessional, priests of the Cross. “The priest is not his own. He belongs to Christ. He is not here to be served, but to serve. Not to shine, but to burn.”¹¹

You are nothing.
And in Christ, you are everything.

With paternal affection and the assurance of my prayers,

Oremus pro invicem.

I.X.

A formal signature of Jerome Seleisi, featuring an ornate script.

Brichtelmestunensis
S. Silvestri Papæ et Confessoris MMXXV A.D.

Footnotes

  1. Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), adapted from his meditation on the ontological identity of the priest. The Latin formulation is commonly attributed to Sheen’s paraphrase of traditional spiritual theology.
  2. Council of Trent, Session XXIII, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Order, cap. 4: “In the sacrament of Order a character is impressed which can neither be effaced nor taken away.”
  3. Jerome of Selsey, “Humiliati et Absconditi: A Pastoral Epistle to the Clergy” (17 July 2025).
  4. Cf. Galatians 2:20; John 12:24–26.
  5. 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 4:1–2.
  6. Jerome of Selsey, ibid.
  7. Ibid.
  8. St. John Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, Book III.
  9. Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii (1935), on the supernatural dignity of the priesthood.
  10. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass.
  11. Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own, Chapter 1.

    TAGALOG

    Minamahal kong mga anak kay Kristo,

    Habang tayo ay nakatayo sa bungad ng panibagong taon ng biyaya, sumusulat ako sa inyo hindi bilang isang tagapangasiwa na nagbibigay ng mga kautusan, ni bilang isang superbisor na sumusuri ng mga resulta, kundi bilang isang ama na nakikipag-usap sa kanyang mga anak sa pananampalataya at pagkasaserdote—mga lalaking may tandang hindi na mabubura, na sakramentong hinubog ayon kay Kristo na Walang Hanggang Kataas-taasang Saserdote, at pinagkatiwalaan ng mga kaluluwa sa panahong halos limot na kung ano ba talaga ang pari.

    Ang mga salita ng Kagalang-galang na si Fulton J. Sheen, na inilalagak ko sa inyong harapan sa pagsisimula ng taong ito, ay tumatagos sa lahat ng ilusyon at sentimentalismo:

    O sacerdos! Tu quis es?
    Non es a te, quia de nihilo.
    Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.
    Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.
    Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.
    Non es tu, quia alter Christus es.
    Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.¹

    “O pari! Sino ka?
    Hindi ka nagmula sa iyong sarili, sapagkat ikaw ay mula sa wala.
    Hindi ka para sa iyong sarili, sapagkat ikaw ay itinakdang tunguhin ang Diyos.
    Hindi ka nabubuhay para sa iyong sarili, sapagkat dapat kang mamuhay para sa Diyos lamang.
    Hindi ikaw ang may-ari ng iyong sarili, sapagkat ikaw ay lingkod ng lahat.
    Hindi ka ikaw, sapagkat ikaw ay isa pang Kristo.
    Ano ka nga ba? Wala—at lahat.”

    Hindi ito panulaan para lang sa palamuti. Ito ay isang pilosopikal at teolohikal na katotohanan. Ipinahahayag nito ang mismong ontolohiya ng pagkasaserdote. Ang pari ay hindi basta mayroong bokasyon gaya ng isang kasanayan o tungkulin; siya ay pagmamay-ari nito. Ang Banal na Orden ay nag-uukit ng isang tandang hindi na nabubura, isang permanenteng pagkakahubog kay Kristo bilang Kataas-taasang Saserdote, kahit hindi ito kilalanin ng mundo.² Gaya ng isinulat ko noong Hulyo, “ang susi ng tunay na pagsunod at tunay na paglago sa espiritu ay hindi ang makilala, maitaas, o makita, kundi ang ganap na pagsuko ng makasariling sarili.”³

    Sa isang panahon na lasing sa pagpapahayag ng sarili, sa pagbibigay-kahulugan sa sarili, at sa sariling pamumuno, ang pari ay isang buhay na kontradiksiyon. Tinuturuan ng modernong mundo ang tao na “maging siya mismo,” na igiit ang kanyang pagkakakilanlan, at angkinin ang awtonomiya bilang karapatan. Ngunit ang pari ay inuutusang gawin ang kabaligtaran: isuko ang sarili, maglaho kay Kristo, maging malinaw na salamin ng Isa pa.⁴

    Hindi kayo naordinahan upang pagtibayin ang inyong sarili, kundi upang magpakasayang buo. Hindi kayo naordinahan upang aprubahan ng daigdig, kundi upang maging tapat sa Ebanghelyo. Hindi kayo naordinahan upang magsalita ng sariling salita, kundi upang ipasa ang inyong natanggap.⁵

    Ito ang dahilan kung bakit ang pagkasaserdote ay laging naging isang tanda ng kontradiksiyon. Tumitindig ito laban sa espiritu ng bawat panahon—hindi sa pamamagitan ng pulitikal na pagkilos, kundi ng ontolohikal na saksi. Ang pari ay hindi sarili niyang ari-arian. Siya ay kay Kristo, at samakatuwid ay sa Simbahan, at samakatuwid ay para sa mga kaluluwa. At marami sa inyo—lalo na kayong mas nakababatang klero—ang nakararanas kung paano “itrato na tila kayo’y mga hindi mahalagang relikya o mapaghimagsik na banyaga,” na “hindi pinapansin ng mga opisina ng simbahan, kinukutya ng mga kapwa lingkod, kinikwestiyon ng sariling pamilya, at pinagtatabuyan ng dati’y mga kapatid sa pananampalataya.”⁶

    Hindi kailanman magiging maginhawa ang bokasyong ito.

    Kayo’y hindi maiintindihan. Kayo’y hindi papansinin. Minsan ay lalabanan pa kayo—maging ng mga nasa loob ng sambahayan ng pananampalataya. Maaaring kayo’y maglingkod sa kabila ng kawalang-kilala, magpastol ng maliliit na kawan, o magpasan ng mga pasaning di-nakikita at di-kilala. Subalit iba ang pamantayan ng langit kaysa mundo. Ang isang matapat na Misa na inaalay sa lihim ay higit na mahalaga kaysa sanlibong talumpati. Ang isang absolusyon na binigkas sa pananampalataya ay higit na nakapagpapagaling kaysa sanlibong artikulo. “Ang pagiging nakatago na inyong dinaranas ay hindi kabiguan—ito’y paglilinis.”⁷

    Alalahanin: ang dangal ng pagkasaserdote ay hindi nagmumula sa kasikatan, bilang, o impluwensiya, kundi sa sakripisyo. Ang altar—hindi ang entablado—ang sentro nito. Ang kumpisalan—hindi ang mikropono—ang tunay na tribunal. Ang tabernakulo—hindi ang madla—ang tunay na madla.⁸

    Hindi kayo tinawag upang iligtas ang Simbahan sa pamamagitan ng estratehiya o reporma. Kayo ay tinawag upang maging banal. Ang kabanalan ang tunay na reporma ng Simbahan. Bawat tunay na pagbabagong panloob sa kasaysayan ng Simbahan ay nagsimula hindi sa mga estruktura kundi sa mga santo.⁹

    Kaya’t hinihimok ko kayo, aking mga anak: bantayan ninyong mabuti ang inyong panloob na buhay. Maging tapat sa araw-araw na pag-aalay ng Banal na Sakripisyo. Bantayan ang katahimikan ng panalangin. Ibigin ang sagradong liturhiya, hindi bilang pagtatanghal kundi bilang kilos ni Kristo Mismo. Ituro ang tunay na doktrina nang walang kompromiso, at gawin ito nang may pag-ibig. Tumakas sa tukso ng pakikisama sa kamalian alang-alang sa katahimikan. Hindi kailanman napaglilingkuran ang katotohanan sa pamamagitan ng pagpapalabnaw nito.¹⁰

    Higit sa lahat, manatili kayong mga pari—mga pari ng altar, mga pari ng kumpisalan, mga pari ng Krus. “Ang pari ay hindi kanya. Siya ay kay Kristo. Siya ay narito hindi upang paglingkuran kundi upang maglingkod. Hindi upang magningning kundi upang magliyab.”¹¹

    Kayo ay wala.
    At kay Kristo, kayo ay lahat.

    Sa pagmamahal ng isang ama at sa katiyakan ng aking panalangin,

    ESPANOL

    Amados hijos en Cristo:

    Al encontrarnos al umbral de un nuevo año de gracia, os escribo no como un administrador que dicta directrices, ni como un supervisor que evalúa resultados, sino como un padre que habla a sus hijos en el sacerdocio—hombres marcados por un carácter indeleble, configurados sacramentalmente con Cristo, el Sumo Sacerdote Eterno, y encargados del cuidado de las almas en una época que apenas recuerda lo que verdaderamente debe ser un sacerdote.

    Las palabras del Venerable Fulton J. Sheen, que os presento al inicio de este año, cortan toda ilusión y sentimentalismo:

    O sacerdos! Tu quis es?
    Non es a te, quia de nihilo.
    Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum.
    Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes.
    Non es tui, quia es omnium servus.
    Non es tu, quia alter Christus es.
    **Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.**¹

    “¡Oh sacerdote! ¿Quién eres?
    No vienes de ti mismo, porque vienes de la nada.
    No llevas a ti mismo, porque eres mediador hacia Dios.
    No vives para ti, porque debes vivir solo para Dios.
    No eres tuyo, porque eres servidor de todos.
    No eres tú mismo, porque eres otro Cristo.
    ¿Entonces qué eres? Nada… y todo.”

    Esto no es poesía ornamental. Es verdad metafísica. Expresa la ontología misma del sacerdocio. El sacerdote no posee su vocación como quien tiene una habilidad o un cargo; él es poseído por ella. El Orden Sagrado imprime un carácter que no puede borrarse, una configuración permanente con Cristo Sumo Sacerdote, aunque el mundo no lo reconozca.² Como escribí el pasado julio, “la clave del verdadero discipulado y del progreso espiritual auténtico no está en ser afirmado, promovido o visto, sino en la entrega total del yo posesivo.”³

    En una era embriagada por la autoexpresión, la autodefinición y la autoafirmación, el sacerdote es una contradicción viviente. El mundo moderno exhorta al hombre a “ser él mismo”, a afirmar su identidad, a reclamar la autonomía como un derecho. El sacerdote, en cambio, recibe un mandato inverso: renunciar a sí mismo, desaparecer en Cristo, volverse transparente a Otro.⁴

    No habéis sido ordenados para afirmaros, sino para ser consumidos. No habéis sido ordenados para ser reconocidos por este siglo, sino para ser fieles al Evangelio. No habéis sido ordenados para hablar por vosotros mismos, sino para transmitir lo que habéis recibido.⁵

    Por eso el sacerdocio siempre ha sido señal de contradicción. Contradice el espíritu de cada época —no con agitación política, sino con un testimonio ontológico. El sacerdote no se pertenece. Pertenece a Cristo, por tanto a la Iglesia, y por tanto a las almas. Y muchos de vosotros —sobre todo los más jóvenes— sabéis bien lo que es “ser tratados como reliquias anticuadas o incluso como elementos perturbadores; ignorados por las cancillerías, rechazados por los compañeros, interrogados por los familiares, e incluso privados de la fraternidad de quienes alguna vez fueron llamados hermanos.”⁶

    Tales vocaciones nunca serán cómodas.

    Seréis incomprendidos. Seréis ignorados. A veces seréis resistidos —a veces incluso por quienes comparten la fe. Puede que sirváis en la sombra, que atendáis rebaños pequeños, o que carguéis cruces invisibles y no reconocidas. Pero el Cielo mide distinto que el mundo. Una sola Misa fiel celebrada en el anonimato vale más que mil discursos elocuentes. Una sola absolución dada con fe repara más que mil editoriales. “La invisibilidad que soportáis no es un fracaso —es una purificación.”⁷

    Recordad: la dignidad del sacerdocio no depende de la visibilidad, del número ni de la influencia, sino del sacrificio. El altar —no la plataforma— es su centro. El confesionario —no el micrófono— es su tribunal. El sagrario —no la multitud— es su verdadero auditorio.⁸

    No habéis sido llamados a salvar la Iglesia con estrategia o reformas. Estáis llamados a ser santos. La santidad es la verdadera reforma de la Iglesia. Toda renovación auténtica en la historia de la Iglesia ha comenzado no con estructuras, sino con santos.⁹

    Por eso os exhorto, hijos míos: cuidad con celo vuestra vida interior. Sed fieles a la ofrenda diaria del Santo Sacrificio. Preservad el silencio de la oración. Amad la santa liturgia, no como espectáculo, sino como la misma acción de Cristo. Enseñad la sana doctrina sin componendas, y hacedlo con caridad. Huid de la tentación de acomodar el error para conservar la paz. La verdad nunca se sirve aguada.¹⁰

    Y sobre todo, permaneced sacerdotes: sacerdotes del altar, sacerdotes del confesionario, sacerdotes de la Cruz. “El sacerdote no se pertenece. Pertenece a Cristo. No está para ser servido, sino para servir. No para brillar, sino para arder.”¹¹

    No sois nada.
    Y en Cristo, sois todo.

    Con afecto paternal y la seguridad de mis oraciones.

    FRANCAIS

    Bien-aimés Fils dans le Christ,

    Alors que nous nous tenons au seuil d’une nouvelle année de grâce, je vous écris non pas comme un administrateur émettant des directives, ni comme un superviseur évaluant des résultats, mais comme un père s’adressant à ses fils dans le sacerdoce — des hommes marqués par un caractère indélébile, configurés sacramentellement au Christ, Souverain Prêtre éternel, et chargés du soin des âmes en une époque qui a presque oublié ce qu’est réellement un prêtre.

    Les mots du Vénérable Fulton J. Sheen, que je vous offre en ce commencement d’année, tranchent dans l’illusion et le sentimentalisme :

    O sacerdos! Tu quis es? Non es a te, quia de nihilo. Non es ad te, quia es mediator ad Deum. Non es tibi, quia soli Deo vivere debes. Non es tui, quia es omnium servus. Non es tu, quia alter Christus es. Quid ergo es? Nihil et omnia.¹

    “Ô prêtre ! Qui es-tu ? Tu ne viens pas de toi-même, car tu viens du néant. Tu ne mènes pas à toi, car tu es médiateur vers Dieu. Tu ne vis pas pour toi-même, car tu dois vivre pour Dieu seul. Tu ne t’appartiens pas, car tu es serviteur de tous. Tu n’es pas toi-même, car tu es un autre Christ. Qu’es-tu donc ? Rien — et tout.”

    Ce n’est pas une poésie pour l’ornement. C’est une vérité métaphysique. Elle exprime l’ontologie même du sacerdoce. Le prêtre ne possède pas sa vocation comme on posséderait une compétence ou une fonction ; il en est possédé. L’Ordre sacré imprime un caractère qui ne s’efface pas, une configuration permanente au Christ Prêtre éternel, que le monde le reconnaisse ou non.² Comme je vous l’écrivais en juillet dernier, « la clé du véritable discipulat et du progrès spirituel authentique ne réside pas dans le fait d’être affirmé, promu ou reconnu, mais dans l’abandon total du moi possessif. »³

    En un temps enivré par l’expression de soi, la définition de soi et la souveraineté de soi, le prêtre est une contradiction vivante. Le monde moderne exhorte l’homme à “être lui-même”, à affirmer son identité, à revendiquer l’autonomie comme un droit. Le prêtre, quant à lui, reçoit un commandement inverse : renoncer à soi, disparaître dans le Christ, devenir transparent à un Autre.⁴

    Vous n’avez pas été ordonnés pour vous affirmer, mais pour être consumés. Vous n’avez pas été ordonnés pour être reconnus par ce siècle, mais pour être fidèles à l’Évangile. Vous n’avez pas été ordonnés pour parler en votre nom, mais pour transmettre ce que vous avez reçu.⁵

    C’est pourquoi le sacerdoce a toujours été un signe de contradiction. Il contredit l’esprit de chaque époque — non pas par l’agitation politique, mais par un témoignage ontologique. Le prêtre n’est pas sa propre propriété. Il appartient au Christ, donc à l’Église, donc aux âmes. Et beaucoup parmi vous — en particulier les jeunes clercs — savent ce que c’est que « d’être traités comme des reliques démodées ou même des perturbateurs indésirables », « ignorés par les chancelleries, rejetés par vos pairs, interrogés par vos proches, et privés même de la fraternité de ceux qu’on appelait autrefois vos frères. »⁶

    Une telle vocation ne sera jamais confortable.

    Vous serez incompris. Vous serez ignorés. Parfois vous serez opposés — parfois même par ceux qui partagent la foi. Vous pourrez œuvrer dans l’ombre, servir de petits troupeaux, ou porter des fardeaux invisibles et non reconnus. Mais le Ciel mesure autrement que le monde. Une seule Messe fidèle célébrée dans l’oubli vaut mieux que mille discours éloquents. Une seule absolution donnée avec foi répare plus que mille éditoriaux. « L’invisibilité que vous supportez n’est pas un échec — c’est une purification. »⁷

    Souvenez-vous : la dignité du sacerdoce ne dépend pas de la visibilité, du nombre ou de l’influence, mais du sacrifice. L’autel — non l’estrade — en est le centre. Le confessionnal — non le micro — en est le véritable tribunal. Le tabernacle — non la foule — en est le vrai auditoire.⁸

    Vous n’êtes pas appelés à sauver l’Église par stratégie ou réforme. Vous êtes appelés à être saints. La sainteté est la véritable réforme de l’Église. Chaque renouveau authentique dans l’histoire de l’Église a commencé non par des structures, mais par des saints.⁹

    Je vous exhorte donc, mes fils : gardez votre vie intérieure avec vigilance. Soyez fidèles à l’offrande quotidienne du Saint Sacrifice. Préservez le silence de la prière. Aimez la sainte liturgie, non comme une performance, mais comme l’action même du Christ. Enseignez la saine doctrine sans compromis, et faites-le avec charité. Fuyez la tentation d’accommoder l’erreur pour préserver la paix. La vérité n’est jamais servie par la dilution.¹⁰

    Par-dessus tout, demeurez prêtres : prêtres de l’autel, prêtres du confessionnal, prêtres de la Croix. « Le prêtre ne s’appartient pas. Il appartient au Christ. Il n’est pas là pour être servi, mais pour servir. Pas pour briller, mais pour brûler. »¹¹

    Vous n’êtes rien. Et dans le Christ, vous êtes tout.

    Avec affection paternelle et l’assurance de mes prières.

    Statement: On the Peacehaven Mosque Arson

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    The Archbishop of Selsey has issued a statement condemning the arson attack on Peacehaven Mosque, expressing sorrow, solidarity with the Muslim community, and a call to peace, charity, and justice across Sussex.

    At about 9:50 p.m. on Saturday, 4 October, a fire broke out at a building on Phyllis Avenue, Peacehaven, used as both a mosque and community centre. The blaze caused damage to the front entrance and also destroyed a vehicle parked outside, though thankfully no injuries were reported. Sussex Police have confirmed that the incident is being treated as arson and as a possible hate crime. Detective Superintendent Karrie Bohanna described the response as a “fast-moving investigation” and appealed for witnesses, urging anyone with CCTV, doorbell, dashcam, or mobile footage from the area to come forward.

    His Grace has issued the following statement:

    Coat of arms of S.E. Hieronymus Lloyd, Archbishop of Selsey, featuring a blue shield with yellow fleur-de-lis and stars, surrounded by ornate decoration and the motto 'Deus Caritas Est'.

    [Begins] The news of last night’s deliberate fire at the Peacehaven Mosque has brought sorrow and grave concern to all people of faith and goodwill across Sussex. Such an act—whatever its motive—strikes at the heart of neighbourly peace and the moral fabric of our common life. It is not only a crime against property, but an offence against charity and conscience.¹

    We extend our sincere sympathy and solidarity to the Muslim community of Peacehaven, assuring them of our prayers and friendship. The deliberate desecration of any place set apart for the worship of God wounds the entire community. Every religion that seeks the good and the true must be free to gather in peace, without fear of hatred or reprisal.²

    The Lord commands us to love our neighbour as ourselves.³ This is not a sentiment, but a sacred duty. In moments such as these, Christians must be first to denounce violence, to comfort the afflicted, and to rebuild trust where it has been broken. Let us stand together against all forms of hatred—religious, racial, or ideological—and reaffirm our shared commitment to peace rooted in justice, truth, and respect for human dignity.⁴

    I urge the faithful of the Old Roman Apostolate to remember in their prayers the victims of this attack, those who serve in our emergency services, and all engaged in restoring safety and concord in our towns and villages. May Almighty God bring healing to the injured hearts of our neighbours, strengthen our communities in mutual respect, and turn every act of darkness into an occasion for greater light. [ENDS]

    ✠ Jerome Lloyd
    Titular Archbishop of Selsey
    Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate

    1 Sussex Police, “Appeal for Information After Arson in Peacehaven” (October 5, 2025).
    2 Cf. Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae, 2 – “Religious freedom, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society.”
    3 Mark 12:31.
    4 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2304 – “Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war… but the work of justice and the effect of charity.”

    A line of lit candles in the foreground with a sunset over a town in the background, creating a serene and reflective atmosphere.

    Statement: On the Appointment of the New Archbishop of Canterbury

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    On 3 October 2025, Downing Street announced that Dame Sarah Mullally, currently Bishop of London and former Chief Nursing Officer for England, has been appointed the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman ever to hold the post in the 1,400-year history of the office. Her confirmation is scheduled for January 2026 at St Paul’s Cathedral, with her installation at Canterbury Cathedral in March.

    The Titular Archbishop of Selsey, as Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate, has issued this statement to place the appointment in its wider historical and theological context, noting the irony of the timing, the sadness of further division, and the necessity of prayer — above all, for the conversion of Dame Sarah and of England itself to the fullness of Catholic faith.

    His Grace has issued the following statement:

    Coat of arms of S.E. Hieronymus Lloyd, Archbishop of Selsey, featuring a blue shield with yellow fleur-de-lis and stars, surrounded by ornate decoration and the motto 'Deus Caritas Est'.

    [Begins] The announcement of Dame Sarah Mullally as the next Archbishop of Canterbury has been greeted as a historic milestone: the first woman to occupy the See of Augustine in its long history. As Catholics, we do not meet such news with rancour, but with prayerful reflection — and with a sense of history that brings both sorrow and hope.

    It is not without irony that this appointment comes in the very week when the Catholic Church in England and Wales marks the 175th anniversary of the restoration of the hierarchy by Blessed Pope Pius IX.¹ In 1850, after centuries of persecution and suppression, the Church regained the fullness of her episcopal order in these lands. Bishops were once again set over dioceses, restoring to the faithful the visible structure of apostolic government that had been interrupted since the Reformation. It was, and remains, a sign of continuity with the ancient faith first planted here by St Augustine of Canterbury in 597.²

    The juxtaposition could not be more striking. On the one hand, Catholics recall with thanksgiving the providential renewal of true apostolic order. On the other, the Church of England presents to the world a figure who embodies the innovations of recent decades. Dame Sarah’s own story is admirable in many respects: a distinguished career in nursing, service as Chief Nursing Officer for England,³ and a respected tenure as Bishop of London. Yet her elevation is also symbolic of the different path the Church of England has taken — one that has sought renewal not in fidelity to the deposit of faith, but in adaptation to cultural change.

    This decision also has ecumenical consequences of the highest order. Whatever fragile hopes once existed for reconciliation between Canterbury and the apostolic Churches — Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, and the rest — have now effectively been set aside. Both the Catholic Church⁴ and the Orthodox Churches⁵ have spoken with one voice: Holy Orders are of divine institution, and the Church has no authority whatsoever to ordain women. To install a woman as Archbishop is therefore not only an ecclesiological innovation but a definitive signal that the Church of England has chosen a path of permanent separation from apostolic Christianity. If reunion with the successors of Peter and Andrew was once a dream, this decision has placed it far beyond reach.

    Meanwhile, the fruits of this progressive path are already evident. Since the ordination of women in the 1990s, Anglicanism has suffered defections of clergy and laity, dwindling attendance,⁶ and deep fractures across the Communion. The recent controversy surrounding the election of the new Archbishop of Wales, Cherry Vann, provoked strong reactions both within Britain and across the Global South. Christian Concern described the appointment as “tragic,”⁷ while the Archbishop of Nigeria declared that his province “cannot share communion with a church that has departed from the teachings of the Bible.”⁸ Such division illustrates how fragile Anglican unity has become. The appointment of a woman to Canterbury is likely to deepen those divisions, not heal them.

    And yet, our response must not be triumphalism. For Catholics, the sight of Canterbury in confusion and fragmentation is never a cause for satisfaction, but for sorrow. The See of Augustine was once the beacon of unity in England, and its decline is bound up with the spiritual decline of the nation itself.

    We must therefore pray. We must pray for Dame Sarah Mullally’s conversion to the fullness of truth, that she may yet come to see the beauty of the apostolic faith unbroken in the Catholic Church. We must pray for those Anglicans who still hunger for unity with the Church Christ founded. And above all, we must pray for the conversion of England itself, once known as Our Lady’s Dowry, that this nation may return to the faith that sanctified its saints and martyrs and alone can secure its future.

    In this week of anniversaries, we are reminded of two paths: one of restoration, when the Catholic hierarchy was re-established in fidelity to apostolic order; the other of innovation, which risks further disintegration. History will judge which path leads to life. For our part, we remain committed to witness, to charity, and to prayer — confident that the truth entrusted to the Church will endure, and that England will, in God’s time, find its way home. [ENDS]

    ¹ Pius IX, Universalis Ecclesiae (1850), restoring the Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales.
    ² Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, I.25–26, on Augustine’s mission to Kent in 597.
    ³ UK Government, Department of Health archives, “Dame Sarah Mullally, Chief Nursing Officer for England” (1999–2004).
    ⁴ John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994): “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.”
    ⁵ Inter-Orthodox Theological Consultation, “Women and the Priesthood,” Chambésy (1988), reaffirming that priestly ordination is reserved to men.
    ⁶ Church of England, Statistics for Mission 2022; Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian, 24 Oct 2024, reporting a fall of 169,000 worshippers in four years.
    ⁷ Newsweek, “Gay Archbishop’s Appointment Criticized by Christian Group,” Jul 2025, on Cherry Vann’s election in Wales.
    ⁸ The Times, Aug 2025, quoting the Archbishop of Nigeria rejecting communion with the Church in Wales after Vann’s appointment.

    The Halal Meat Debate and the Christian Conscience

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    By the Archbishop of Selsey

    The debate over halal meat in Britain has once more risen to national prominence, and rightly so. Parliament has heard petitions about animal welfare; campaigners have spoken of religious liberty; and politicians have traded rhetoric about British identity. Yet in all this clamour one vital question is forgotten: the conscience of the Christian.

    We live in an age that prizes transparency, yet when it comes to our food — the very substance that sustains life and, in the Eucharist, becomes the Body of Christ — our society traffics in ambiguity. In Britain today, halal-certified meat, sometimes stunned, sometimes not, enters the general food supply with scarcely a word of disclosure. Schoolchildren, hospital patients, soldiers in barracks may all be eating meat prayed over in the name of Allah without ever knowing it.¹

    Case Study: Newcastle University
    In May 2025, Newcastle University’s catering service introduced halal-only chicken and lamb across several outlets. Students soon raised complaints: some were unaware until after eating, others said they felt deprived of choice, while Christian and secular students alike objected to being compelled to consume food ritually consecrated in another faith.² After pressure from the Students’ Union, the university agreed to review provision, but the incident illustrates the wider problem: without transparency and alternatives, consumers are left with no meaningful freedom of conscience.

    Here lies the injustice. The Apostle Paul taught the Corinthians that meat in itself is indifferent, yet warned: “If any man say to you: This has been offered in sacrifice; do not eat, for his sake that told it, and for conscience’ sake” (1 Cor. 10:28).³ The principle is plain: Christians cannot knowingly share in the rites of another religion, nor can they be compelled to do so in ignorance. To obscure the truth about what we eat is to force believers into a silent participation, stripping them of the freedom of conscience that is the hallmark of true liberty.

    The Restore Britain campaign has seized upon this issue, raising alarms about halal-only menus in schools and even in parts of the military. They have called for a ban on non-stun slaughter, appealing to animal welfare and cultural integrity.⁴ Their concern strikes a chord, for no Christian can remain indifferent to truth or to the slow erosion of our Christian heritage. But the danger is that zeal for justice may give way to hostility, that righteous concern for conscience may be disfigured by rhetoric that stirs division rather than illuminating truth.

    The Christian answer is not prohibition but clarity. Muslims and Jews must be free to follow their dietary laws. That is a legitimate exercise of religious liberty. But Christians, too, must be free to decline participation in rites they do not share. That is an equally legitimate exercise of conscience. True pluralism is reciprocal: one liberty does not trample another. The solution is as simple as it is just — mandatory labelling of meat, procurement reform in public institutions, and transparency in supply chains.⁵ With truth, conscience is protected. Without truth, liberty collapses into coercion.

    Under the Equality Act 2010, religion and belief are recognised as protected characteristics. This means that Christians, like members of other faiths, are legally entitled to have their convictions respected in public life, education, and the workplace. Where food or services risk conflicting with conscience — such as being compelled to consume ritually consecrated meat without disclosure — Christians have a lawful basis to request transparency and fair treatment. The Act upholds that no one should be discriminated against or coerced in matters of faith.

    Let us not deceive ourselves. This debate is not merely about animals, nor merely about politics. It is about the soul of our society. A civilisation that conceals the truth about its food will soon conceal the truth about its faith. The lie at the butcher’s counter becomes the lie in the classroom, the hospital, the courtroom, the parish church. What begins as silence in the marketplace ends as silence in the conscience. And silence in the conscience is death to the soul.

    Christ said, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). It is time to apply that wisdom in Britain today. Let Muslims be Muslims, Jews be Jews, and Christians be Christians — but let none be compelled to share in another’s rite against their conscience. This is not intolerance; it is honesty. It is not exclusion; it is justice. In the end, it is not prohibition that will protect our faith and our freedom, but truth.

    A Pastoral Appeal
    I urge Christian families, schools, chapels, and institutions: do not be afraid to ask your suppliers plainly how the meat you are being offered has been sourced and prepared. Request transparency about whether animals were stunned, and whether the meat has been consecrated in the name of another faith. This is not an act of hostility but of integrity. When consumers calmly but firmly demand clarity, suppliers and institutions will learn that conscience matters. And in defending conscience, we defend not only our faith but the freedom of all.

    Here is a sample letter template that Christian families, schools, chapels, or institutions could adapt when writing to their suppliers, asking for transparency about meat sourcing and preparation. It is courteous but firm, framed around conscience and integrity.

    Supplier_Transparency_Request_Letter_EqualityActDownload

    For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

    Footnotes
    ¹ UK Parliament, Non-Stun Slaughter of Animals, Westminster Hall debate, 9 June 2025, Hansard HC Deb 9 June 2025, c39WH.
    ² Newcastle University Students’ Union, debate over halal-only provision in campus catering, reported May 2025.
    ³ 1 Corinthians 10:28.
    ⁴ Restore Britain campaign materials, e.g. Rupert Lowe MP, Facebook post, 2025; ConservativeHome, “The Tory cause could be strengthened by Lowe’s Restore Britain,” 15 July 2025.
    ⁵ RSPCA, “Clearer labelling needed on method of slaughter,” Campaign briefing, 2023; UK Government, Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015.

    Unity as a Weapon: The Hollister Suppression

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    By the Archbishop of Selsey

    It is a bitter irony of our times that the word “unity” is now wielded as a club to drive Catholics from the very altar that formed the saints. Bishop Daniel Garcia, on the eve of leaving Monterey, has chosen to terminate the Traditional Latin Mass at Sacred Heart, Hollister. He invokes Traditionis Custodes and urges the faithful to “join in unity” at the postconciliar table, as though unity could be manufactured by coercion and conformity.¹

    This is not unity. It is exclusion disguised as unity. It is the age-old trick of the bureaucrat: to make a slogan the justification for silencing conscience. The families who prayed at that altar were not rebels, but Catholics clinging to the faith of their fathers. Yet in the name of “communion,” they are cast aside, told that their devotion is now a liability.²

    Pope St Pius V, in Quo Primum, bound his successors and declared the Roman Missal to be used in perpetuity.³ Pope Benedict XVI confirmed that the 1962 Missal was never abrogated.⁴ But now bishops, citing Traditionis Custodes, behave as though the Mass of Ages is poison, its adherents to be cleansed from the Church in the name of uniformity. What was sacred yesterday is forbidden today. What nourished saints for centuries is treated as a threat to the faithful.

    The irony grows darker: Traditionis Custodes was sold as a means to “foster unity,” but in practice it has become the charter of division. Unity is not achieved by erasing memory, or by enforcing amnesia upon the flock. It is achieved by continuity—by recognising that the faith is one precisely because it transcends the novelties of an age. The Roman Rite in its ancient form is not an enemy of unity; it is its surest guarantee.⁵

    The faithful in Hollister are not the ones breaking unity. It is the shepherd who drives them from the fold who rends the seamless garment of Christ. By suppressing their Mass, Bishop Garcia has betrayed the supreme law of the Church: the salvation of souls.⁶ Instead of feeding the sheep, he has scattered them. Instead of binding wounds, he has inflicted them.

    The saints did not kneel at guitars and microphones. They were formed at the altar of sacrifice, where priest and people alike bowed before the mystery of Calvary made present. And now, in Monterey, that altar has been declared closed—because unity, we are told, requires exile.

    But Christ does not change, and His sacrifice does not expire. The Mass of Ages remains holy. And no decree, however draped in slogans, can erase what God has hallowed.

    The Old Roman Apostolate
    This moment reveals why the Old Roman Apostolate endures in its mission and charism. Born of fidelity to apostolic tradition, we have sought to preserve the perennial magisterium and the ancient liturgy in the face of novelty and rupture. We do not claim an easy path, nor do we delight in division; rather, we recognise a state of necessity, compelled by conscience to uphold what the Church herself cannot abolish. Our vocation is to witness to continuity when others proclaim rupture, to safeguard the faith when others dilute it, and to hold fast to the Mass of Ages as the surest anchor of unity.

    The ORA does not exist as a parallel Church but as a remnant, crying out with the saints that the liturgy which sanctified them is holy still. We stand ready for reconciliation, but never at the price of truth. For unity without truth is falsehood, and obedience without fidelity is betrayal.

    For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

    ¹ Bishop Daniel Garcia, Letter to the Faithful of Sacred Heart, Hollister, 14 September 2025, reported by Catholic News Agency.
    ² CIC 1983, can. 214: “The Christian faithful have the right to worship God according to the prescriptions of their own rite approved by the lawful pastors of the Church.”
    ³ Pius V, Quo Primum (1570).
    ⁴ Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (2007), art. 1.
    ⁵ Benedict XVI, Letter to Bishops accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007).
    ⁶ CIC 1983, can. 1752: Salus animarum suprema lex.

    Be Not Deceived: The Church Does Not Change

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    By the Archbishop of Selsey

    The Perennial Mission
    The faithful are told today to wait. To be patient. To sit down and talk. But talk is not the mission of the Church. The mission of the Church is to proclaim.

    When St Peter stood before the crowds at Pentecost, he did not convene a dialogue circle. He proclaimed Christ crucified and risen, calling men to repent and be baptized.¹ When the martyrs were dragged before magistrates, they did not hedge their testimony with cautious qualifications. They confessed their Lord even unto death. Their words were clear, their witness uncompromised — and because it was clear, it was life.

    The Temptation of Ambiguity
    Yet now we are told something very different. We hear a voice suggesting that doctrine might change, if only attitudes first change.² This is not Catholic teaching. Truth does not follow fashion. Truth does not bow to the polls or wait upon consensus. Truth is Christ Himself — “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”³

    Ambiguity may sound like compassion. It may win the world’s applause and soothe troubled ears. But ambiguity starves souls. The people of God cannot live on probabilities. They need certainties. They need the living bread of truth, not the stones of hesitation.

    Unity Without Truth Is a Lie
    Families who built their lives around the Mass of the saints now find the doors locked against them, told that “unity” demands their exile. Bishops invoke obedience while exiling the faithful from the very liturgy that nourished saints, martyrs, and missionaries. Unity at the expense of truth is not unity. It is choreography. It photographs well but it does not save.

    The Church is not a debating society. It is the Ark of Salvation. The voice of Peter is not meant to echo the shifting winds of culture but to confirm the brethren in the faith. When Rome speaks in riddles, the sheep scatter. When pastors equivocate, wolves circle.

    The Sacred Liturgy Is Not Negotiable
    The liturgy is not a toy to be handed down by one generation and withdrawn by another. It is not an experiment in pastoral policy. It is the heartbeat of the Church. To suggest that its survival depends upon the decisions of committees and consultations is to treat the holy as negotiable.

    The Mass of Ages has never been abrogated.⁴ It cannot be abrogated. It was sanctified by the Council of Trent, handed down through the centuries, and confirmed by Benedict XVI: “It is permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated.”⁵

    This Mass is not a preference. It is a patrimony. To place it on probation is to suggest that tradition itself is provisional. But what is immemorial cannot be annulled. What sanctified the saints cannot be forbidden.

    The Peril of Probability
    What has been said of marriage and sexuality? That change is “highly unlikely,” at least in the “near future.” But this is the language of politicians, not of shepherds. This is the vocabulary of probability, not of proclamation.

    Dogma admits of no such uncertainty. Vatican I solemnly declared: “That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the pretext or in the name of a deeper understanding.”⁶

    St Vincent of Lérins gave the true measure: the faith develops as a body grows, “strengthened with years, expanded with time, elevated with age,” yet always remaining the same.⁷ A living organism matures; it does not mutate. Doctrine may deepen, but it does not reverse. To speak of doctrine as “unlikely” to change is already to deny its immutability.

    The True Unity of the Church
    Unity in the Church is not built on compromise. It is not held together by committees or processes. It is not preserved by avoiding offense. The unity of the Church is the unity of faith, of sacraments, and of governance under Peter. Unity without truth is a counterfeit.

    The Apostles did not keep silence to maintain appearances. They spoke boldly. St Paul withstood Peter “to his face” when clarity demanded it.⁸ The Fathers thundered against heresy, even when emperors pressed for compromise. The martyrs shed their blood rather than leave the impression that truth was negotiable.

    A Call to Clarity
    My dear friends, beware the soft words that mask hard betrayals. Beware the “codes” that promise continuity but deliver confusion. The bar for Catholic orthodoxy is not “better than Francis.” The bar is Christ, who said, “Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.”⁹

    We are called to clarity, not choreography. To confession, not conversation. To sacrifice, not slogans. The Church does not live by “highly unlikely.” The Church lives by “Amen.”

    Pray for Holy Mother Church. Pray for those in authority, that they may speak as shepherds, not as politicians. And hold fast — hold fast to the faith once delivered to the saints, the faith that does not change, because it is the faith of Christ Himself.¹⁰

    For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

    1. Jude 1:3.
    2. Acts 2:14–36.
    3. Crux, interview with Pope Leo XIV, September 2025.
    4. Hebrews 13:8.
    5. Council of Trent, Session XXII, Canon 9.
    6. Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (2007), Art. 1.
    7. Vatican I, Dei Filius (1870), ch. 4, §13.
    8. St Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 23.
    9. Galatians 2:11–14.
    10. Matthew 5:37.

    The Footsteps of St. Wenceslaus — A Reflection in the Cold

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    By the Archbishop of Selsey

    We sing of him at Christmas: “Good King Wenceslas looked out on the Feast of Stephen…” The carol offers a kindly image — a monarch braving snow to feed the poor. But the real Wenceslaus was more than a carol figure. He was a ruler, a reformer, and a martyr, slain at the threshold of the Mass. His life is not a seasonal tale but a burning witness to the truths our own age is desperate to forget.

    Faith Before Throne
    Born around 907, Wenceslaus was raised by his grandmother, St. Ludmila, who taught him Christian faith in a land still divided by paganism.¹ His mother, Drahomíra, resented this and arranged Ludmila’s murder — a family feud that was also a spiritual war.²

    As duke, Wenceslaus built churches, fostered missionary work, and consecrated his people’s life to Christ.³ The rotunda he founded at Prague Castle in honor of St. Vitus became the heart of Bohemia’s Christian identity.⁴ Some traditions even record that he consecrated himself to virginity, seeking to reign with undivided heart.⁵

    Politics and Betrayal
    Surrounded by powerful enemies, he submitted tribute to King Henry I of Germany, a prudent act to spare his realm.⁶ Yet this earned him scorn from ambitious nobles and his own brother Boleslaus. On 28 September 929 (or 935), as Wenceslaus walked to Mass at Stará Boleslav, he was ambushed and slain at the church door.⁷

    His people immediately honored him as a martyr. Miracles were reported at his tomb, and his relics became a focus of devotion.⁸ Though he was a duke in life, posterity hailed him as king — not by title, but by truth. He embodied the rex justus, the just ruler who governs by justice and holiness.⁹

    The Carol and the Witness
    Centuries later, John Mason Neale enshrined his memory in the carol “Good King Wenceslas”, setting the legend to the medieval melody Tempus adest floridum.¹⁰ Though the story is poetic invention, it reflects the enduring conviction: his authority was measured not by conquest but by charity.¹¹

    Lessons for Our Time

    1. Christ the King above all kings. Pope Pius XI taught in Quas Primas (1925) that rulers must recognize Christ’s sovereignty, for “men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.”¹² Wenceslaus lived this truth: he bowed before Christ even when it cost him power and life.
    2. Martyrdom is the summit of witness. The Second Vatican Council affirmed in Lumen Gentium that martyrdom “conforms the disciple to his Master by freely accepting death for the salvation of the world.”¹³ Wenceslaus was struck down not in battle but on the way to Mass, showing that fidelity to Christ and His sacrifice is worth dying for.
    3. The Eucharist is the heart of the Church. The Council of Trent declared that the Eucharist is “the source and summit of all worship and religion.”¹⁴ Wenceslaus’s murder at the church threshold is a stark reminder: to abandon the altar is to abandon everything. Today, when the sacred liturgy is restricted, trivialized, or attacked, his witness cries out to us to defend it with our lives.
    4. Authority without sacrifice is tyranny. Wenceslaus shows that leadership is measured not by domination but by service. In an age of careerist politicians and worldly bishops, his memory challenges us: true authority kneels before the altar and steps into the storm for the poor.
    5. Hope in the saints. Legends said he sleeps beneath a mountain, ready to rise in his people’s need. This myth speaks to the deeper truth of the communion of saints: those who died in Christ intercede still. When the Church trembles under betrayal, we are not abandoned.

    A Saint for the Church in Crisis
    Our world grows cold with unbelief. The poor freeze in body and soul. Families fracture. Leaders falter. Bishops barter away doctrine for applause. Yet Wenceslaus speaks still. He tells rulers: serve with sacrifice. He tells shepherds: never betray the altar. He tells the faithful: Christ is King, and His Kingdom will not be shaken.

    The carol may warm our homes at Christmastide. But the martyr warms the Church with his blood. His footprints in the snow still mark the way — the way of charity, the way of fidelity, the way of the Cross. If we follow them, they will lead us not to sentiment, but to sanctity; not to compromise, but to Christ the King.

    For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

    1. Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist, ch. 5.
    2. Wenceslas I, Prince of Bohemia – Britannica, accessed Sept. 2025.
    3. “Saint Wenceslaus” – Franciscan Media, accessed Sept. 2025.
    4. Britannica, Wenceslas I.
    5. Wikipedia, Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia.
    6. Czech Center Blog, “St. Wenceslas,” 2022.
    7. Britannica, Wenceslas I.
    8. Britannica and Wikipedia, Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia.
    9. Britannica, Wenceslas I.
    10. Hymnology Archive, Good King Wenceslas.
    11. Wikipedia, Good King Wenceslas.
    12. Scholastic, “Good King Wenceslas (Annotated Text).”
    13. Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925), §1, §19.
    14. Vatican II, Lumen Gentium (1964), §42.

    A Defence of Truth, Liberty, and the Common Good: Oppose an official definition of Islamophobia

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    By the Archbishop of Selsey

    Britain stands at a crossroads. A government Working Group, chaired by the former Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, is presently preparing a definition of “Islamophobia.” This body was created by the government in February 2025 and given six months to produce its recommendations, without Parliament having a say in the matter. The public consultation has already closed, and if the Group adheres to its timetable, its recommendation—drafted in secret—will be delivered within weeks. The government intends then to roll out this definition across public bodies, urging them to embed it in speech codes, so that anyone who falls foul of the new standard can be punished¹.

    The justification given for this extraordinary measure is that Britain has witnessed a rise in anti-Muslim hostility since the terrorist attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023². But this argument is deeply flawed. Our nation already possesses robust laws that protect people from religious hatred and discrimination. These laws apply equally to Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and all faith communities³. The way to protect Muslims is to enforce those existing statutes, not to introduce what would amount to a Muslim blasphemy law by the back door.

    As Christians, we affirm that all men and women are created in the image of God and deserve equal dignity and justice. To single out one community for special protections would be an affront to that principle. It would contradict the Scriptural command that believers should not “have respect of persons” (James 2:1). Such privileging of one faith over others risks exacerbating tensions rather than fostering harmony. Even Fiyaz Mughal, the Muslim founder of Tell MAMA, has warned that “any definition that marks out one community is going to cause major social divisions”⁴.

    The dangers are not theoretical. An official definition of “Islamophobia” would have a chilling effect on free speech. Already, those who have raised legitimate concerns—for example, the disproportionate involvement of some Muslim men of Pakistani heritage in grooming gangs—have been accused of Islamophobia. Baroness Casey, in her official report, confirmed that one reason officials failed to act on the grooming scandals was fear of that very label⁵. Sarah Champion MP, one of the few politicians willing to speak honestly, was even shortlisted for “Islamophobe of the Year” by the Islamic Human Rights Commission⁶.

    Britain has a storied tradition of religious tolerance. Surveys show that nine out of ten of our people are comfortable living alongside those of different religious beliefs—more than anywhere else in Europe⁷. This is a heritage of which we should be proud. To jeopardise it by elevating one faith to a privileged status would be to exchange harmony for resentment, and equality for division.

    We must also remember that Britain deliberately abolished its blasphemy laws in 2008⁸. It was recognised then that in a plural society no religion should be shielded from criticism. To introduce an official definition of “Islamophobia” now would be to resurrect blasphemy law in another form, this time for the benefit of one faith alone. Such a step would undermine freedom of speech and conscience and betray the Christian heritage that shaped our liberties.

    Beloved faithful, this is not a mere matter of policy but of principle. We are called to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). To be silenced by fear is to become complicit in falsehood. Caesar must never dictate which truths may be spoken.

    Therefore, I urge you to act. Write to your Members of Parliament and to your councillors. Tell them plainly that you oppose the creation of a privileged status for Islam, that you stand for equal treatment under the law, and that you will not see Britain’s freedoms traded away. You may use the draft letter we have provided below, and you can obtain the contact details of your representatives quickly and simply via www.writetothem.com.

    If we fail to speak now, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak at all. Let us not be that generation. Let us stand for truth, liberty, and the common good.

    Draft_Letter_IslamophobiaDownload

    Footnotes

    1. UK Government announcement, creation of the Working Group on anti-Muslim hatred, February 2025.
    2. Government rationale cited in media reports following the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.
    3. Equality Act 2010, Part 2 (Protected Characteristics), including religion or belief.
    4. Fiyaz Mughal, quoted in public commentary on proposed definitions of Islamophobia.
    5. Louise Casey, Independent Review into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (2015).
    6. Islamic Human Rights Commission, Islamophobia Awards 2017, shortlist included Sarah Champion MP.
    7. European Values Study, data on tolerance and acceptance of religious diversity (latest UK survey).
    8. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by section 79 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

    A Pastoral Epistle on the Sanctity of Life in the Face of the End of Life Bill (UK)

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    A Pastoral Epistle on the Sanctity of Life in the Face of the End of Life Bill

    To the Faithful of Christ, dear brothers and sisters in the Lord,

    Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

    In these critical times, we address you with pastoral concern and apostolic conviction. On April 25, 2025, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is scheduled for further debate and voting in the House of Commons. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the bill, has confirmed this date and emphasized the importance of proceeding without delay.

    As shepherds of souls and witnesses to the Gospel of life, we cannot remain silent in the face of legislation that seeks to legalize the deliberate ending of innocent human life. The implications of this bill—however framed in terms of compassion and autonomy—are profound and call for clear teaching, faithful resistance, and fervent prayer.

    Life Is Not Ours to End
    The proposed bill seeks to permit adults with mental capacity, diagnosed with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less, to request medical assistance to die. Such an act, regardless of intention, constitutes the moral equivalent of suicide, and the cooperation of others in that act is euthanasia. The Church has consistently condemned both.

    From the earliest centuries, the Christian tradition has held that life is a gift entrusted to us by God, not a possession to be disposed of at will. “You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Cor 6:19–20). St. Augustine taught with clarity: “He who knows it is unlawful to kill himself may nevertheless do so if he is ordered by Him whose commands we may not neglect.”¹ His words underscore that life and death are under divine sovereignty.

    The Cross Is Not a Curse
    The suffering of terminal illness is real. It can be frightening, painful, and isolating. But Christ has gone before us. The Cross was not a failure; it was the place of redemption. Those who endure suffering in union with Christ participate in His saving Passion.

    The Roman Catechism, issued by the Council of Trent, teaches us that suffering borne patiently is pleasing to God and a source of grace: “The other part of this Commandment is mandatory, commanding us to cherish sentiments of charity, concord, and friendship towards our enemies, to have peace with all men, and finally, to endure with patience every inconvenience which the unjust aggression of others may inflict.”² To propose death as a solution to suffering is not only a false mercy; it is a rejection of the redemptive value of suffering, which has always been part of Christian witness.

    The Role of the Physician and the Meaning of Care
    This bill also distorts the very vocation of the physician. Traditionally, doctors have sworn the Hippocratic Oath, promising never to administer poison, even when requested. The Church has consistently upheld this moral boundary. Pope Pius XII taught that while one may accept palliative means to alleviate pain, “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness in order to eliminate suffering if this renders impossible a final act of love for God.”³

    In his 1954 address to the World Medical Association, Pius XII emphasized the natural moral law, affirming that euthanasia has been officially condemned.⁴

    The Slippery Slope and the Silence of Society
    Advocates of assisted suicide often claim strict limitations. But once society concedes that it is lawful to end life to alleviate suffering, the logic inevitably widens. We have seen this in nations where euthanasia was introduced with similar promises—only to expand later to include psychological distress, non-terminal illness, and even minors. St. Thomas Aquinas warned that the toleration of lesser evils often paves the way for greater ones: “Human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices.”⁵

    Moreover, such laws erode the fabric of society. They suggest to the aged and the vulnerable that their lives are a burden. But as Pope Pius XI taught in Casti Connubii, life is sacred “not only in its beginning and development but also in its natural termination.”⁶ We must build a civilization of charity where no one is abandoned, and where each soul is cherished until God Himself calls them home.

    Our Christian Witness and Duty
    Dear faithful, this is not merely a civil matter. It is a spiritual trial. In times like these, we are called to be salt and light, to give public testimony to the Gospel of life.

    We urge you:

    • Pray earnestly for our legislators, doctors, and those approaching death.
    • Write respectfully to your Members of Parliament, urging them to reject this bill and protect the most vulnerable.
    • Visit the sick and elderly, accompany the dying, and support Catholic hospice initiatives.
    • Instruct the young in the sacredness of life, and the nobility of offering suffering to God.

    St. John Chrysostom wrote: “The one who honors the sick honors Christ Himself.” Let this be our response to a culture that tempts the suffering to despair: to meet them not with poison, but with prayer; not with death, but with love.

    Conclusion: Choose Life
    We must remind our fellow citizens and lawmakers of the ancient words of Moses: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut 30:19). Let no Christian be found among those who choose otherwise.

    May Our Lady, Health of the Sick, and St. Joseph, Patron of the Dying, intercede for us all. And may Christ our King, who conquered death by His own death, fill you with courage, fidelity, and peace.

    May Our Lady, Comfort of the Afflicted, intercede for us.

    Yours in Christ,

    S. Isidori Episcopi Confessoris et Ecclesiæ Doctoris
    Brichtelmestunensis MMXXV

    Footnotes
    ¹ St. Augustine, City of God, Book I, Chapter 26.
    ² Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, The Fifth Commandment.
    ³ Pius XII, Address to Catholic Physicians and Anesthesiologists, November 24, 1957.
    ⁴ Pius XII, Address to the World Medical Association, September 30, 1954.
    ⁵ St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I–II, q.96, a.2.
    ⁶ Pius XI, Casti Connubii, §64.

    How to Contact Your MP Before the Assisted Dying Vote

    Practical Guidance for Faithful Citizens

    The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is due for parliamentary debate and vote on April 25, 2025. Now is the time for faithful Catholics to speak out—clearly, charitably, and urgently. Here’s how to contact your MP effectively:

    1. Find Your MP
    Visit www.theyworkforyou.com or members.parliament.uk
    Enter your postcode to find the name and contact details of your local MP.

    2. Choose Your Method

    • Email is fastest. Most MPs can be reached at:
      firstname.lastname.mp@parliament.uk
      (e.g., jane.doe.mp@parliament.uk)
    • Write a Letter if you prefer a physical approach. Address it to:
      [MP’s Name]
      House of Commons
      London
      SW1A 0AA
    • Call the Constituency Office or attend a local surgery (drop-in meeting). Times are usually listed on the MP’s official site.

    3. Keep It Short and Personal

    • Start by stating you’re a constituent (i.e., you live in their area). MPs prioritize messages from their own voters.
    • Use your own words—this carries more weight than a form letter.
    • Share why you personally oppose assisted suicide. You might mention:
      • The sanctity of life and Christian teaching.
      • Concerns about the pressure this may place on the elderly, disabled, or those with mental health struggles.
      • The role of true palliative care as a compassionate alternative.
      • Fears of “mission creep” from other countries where similar laws have expanded.

    4. Be Respectful and Clear

    You don’t need to be a policy expert. Speak sincerely, and end by asking them to vote against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on April 25.

    5. Follow Up

    A short thank-you or reply if they respond can build trust—even if they disagree. If they express support for the bill, clarify your concerns respectfully and encourage them to reconsider.

    Your voice matters. MPs often cite messages from constituents when making their decisions. As faithful citizens, let us not be silent when the vulnerable are at risk. As St. Paul reminds us, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21).

    For further moral guidance and resources, see the Anscombe Bioethics Centre at bioethics.org.uk.

    Would you like a printable or shareable version for parish bulletins or chapel noticeboards?

    Lent: A Time to Know Ourselves and Our Need for Redemption

    Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

    In his Lenten conference, ✠Jerome of the Old Roman Apostolate, emphasizes self-knowledge as the foundation for true conversion. He urges the faithful to confront illusions, acknowledge their need for grace, and embrace redemption. Lent, he explains, is a time for inward reflection leading to genuine transformation and renewed commitment to one’s Christian vocation.