w/c 07/09/25

ORDO

Dies	07 SUN	08 MON	09 TUE	10 WED	11 THU	12 FRI	13 SAT	14 SUN
Officium	Dominica XIII Post Pentecosten	Nativitate Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	Secunda die infra Octavam S. Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	S. Nicolai de Tolentino Confessoris	Quarta die infra Octavam Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	S. Nominis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	Sexta die infra Octavam Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	In Exaltatione Sanctæ Crucis
CLASSIS	Semiduplex	Duplex II	Semiduplex	Duplex	Semiduplex	Duplex majus	Semiduplex	Duplex
Color	Viridis	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus	Rubeum
MISSA	Réspice, Dómine	Salve, sancta	Salve, sancta	Justus	Salve, sancta	Vultum tuum	Salve, sancta	Nos autem
Orationes	2a. A cunctis 3a. Ecclesiae	2a. S. Hadriani Martyris 3a. Ad Spiritum Sanctum	2a. S. Gorgonii Martyris 3a. Ad Spiritum Sanctum	2a. Tertia die infra Octavam S. Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	2a. Ss. Proti et Hyacinthi Martyrum 3a. Ad Spiritum Sanctum	2a. Quinta die infra Octavam S. Nativitatis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	2a. Ad Spiritum Sanctum 3a. Ecclesiae	2a. Dominica XIV Post Pent. 3a. VII die infra Octavam Nat. B.M.V.
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de sanctissima Trinitate	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Beata Maria Virgine	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Beata Maria Virgine	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Beata Maria Virgine	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Beata Maria Virgine	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Beata Maria Virgine	Gl. Pref. de Beata Maria Virgine	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sancta Cruce Ev. Propr. ad fin.Missae
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva

Haec est Via

Haec est Via – This is the Way – reminds us that the Christian life is not an abstract idea but a path walked in fidelity to Christ, who is Himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It is both a summons and a promise: to remain steadfast in Tradition, following the road that leads to eternal union with God. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

At different moments in the Church’s history, Providence places before us a word, a phrase, a light that illumines our path. For the Old Roman Apostolate, such a word has now been given: Haec est Via — This is the Way.

The phrase is not new to the Scriptures. In the Acts of the Apostles, the first Christians were known not as “Catholics” or “Christians,” but simply as those who belonged to the Way (Acts 9:2). Our Lord Himself declared: “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life” (Jn. 14:6). The motto thus reminds us that Christianity is not a philosophy to admire, nor a culture to preserve, but a path to walk — a way of life grounded in Christ, revealed in Tradition, and sanctified in the Sacraments.

In our age, however, the true Way is obscured. Modernism within the Church, secular ideologies without, and the confusion of souls caught between them, all cry out for clarity. Many voices propose alternative “ways”: ways of compromise with the world, ways of sentiment divorced from truth, ways of activism without conversion. Yet each leads, as the Lord warns, to destruction (Mt. 7:13). Against these, we proclaim with renewed conviction: Haec est Via.

We have seen, even in these last months, the contest between faith and error laid bare. Priests silenced for teaching perennial doctrine, bishops enthralled to the Synodal Way, popular culture catechising families more effectively than our parishes, and the faithful left wandering amid voices that contradict one another. But our charism, dear brethren, is to walk in fidelity where others hesitate — not with pride, nor rebellion, but with the humility of disciples who know that Christ has entrusted His flock to the perennial magisterium, not to the novelty of each age.

Haec est Via calls us back to the radical simplicity of the Gospel, expressed most perfectly in the Sacred Liturgy. Every traditional Mass we celebrate, every Sacrament we administer, every catechesis we impart, every work of mercy we undertake — all these are steps upon the Way. We do not invent a path, but follow the one already revealed. The priesthood is not a function but a mystery; the sacraments are not symbols but channels of grace; the moral law is not an ideal but the very architecture of human flourishing.

Walking this Way demands courage. It will not always be popular, even within the household of faith. Like the early Christians, we may be maligned as rigid, sectarian, or schismatic. Yet fidelity is never schism, and continuity with the past is never rebellion. The true rebellion is against the deposit of faith; the true schism is from Christ the Way.

Beloved sons and daughters, do not be discouraged by the confusion of this hour. Take courage from the saints and martyrs, from the Fathers and Doctors, from the generations of faithful who kept the lamp of Tradition burning through storms far greater than ours. Let our chapels be oases of light, our families schools of virtue, our apostolate a witness that the Way of Christ is not lost.

We go forward, then, not in fear but in faith. For if Christ Himself is the Way, then every step in fidelity brings us closer to Him who has gone before us to prepare a place.

Let us, then, take this motto not only upon our lips, but into our lives. In prayer, in sacrifice, in mission, in the fidelity of daily life, let us live by this truth:

Haec est Via. 🔝

Titular Archbishop of Selsey
Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate

---

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

The liturgy of the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost

Missa “Respice, Domine”
The liturgy of the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost opens with a cry of supplication: Respice, Domine, in testamentum tuum, et animas pauperum tuorum ne derelinquas in finem—“Have regard, O Lord, to Thy covenant, and forsake not the souls of Thy poor unto the end” (Introit, Ps. 73:20). Dom Prosper Guéranger remarks that here the Church places on the lips of her children the voice of afflicted Israel, imploring God to remember the covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood, even as iniquity abounds and the faith of many grows cold.¹ The Church speaks as the Bride in exile, awaiting deliverance, yet confident in her divine Spouse’s fidelity.

The Collect continues this note of petition: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, da nobis fidei, spei et caritatis augmentum. Guéranger highlights the significance of this prayer: “It is the very essence of the Christian life which Holy Church asks for her children on this day—the three theological virtues, the growth of which alone prepares the soul for eternal life.”²

The Epistle (Galatians 3:16–22) recalls the promise made to Abraham, fulfilled in Christ. St. Paul distinguishes the covenant of promise from the Law, showing that salvation rests not in legal observances but in faith perfected by charity. Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen notes that this lesson is particularly timely for the soul tempted to fall back on mere external practices: “Faith, living and animated by love, is the true source of our justification. The exterior must be animated by the interior, else it becomes sterile.”³

The Gospel (Luke 17:11–19) narrates the healing of the ten lepers, of whom only one—a Samaritan—returns to give thanks. Guéranger interprets this as a prophecy of the ingratitude of Israel and the gratitude of the Gentiles. The nine represent the Jewish people, cleansed by Christ’s coming yet failing to recognize Him; the one Samaritan typifies the nations, who, healed of sin, return to Christ in thanksgiving and faith.⁴ Goffine’s Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels underscores the moral lesson: “How few are truly grateful to God! Thousands receive His benefits daily, but only a small number give Him thanks as they ought. This Gospel exhorts us to thankfulness, which is not only the debt of justice, but the condition for obtaining greater graces.”⁵

Baur, in his commentary on the Sunday Gospels, points out the liturgical resonance of the Gospel with the sacramental life: “The lepers cry from afar, for sin keeps us distant from God. The priestly word of Christ sends them to the altar of the New Covenant, and they are cleansed on the way—thus teaching us the necessity of obedience to the Church’s sacramental order. Only the soul that returns in humble thanksgiving attains not only cleansing but salvation.”⁶

The Offertory verse (In te speravi, Domine; dixi: Tu es Deus meus; in manibus tuis tempora mea) deepens the sense of filial trust. Our times are in God’s hands, even as the days grow evil.

The Secret prayer and the Postcommunion return again to the central theme: God’s grace is received not merely to cleanse but to transform, elevating the soul to live in faith, hope, and charity. The Samaritan alone heard the words, Fides tua te salvum fecit—“Thy faith hath made thee whole.” Here, as Fr. Gabriel reminds, “Gratitude is itself an act of living faith, an acknowledgment of our dependence upon God and of His sovereign goodness.”⁷

The liturgy, then, sets before us two images: the ingratitude of the many and the faith-filled thanksgiving of the few. Guéranger concludes that this Sunday is a call to perseverance: “The soul must never be content with the first grace of cleansing, but must hasten back to the feet of the divine Physician, there to give thanks, and there to receive the greater gift—salvation itself.”⁸

In our day, this lesson is urgent. How often are sacraments received without thanksgiving, graces bestowed without recognition, prayers answered without return of praise? The Old Roman way of life insists not only on fidelity to the tradition of faith but on the interior disposition of gratitude. For it is only by thanksgiving that we remain in communion with Christ, and only by returning to Him that our healing is crowned with salvation. 🔝

1. Guéranger, Liturgical Year, vol. 12, p. 213.
2. Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, vol. 12: Time after Pentecost, Book IV (Dublin: James Duffy, 1910), pp. 206–208.
3. Ibid., p. 209.
4. Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen OCD, Divine Intimacy: Meditations on the Interior Life for Every Day of the Liturgical Year (London: Burns & Oates, 1964), pp. 871–873.
5. Guéranger, Liturgical Year, vol. 12, p. 212.
6. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year: Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holy-days and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year (St. Louis: Herder, 1880), pp. 628–631.
7. Benedikt Baur, The Light of the World: A Course of Sermons on the Gospels of the Year (St. Louis: Herder, 1954), vol. 3, pp. 153–157.
8. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, Divine Intimacy, pp. 873–874.

The Lesson

The healing of the ten lepers shows us the generosity of Christ’s mercy, but also the poverty of our own hearts. Ten were cleansed, yet only one returned to give thanks—and he, a Samaritan. It is a sobering reminder that God lavishes His graces even upon those who will not acknowledge Him, but salvation belongs to those who not only receive but return, who kneel in gratitude at His feet. Ingratitude leaves the soul barren, but thanksgiving opens it to greater gifts. Each day we are called to turn back, to recognize His hand in our lives, and to give Him glory. In this way we find not only healing, but life itself—for this is the Way.

Missalettes (Sunday XIII Post Pentecost)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

Spiritual Reflection: for the Thirteenth Sunday Post Pentecost

The liturgy this Sunday invites us to see beyond the surface of miracles and petitions, to the deeper reality of faith and thanksgiving. At its heart stands the encounter between Christ and the ten lepers, whose voices rise from afar with a plea that could well be our own: “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us” (Lk 17:13).

Leprosy in Scripture is the image of sin—its shame, its contagion, its power to separate the sinner from the life of the community. The ten lepers, standing at a distance, represent humanity estranged from God, incapable of entering into His presence. Yet when they lift their voices, Christ hears them. He does not touch them directly, but sends them on their way: “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” In their obedience, they are cleansed.

Here we see the mystery of grace and cooperation. Christ’s word brings the healing, yet it is as they obey that the healing manifests. So too in our lives: God’s grace is sovereign, but it asks of us trust and obedience, even when we do not yet see the result.

But the Gospel presses further. Of the ten, only one—a Samaritan—returns to give thanks. The Fathers see in this a prophetic image: the nine stand for Israel, blessed with the promises but failing to recognize their fulfillment; the one represents the Gentiles, who, healed and made new, come back to glorify God. And Christ’s words to the Samaritan show us the true end of grace: “Arise, go thy way, for thy faith hath made thee whole.” Not merely healed, but saved.

The lesson is plain: healing is not enough. The sacraments cleanse, restore, and renew us, but without gratitude they risk becoming barren in our hearts. Ingratitude closes the soul to further gifts, while thanksgiving opens it to salvation itself. The Church puts this truth on our lips from the very Introit: “Have regard, O Lord, to Thy covenant, and forsake not the souls of Thy poor unto the end.” To live in God’s covenant is to live in continual remembrance and thanksgiving.

St. Paul, in the Epistle, recalls that the inheritance promised to Abraham comes not by the Law but by faith, a faith that works through charity. The Galatians, tempted to return to legal observances, needed to be reminded that salvation is not earned by ritual observance alone, but received as a gift in Christ. So too we must be on guard against reducing our faith to mere exterior habit, rather than living faith born of love. As Fr. Gabriel OCD warns, “Faith without gratitude becomes formalism, and law without charity becomes death.”

How then do we imitate the Samaritan? By cultivating a life of thanksgiving in all things. Gratitude is not merely an emotion; it is a posture of the soul. It means recognizing God’s hand in every blessing, His providence in every trial, and returning to Him in prayer and adoration. It means coming back—again and again—to the feet of Christ, not content with cleansing alone, but desiring union with Him who is our salvation.

This Sunday calls us, then, to move from receiving to returning, from cleansing to salvation, from gift to Giver. The soul that is healed but forgets thanksgiving remains outside the fullness of grace; the soul that returns in gratitude hears the words of Christ: “Thy faith hath made thee whole.”

May we be among the few who come back, who bend the knee in thanksgiving, and who learn that the path of gratitude is also the path of salvation—for this is the Way. 🔝

---

The Liturgy of The Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, kept on the 8th of September, shines in the Tridentine liturgy with a unique and tender joy. It is one of only three earthly birthdays celebrated in the Church’s calendar: that of Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. John the Baptist. This singular honour marks Mary’s nativity as intimately bound to the economy of salvation, for her coming into the world was the dawn that heralded the Sun of Justice.

Dom Prosper Guéranger describes it in The Liturgical Year: “Mary comes into the world, not to eclipse the splendour of her Son, but to prepare for Him a throne, a temple, and a mother’s arms. The Church, therefore, in celebrating her birth, is celebrating the proximate advent of our Redeemer.”

In the Roman Missal of St. Pius V, the Mass formulary Nativitas Beatae Mariae Virginis begins with the Introit Gaudeamus omnes in Domino. The joyful tone reflects the universality of the mystery: all creation rejoices, for from this humble child of Joachim and Anne comes the one whom the Fathers call the “Living Ark” and “Gate of Heaven.”

Fr. Martin von Cochem, following Goffine’s Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, notes the theological depth of this commemoration: “Though the Nativity of Mary be not directly a mystery of our Redemption, it is, nevertheless, most closely united with it. For without Mary, the Mediatrix of grace, the Incarnation of the Son of God would not have taken place. Thus her birth is the beginning of the accomplishment of the promises.”

Baur, in his meditations on the liturgical year, emphasizes that the humility of Mary’s origins is no hindrance to her exaltation, but rather the precondition of it: “She appears as the child of ordinary parents, Joachim and Anne, unknown to the world, yet predestined by God to a dignity beyond angels. The feast recalls to us that God raises up His chosen in hiddenness, preparing the greatest works in silence.”

The Collect of the day prays: Da, quaesumus, famulis tuis caelestis gratiae munera: ut, quibus Beatae Mariae Virginis partus exstitit salutis exordium, Nativitatis ejus votiva solemnitas pacis tribuat incrementa. The liturgy thus makes clear that her nativity was the “beginning of salvation,” for in her the plan of God took flesh in preparation.

Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, OCD, reflecting on the feast, writes in Divine Intimacy: “Let us contemplate Mary as a newborn babe: pure, holy, lovely, full of grace. Already her soul, adorned with sanctifying grace from the first instant of her conception, is resplendent before the gaze of God. Today is the aurora preceding the rising Sun. If we love Jesus, we cannot but rejoice at the birth of her who was to give Him to us.”

The Epistle, taken from the Book of Wisdom (Eccli. 24), places on Mary’s lips the words of Eternal Wisdom: “Ab initio, et ante saecula creata sum, et usque ad futurum saeculum non desinam.” The Church reads these verses in the Marian sense: Mary is from all eternity chosen, though in time she was born, that she might be Mother of the Eternal Word.

The Gospel (Matt. 1:1–16) recounts the genealogy of Christ. Guéranger remarks: “This table of names, which might seem dry, is in truth a hymn of praise to the fidelity of God, who through the long centuries prepared the virginal stem from which the Flower of Jesse would spring. At its end appears Mary, the summit of the generations, in whom all expectation is fulfilled.”

Thus the Tridentine liturgy of this feast joins heaven and earth in rejoicing. It is not only the commemoration of a birthday, but the liturgical proclamation that God’s promises never fail, and that His greatest works come in hiddenness and humility. The faithful, kneeling before the altar clothed in white vestments, perceive that in Mary’s nativity begins our own hope: the advent of redemption, the dawn of Christ. 🔝

Missalettes (Nativity of the BVM)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Spiritual Reflection: for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Church, in her ancient wisdom, does not lavishly celebrate the birthdays of all the saints. Their dies natalis, the day of their death, is ordinarily honoured, for it marks their birth into eternal life. Yet three births are celebrated upon earth with solemn feast: that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh; that of St John the Baptist, sanctified in his mother’s womb; and that of Mary, the Immaculate Virgin.

This singularity points us to a mystery: her nativity was not an ordinary beginning but the dawn of salvation. Dom Guéranger teaches: “Mary comes into the world, not for herself, but for Him whose Mother she is to be. She is the dawn which precedes the Sun of Justice, and announces His rising.” In Mary’s birth, hidden in a humble house, the long silence of the prophets begins to give way to fulfilment.

The Roman liturgy makes this clear. The Introit Gaudeamus omnes in Domino exhorts all creation to rejoice, for the child born of Joachim and Anne is no mere daughter of Israel, but the living temple in whom God Himself will dwell. The Collect declares that her birth is salutis exordium—the beginning of salvation. Thus the Church dares to speak of this day not only in relation to Mary but in relation to Christ, for all that is in her exists for Him.

Fr. Gabriel of St Mary Magdalen reflects: “Today is the aurora preceding the rising Sun. If we love Jesus, we cannot but rejoice at the birth of her who was to give Him to us.” In contemplating Mary as a child, we see sanctity clothed in littleness. Though she is full of grace, she lies as all infants do, in helpless dependence. God reveals His strength in weakness and His majesty in humility.

The Epistle from Ecclesiasticus places upon her lips the words of Wisdom: “From the beginning, and before the world, was I created.” Here the Church dares to express her eternal predestination. Long before her birth, Mary was foreseen and chosen, immaculate in her conception, prepared as the spotless Mother of the Redeemer. Baur observes: “God raises up His chosen in hiddenness, preparing the greatest works in silence.” The genealogy in the Gospel, which might seem to our modern ears a mere list of names, is in truth a hymn to divine fidelity. It culminates in Mary, in whom the promises to Abraham and David reach their fulfilment.

What lessons does this feast offer us? First, it teaches the primacy of God’s hidden work. As the world’s powers turned upon their wheels of ambition, in a quiet home in Nazareth a child was born whose name would scarcely have been known. Yet in her, the destiny of the universe was taking shape. This is how God works: not through noise and spectacle, but through fidelity, littleness, and humility.

Secondly, the feast teaches us joy. Even before the Incarnation, the Church dares to sing Gaudeamus. Mary’s birth is not yet our redemption, but it is its beginning, and hope itself is cause for rejoicing. So too in our lives: when God plants a seed of grace, though its fruit be yet unseen, the seed is itself a reason for joy and thanksgiving.

Lastly, the feast teaches us to look upon Mary as mother and model. Goffine reminds us: “She is our Mother because she gave us the Saviour; she is our model because she is the first and most faithful disciple.” If we wish to walk in the path of Christ, we must begin with her, for she is the “Gate of Heaven.”

Therefore, as we kneel before the altar clothed in white, let us ask for the grace to imitate the Virgin’s humility and to rejoice in God’s hidden workings. In her nativity we find the beginning of our own salvation; in her birth, the dawning of eternal life.

Haec est Via. 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost

And Jesus answering said: Were not ten made clean? And where are the nine? There is no one found to return, and give glory to God, but this stranger. And he said to him: Arise, go thy way; for thy faith hath made thee whole.

In today’s Gospel from St. Luke we hear the story of the healing of the ten lepers. On one occasion as Jesus entered a certain town he was met by ten men who were lepers. They stood afar off and lifted up their voice asking for Jesus to have mercy on them. Jesus told them to go and show themselves to the priests. It came to pass that as they went they were made clean. One of them, when he saw that he was made clean, went back with a loud voice, glorifying God, and he fell on his face before Jesus’ feet, giving thanks, and he was a Samaritan. Jesus then said that although all ten lepers had been made clean, the other nine had not returned to give thanks. Only one, a Samaritan, had returned to give thanks. He told him to arise and go on his way, for his faith had made him whole.

Jesus’ healing of the ten lepers was part of his ministry as the anointed liberator of Isaiah in whom the eyes of the blind were opened, the ears of the deaf unstopped, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the good news is preached to the poor. The Kingdom of God, when his will would finally be done on earth as it is in heaven, though future in its fullness, was now being manifested in Jesus’ own person and ministry, in his words and in his mighty works. His message was addressed to all Israel, but above all to those who were social outcasts, who were ostracised by the existing Jewish establishment. The lepers skin disease rendered them unclean and that is why their cure had to be officially confirmed by the priests, the representatives of the official religion. Only after this had happened could they be reintegrated into society. The significance of the story lies in the fact that the only one who returned to give thanks to Jesus for being cured of his leprosy was a Samaritan, a race hated and despised by the Jews. 

What was the reason for the hostility between the Jews and the Samaritans? Originally there had been a united kingdom over all Israel under David and Solomon. After Solomon’s death this kingdom had divided. The southern kingdom of Judah had Jerusalem as the capital and continued to be ruled by a descendant of King David. The northern kingdom went its own way and established a shrine at Shechem in Samaria. The southern kingdom regarded the north as apostate and the situation was made worse after the northern kingdom was overthrown by the Assyrians. The kingdom of Judah was later itself overthrown by the Babylonians, but subsequently the Persians allowed some of the Jews to return from exile and rebuild the temple. It is clear from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah that there were tensions between the Jewish exiles who had returned to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, and the Samaritans to the north. Exactly what happened between then and the time of Jesus is not altogether clear. The Samaritan Scriptures consisted simply of the Law of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, without any of the subsequent writings accepted by the Jews. The Samaritans had their own temple on Mount Gerizim. This lasted until the end of the second century before Christ when the Jews under their leader Hyrcanus attacked Samaria and destroyed the Samaritans city and temple. This inflamed the situation even further, which was always liable to descend into violence, especially because in the same century there was a migration of many Jews from Jerusalem and Judea into Galilee, meaning that Samaria was surrounded by Jews to the north as well as to the south.

Hence, although Jesus’ mission was directed to the lost sheep of Israel, rather than the Samaritans, the close proximity between Jews and Samaritans led to the occasional encounters between Jesus and Samaritans that we read about in the Gospels. The significant point is that, although they were technically aliens and heretics, Jesus did not turn them away and refuse to have any dealings with them. This was not because he endorsed the Samaritan religion as it stood, but because his message, though directed in the first instance to Israel, was ultimately for all. In St. John’s Gospel the Samaritan women whom Jesus encountered at the well as he travelled from Judea to Galilee asked him whether the correct temple to worship in was on Mount Gerizim as the Samaritans claimed or in Jerusalem as the Jews claimed. Jesus replied that the Samaritans did not know whom they worshipped, whereas the Jews did, because salvation was from the Jews. However, the time was coming and indeed had already come when the true worshippers would worship neither in Jerusalem or in Samaria, for in the Kingdom of God earthly sanctuaries would be transcended (John 4).

It is important to emphasise that the whole point of God’s promise to Abraham, the founding father of Israel, was that in his seed all the nations of the world would be blessed. The promises were never intended for the Jewish nation alone, but for the whole world. Hence, when the prophets looked forward to the time when God’s Kingdom would finally come on earth as it is in heaven, they pictured the nations of the world renouncing their idols and coming to worship the God of Israel in Jerusalem.

Jesus’ proclamation of the coming of the Kingdom of God in his person and ministry should be understood within this context. His primary purpose was the gathering of Israel, but beyond that he looked forward to a time when those who were technically heretics like the Samaritans and also the completely pagan nations would renounce their idols and worship the true God of Israel. If his own largely did not receive him, many others would. This is anticipated by the faith shown by the Samaritan who was the only one of the ten lepers who were cleansed who returned to give thanks.

Today we are increasingly conscious of the diversity of the religions of the world. It is difficult to find the right balance between fidelity to our own faith and a recognition of the genuine insights of other religions. It is easy to retreat into either an exclusivism that denies any knowledge of God in other traditions, or a syncretism that does not do justice to the genuine differences and often incompatibilities between different religious claims. Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan who was the only one of the ten lepers who returned to give thanks points the way to avoiding the false antithesis that we are so easily tempted to fall into. He recognised that the Samaritan, who was technically an alien and a heretic, had shown greater faith than the other nine lepers who were also cleansed. This points to the fact that we can sometimes find greater faith than our own outside our tradition. But Jesus does not use this as a reason for undervaluing the truth claim of our own religion, but rather as a challenge to us to be more faithful to it. 

Hence, the truth lies neither in an exclusivism that denies any knowledge of God outside our tradition, nor a syncretism that artificially seeks to harmonise genuine incompatibilities. It is rather to see the genuine insights that others outside our tradition may have as an incentive to be more faithful to our own. The faith of the Samaritan was a rebuke to the lack of faith that Jesus found in Israel, and so in our own day the faith of others is often a standing rebuke to our own lack of faith. But we must never lose sight of the fundamental truth of our faith that distinguishes it from all other religions, that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and thus revealed his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 🔝

Nativity of Blessed Virgin Mary (Sept 8)

Today we celebrate the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Since the Incarnation is the distinctively Christian dogma that marks it out from other religions, the Church rightly gives especial veneration to the mother of God Incarnate, who was chosen to be the mother of the Word made flesh. The Council of Ephesus in 431 affirmed her to be the theotokos, the God bearer, for she conceived in her womb the Word made flesh. As the hymn has it,

How blest that Mother in whose shrine
The great artificer divine
Whose hand contains the earth and sky
Ordained as in his Ark to lie. 

The Church honours Mary as pre-eminent among the saints, not as a figure of independent greatness in her own right, but rather in relation to the child whom she bore, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those under the law, that they might obtain the adoption of sons.

Blessed were the chosen people,
Out of whom her Lord did come
Blessed was the land of promise,
Fashioned for his earthly home
But more blessed was the mother,
She who bare him in her womb.

God in Christ has entered the world to redeem us from the curse that fell upon our race as a consequence of the fall of man. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The Church Fathers develop this point further by saying that Mary’s positive response to the angel Gabriel at the Annunciation, Be it unto me according to thy word, reverses Eve’s disobedience. Our vocation as Christians is to become by grace what he is by nature, who humbled himself to share our humanity that we might share his divinity. Mary is the supreme example of one who became by grace what he is by nature. It is therefore right that we celebrate her Conception, her Nativity, her Purification in the Temple, and her Dormition or Assumption.

A sermon which we read in the Breviary for today attributed to St. Augustine states: “She is the flower of the fields on which the priceless lily of the valleys has blossomed… At her that dolorous sentence that was pronounced over Eve ended its course; to her it was never said: “In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” She brought forth a child, even the Lord, but she brought him forth, not in sorrow, but in joy. Eve wept, but Mary laughed. Eve’s womb was big with tears, but Mary’s womb was big with gladness. Eve gave birth to a sinner, but Mary gave birth to the sinless one. The mother of our race brought punishment into the world, but the mother of our Lord brought salvation into the world. Eve was the foundress of sin, but Mary was the foundress of righteousness. Eve welcomed death, but Mary helped in life. Eve smote, but Mary healed. For Eve’s disobedience, Mary offered obedience; and for Eve’s unbelief, Mary offered faith.”

For many Christians since the time of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, an emphasis on the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary detracts from the worship of Christ as the Word made flesh. However, it is important to emphasise that we honour Mary not as a figure of independent greatness in her own right, but precisely because of her unique relation to Christ, as the  mother of the Word made flesh. In the nineteenth century John Henry Newman noted that “if we take a survey at least of Europe, we shall find that it is not those religious communities which are characterised by devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary which have ceased to adore her Eternal Son, but those very bodies (when allowed by law) which have renounced devotion towards her. The regard for his glory, which was professed in that keen jealousy of her exaltation, has not been supported by the event. They who were accused of worshipping a creature in his stead, still worship him; their accusers, who hoped to worship him so purely, they, wherever obstacles to the development of their principles have been removed, have ceased to worship him altogether.”

Regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary St. John Chrysostom states: “what thing greater or more famous than she, hath ever at any time been found or can be found? She alone is greater than heaven and earth… Neither prophets nor apostles, nor martyrs, nor patriarchs, nor angels, nor thrones, nor lordships, nor seraphim, nor cherubim, nor any other creature visible or invisible, can be found that is greater or more excellent than she. She is at once the handmaid and parent of God, at once virgin and mother. She is the mother of Him who was begotten of the Father before all ages, and who is acknowledged by angels and men to be Lord of all. Wouldst thou know how much nobler is this virgin than any of the heavenly powers? They stand before him with fear and trembling, veiling their faces with their wings, but she offereth humanity to Him whom she gave birth. Through her we obtain the remission of sins. Hail then, O Mother, heaven, damsel, maiden, throne, adornment and glory and foundation of our Church! Cease not to pray for us to thy Son and our Lord Jesus Christ! That through thee we may find mercy in the day of judgement, and may be able to obtain those good things which God has prepared for them that love him, by the grace and goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be ascribed all honour and glory and power, now and for ever and ever. Amen.”

We honour Mary, as higher than the cherubim and more glorious than the seraphim, because she above all, in giving birth to the Word made flesh, sought first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness. 🔝

Praise O Mary. Praise the Father
Praise thy Saviour and thy Son
Praise the Everlasting Spirit
Who hath made thee Ark and Throne
O’er all creatures high exalted
Lowly praise the Three in One
Hail Mary! Hail Mary! Hail Mary! Full of grace.

Holy Name of Mary (Sept 12)

Today we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary. In January we celebrated the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus following the celebration of his Nativity in December. Now we have celebrated in the past week the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and today we celebrate the Holy Name of Mary. This feast was extended to the universal calendar of the Western Church by Pope Innocent XI in 1683 to mark the defeat of the Ottoman Turks at Vienna.

In those days, despite the schisms and divisions of the Reformation era, Europe was still Christendom and it had the strength to withstand the threat posed by the expansion of the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Today, the situation is very different. The West is no longer Christendom, though militant Islam is still with us. How did this situation come about?

When addressing this question it is important to avoid falling into the error of seeing nothing of any value in non-Christian religions. The true light that lighteth every man has not left himself without witness, and there is no need to deny that non-Christian religions contain some elements of truth. Other religions contain seeds of the Word, imperfect elements of truth.

However, today the tendency is to fall into the opposite error, that of syncretism, and to play down the differences between Christianity and non-Christian religions. The truth of the matter is that, while it contains much that is of value, Islam is a very different religion from Christianity, and modern Christians who play down the fundamental differences are deceiving themselves. Other religions may be able to give good advice in some respects, but it is only Christianity that brings good news, the good news of salvation through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

But why has the West so changed that it is no longer Christendom, and why do modern Western governments now repudiate the faith that created our civilisation? What has happened? The change has come about as a result of a long and complex process, but the most important symbol of this change is the outlook of the so called Enlightenment. Whereas previous ages had faith in God, the maker of all things and judge of all men, and saw humanity as created in the image of God but fallen and sinful, who could only achieve salvation by divine grace given through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Enlightenment repudiated this. The world was now viewed as a closed continuum of cause and effect. Human beings were no longer seen as fallen and sinful, but rather as people who had now risen from an earlier pre-scientific age to a new age of Enlightenment. History did not come to a climax in first century Palestine, but rather in eighteenth century Europe and America. This was now seen as the dawn of a new age of freedom, equality and brotherhood (symbolised by the change in the calendar in early days of the French Revolution).

The apostles of the new post Enlightenment age claimed to follow reason, and to be free from any transcendent authority. The world could now be explained in terms of evolutionary (Darwin), sociological (Durkheim), economic (Marx) and psychological (Freud) forces, so there was no longer any need for any “exclusive” religion such as Christianity. The irony of the situation was that, though post-Enlightenment Western man repudiated the exclusive claims of Christianity for consigning the rest of the world to heathen darkness, the Enlightenment made a similarly exclusive claim for itself, namely that they alone were men of enlightenment and that other peoples had died in the dark. The other irony of the situation was that the apologists for the Enlightenment who claimed to have emancipated themselves from any form of transcendent authority in fact themselves created determinist philosophies that reduced reality to evolutionary, sociological, economic and psychological forces. Post-Enlightenment Western man, with his insistence on the eternal truths of reason and freedom from any traditional authority, was actually using the pretext of giving an “objective” scientific view of the world as a device for controlling it. It has produced a society that is strong in terms of technological progress, but weak in terms of spiritual resources.

As the limitations of the Enlightenment have come to be recognised, a new philosophy has emerged, popularly known as post- modernism. Whereas modernism (the philosophy of the Enlightenment) repudiated God and enthroned instead reason and science, post-modernism has now repudiated reason and science in favour of the view that there is no truth and meaning other than what we create for ourselves. Reality is something that we create, not something to which we respond. The truth (though in fact post modernism does not believe in truth) is no longer seen to lie in scientific, as opposed to religious knowledge, but rather in what anyone feels at any given time. Texts no longer have meanings that can be discovered. All claims to truth are just power games, and there is no need to look for any correspondence with any “external” reality. People are encourage to cultivate “self worth” and “self esteem” at every available opportunity, and anything that questions anyone’s “self worth” and “self esteem” must be cancelled and shut down. Rational debate is impossible, for there is no truth to debate. 

So we find ourselves in a very strange situation. Our society originally repudiated Christianity in favour of a post-Enlightenment faith in reason and science. Now this has itself given way to a post modern age that repudiates not only Christianity, but reason and science as well. For there is now no truth other than the one we create for ourselves on the basis of how we “feel,” and woe betide anyone who dares to question my “right” to my own “truth”.

Into this situation militant Islam has entered. It has now succeeded in penetrating into the heart of the West (whereas earlier ages of faith had successfully withstood it). Devout Muslims are right to look aghast at the decadence of modern Western societies. They are now dominated, neither by Christianity, nor even by faith in reason and science, but instead by the debased “popular” culture of the entertainment industry, and the managerial culture of political correctness (which is in fact the ruthless application of the contemporary post modern philosophy). Post- modern Western society is now collapsing under the weight of its own internal contradictions. It is a house built upon sand.

This is now an age of post- truth and “after virtue” (as one philosopher has put it). The philosophy of the Enlightenment was deeply flawed, but at least it was intellectually mature, and governments to some extent adhered to the ideal of a civilised but non-religious society. Now, even that has gone, and modern Western governments are dominated by people who are quite literally charlatans who believe neither in Christianity nor in reason but only in themselves. Perhaps it is fitting that this post-modern age should elect politicians who do not believe in truth but only in themselves. We cannot let go of the Christian faith and assume that society will remain the same. It will not, and it has not.

In 1948 T. S. Eliot wrote these words “An individual European may not even believe that the Christian faith is true, but what he says and makes and does will all spring out of the history of this European culture and depend upon that culture for its meaning. Only a Christian culture could have produced a Nietzsche or a Voltaire. I do not believe that the culture of Europe could survive the complete disappearance of the Christian faith. And I am convinced of that not merely because I am a Christian myself, but as a student of social biology. If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism. We should not live to see the new culture, nor would our great-great- great grandchildren, and if we did, none of us would be happy in it.” 🔝

---

The Feast of the Holy Name of Mary

The feast of the Holy Name of Mary, instituted by Pope Innocent XI in 1683 after the deliverance of Vienna, is a jewel of the Tridentine calendar. Celebrated on September 12, within the Octave of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, it stands as a counterpart to the Feast of the Holy Name of Jesus. The liturgy breathes a spirit of triumph and sweetness, presenting Mary’s name not merely as a word, but as a mystery.

Dom Prosper Guéranger notes in The Liturgical Year that the Church intends to inspire reverence for the very sound of the Blessed Virgin’s name: “Her name is a shield of salvation to her servants, a sweet perfume which perfumes the heart, a light which illumines, a nourishment which sustains.”¹ For him, the liturgy on this day teaches that the invocation of Mary’s name is both a prayer and a protection.

Fr Leonard Goffine, in his Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels, explains that “the name of Mary is full of sweetness to the angels, a terror to the demons, and a comfort to the faithful.”² He urges Christians to call upon her name in temptation and distress, for “the devil fears Mary as much as he fears her divine Son.”

Fr Gabriel of St Mary Magdalen, OCD, in Divine Intimacy, meditates that “the name of Mary, as the name of Jesus, is an efficacious prayer in itself. To pronounce it with love is to speak to her, to invoke her presence, to open our soul to her maternal influence.”³ He sees in this devotion the secret of the saints, who kept Mary’s name ever on their lips and in their hearts.

P. Pius Baur, in his The Light of the World, draws out the theological significance: “Her name is bound to her person, and her person is bound to her mission.”⁴ As Maria, the “Star of the Sea,” she guides the faithful across the troubled waters of life toward the harbor of salvation in Christ.

The propers of the Mass reflect these truths. The Introit, Salve sancta parens, greets Mary as Mother of the King of Heaven. The Epistle (Ecclus. 24) presents her as Wisdom dwelling among men, while the Gospel (Luke 1:26–38) recalls the Annunciation, where even the angel reverenced the Virgin by name. The Gradual sings her blessedness, and the Communion antiphon, Gloriosa dicta sunt de te, Maria, crowns the liturgy with words of triumph and joy.

St Bernard of Clairvaux, often invoked by these commentators, provides the keynote: “O name of Mary! Joy in the heart, honey in the mouth, melody to the ear.”⁵ And again: “In dangers, in straits, in doubts, think of Mary, call upon Mary.”⁶ The feast condenses into its liturgy this instinct of Christian devotion—the invocation of Mary’s name as a prayer, a shield, and a pledge of final perseverance.

Thus, for the Tridentine faithful, the Feast of the Most Holy Name of Mary is not only the remembrance of a historical deliverance, but the celebration of a perennial grace: the victory of Christ won through His Mother, and the protection of the Christian soul through her name.

Pastoral Reflection
In the sacred liturgy, the Church gives us the name of Mary as both shield and song. When we whisper it in prayer, the angels rejoice, the demons tremble, and our hearts are steadied. How often we need this in the battles of daily life, when temptations press and sorrows weigh us down. To invoke Mary is to invite her maternal presence, to draw near to her who always leads us to her Son. Her name is like a lamp in the darkness, a harbor in the storm, a balm in our wounds. If we learn to carry it upon our lips, we will also carry her in our hearts—and she will never fail to bring us to Christ. This is the way. 🔝

1. Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost, Vol. XIV (Dublin: Gill & Son, 1882), p. 199.
2. Leonard Goffine, Explanation of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays and Festivals (St. Louis: Herder, 1880), p. 796.
3. Fr Gabriel of St Mary Magdalen, Divine Intimacy (Rockford: TAN, 1964), p. 1134.
4. P. Pius Baur, The Light of the World, Vol. II (New York: B. Herder, 1954), p. 211.
5. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon II on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in Opera Omnia, Vol. V (Paris, 1862), col. 332.
6. Bernard of Clairvaux, Homily II on the Missus Est, in Opera Omnia, Vol. IV, col. 37.

Missalettes (Holy Name of Mary)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

---

Forgotten Rubrics: The Ceremonial Liturgical Kisses

In the traditional Roman Rite, the gesture of the kiss (osculum) is charged with theological depth. It is not sentimentality, but a visible confession of reverence, charity, and communion with Christ. Each kiss—whether of the altar, the Gospel, the sacred vessels, the priest’s hands, or blessed objects—embodies the mystery of the Incarnation, by which God “kissed” the earth with His presence.

The Kiss of Peace
The pax, the kiss of peace, is the most ancient liturgical kiss, attested already in the New Testament: “Salute one another with a holy kiss” (2 Cor. 13:12). In the Roman Rite, the celebrant first kissed the altar—Christ Himself—before transmitting the peace to the deacon, then the subdeacon, and so forth. Thus peace descended from Christ at the altar into the members of His Mystical Body, emphasising that charity is not man-made goodwill but a grace flowing from the Eucharist¹.

The Kiss of the Altar
The altar, as Christ and the place of sacrifice, is kissed repeatedly during the Mass. At the beginning, the kiss unites priest and altar; during the Gloria and Credo it seals acts of worship offered through Christ; and at the dismissal it expresses gratitude for the completed Sacrifice. The kiss of the altar also honours the relics of the martyrs placed within its stone².

The Kiss of the Gospel
After chanting the Gospel, the celebrant kisses the sacred text, praying: Per evangelica dicta deleantur nostra delicta (“By the words of the Gospel may our sins be blotted out”). Beforehand, the deacon receives the priest’s blessing with a kiss on his hand, showing that the proclamation of the Word is sanctified by Christ through His minister³.

The Kiss of Sacred Objects
Servers and ministers traditionally kissed both the object they presented and the priest’s hand when offering cruets, thurible, paten, or chalice. These double kisses testified that even inanimate things dedicated to the altar are marked by holiness, and that the anointed hands of the priest, by which the Sacrifice is effected, are worthy of honour. In Solemn Mass, the deacon and subdeacon likewise kissed the celebrant’s hands when handing or receiving the sacred vessels⁴.

The Kiss of the Priest’s Hands
The anointed hands of the priest were especially venerated. They are the hands that touch the Host and make Christ present upon the altar. Kissing them recognised not the man himself, but the indelible mark of Christ’s priesthood upon him. This rubric extended beyond Solemn Mass: the faithful, too, would kiss the priest’s hand when receiving blessings or sacred objects, uniting their reverence to that of the clergy⁵.

The Kiss of Blessed Objects by the Faithful
The faithful themselves participated in this language of the kiss, especially during solemn blessings. At Candlemas, when the newly blessed candles were distributed, each communicant would kiss first the candle, then the priest’s hand, before receiving it. On Palm Sunday, the same was done with blessed palms: object first, then the priest’s hand. These actions taught that the blessings flowed through the priest’s hands, consecrated for such mediations, and that the objects themselves were set apart for holy use. Thus even the laity joined in the ritual rhythm of reverence, receiving what was sacred with a kiss of veneration⁶.

The Loss of the Sacred Kiss
In the modern liturgical reforms, most of these gestures were abandoned. The profound choreography of kissing the altar, the priest’s hand, or sacred objects has been replaced with simplified exchanges. The pax became a handshake, the object-kisses abolished, and reverence for the priest’s hands downplayed. Yet with these gestures went a whole catechesis in action: a sacramental language teaching that what is sacred is honoured not only in words but also in touch and kiss.

Theological Meaning
The liturgical kiss embodies the Incarnation: the invisible grace of God made tangible in gesture. The altar kissed by the priest, the candle kissed by the faithful, the hand kissed by the server—all proclaim that Christ sanctifies the material world. To restore these forgotten rubrics is not to indulge in archaism, but to reclaim a pedagogy of the sacred, whereby body and soul together profess reverence for the mysteries of faith. 🔝

1. O’Connell, J.B. The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1964), pp. 182–185.
2. St. Justin Martyr, Apologia I, ch. 65, on the Eucharistic kiss of peace.
3. Fortescue, Adrian. The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (London: Burns Oates, 1918), pp. 81–84.
4. Amalarius of Metz, De ecclesiasticis officiis, I.20, on the kiss of the Gospel.
5. Gihr, Nicholas. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (St. Louis: Herder, 1902), pp. 596–600.
6. Martimort, A.G. (ed.), The Church at Prayer, Vol. II: The Eucharist (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1986), pp. 139–141.

---

---

Haec est Via: This is the Way

The Way of the First Christians
Long before the name “Christian” was first spoken at Antioch (Acts 11:26), the disciples of Jesus were known as followers of the Way. Sacred Scripture tells us that Saul hunted those “who belonged to the Way” (Acts 9:2), and St Paul himself confessed before Felix, “According to the Way, which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers” (Acts 24:14). To be of the Way meant to live differently: to walk in the footsteps of Christ, to follow His teaching, and to share His Cross.

Jesus Himself declared: “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). To follow Him is not simply to believe something in the mind, but to take up a path of life that changes the heart, the family, and the community.

The Apostolic Greeting of the ORA
As members of the Old Roman Apostolate, we keep alive this ancient understanding of our Faith as a Way. To remind ourselves of this truth, clergy and faithful together use a simple greeting:
V. Via Crucis! (The Way of the Cross!)
R. Hæc est Via! (This is the Way!)

This exchange is not for show, nor for the outside world. It is an internal sign of identity, a reminder to us who belong to the Apostolate that our Christian life is nothing less than the Way of the Cross (cf. Matthew 16:24). By using it among ourselves, we declare that we are walking together in fidelity to Christ, in union with the saints who have gone before us, and in hope of eternal life.

What It Means

• To answer Hæc est Via is to say: “I know that the Cross is my path, and I embrace it as the only road to salvation.”
• It is to confess that the Catholic Faith, lived in its fullness and Tradition, is not one way among many, but the authentic Way of life.
• It is to identify ourselves with the Apostolic Church of old, which held fast to doctrine, sacrament, and discipline as the narrow path to heaven (cf. Matthew 7:14).

Guidance for the Faithful

• Use this greeting joyfully with clergy and fellow members of the Apostolate, especially at gatherings, missions, or pilgrimages.
• Let it remind you daily that your baptismal calling is a walk — a journey along Christ’s Way.
• Do not use it as a slogan, but as a prayerful confession: a small act of faith spoken aloud.
• When you respond Hæc est Via, remember that you are answering not only a friend or priest, but Christ Himself, who calls you: “Follow Me” (Matthew 9:9).

Living the Way
Hæc est Via is not merely a phrase, but a way of living. To walk this Way means:

• Faithfulness to daily prayer and the sacraments.
• Obedience to God’s commandments and the teachings of the Church.
• Charity in words and deeds, especially towards the poor and the suffering.
• Courage to bear witness, even when opposed or misunderstood.

Conclusion
In a world of many voices and many paths, we know there is only one Way that leads to life: Christ Himself. To say Hæc est Via is to profess that we are His disciples, that we walk together as His Church, and that we embrace the Cross as the true road to glory.

May this greeting strengthen our unity, deepen our identity, and remind us always that the Old Roman Apostolate walks the ancient Catholic Way, the only Way that leads to the Father. 🔝

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

Reconsecration after Desecration: Minneapolis and the Wounds of Anti-Catholic Hatred

The forthcoming reconsecration of the Church of the Annunciation in Minneapolis, announced by Archbishop Bernard Hebda, highlights both the gravity of sacrilege and the Church’s resilient response to desecration. On 27 August, a gunman—Robin Westman, a self-identified “trans woman”—opened fire during a school Mass, killing two children and injuring 17 others before taking his own life. The FBI has since classified the attack as an “anti-Catholic hate crime.”¹

Videos released by Westman revealed explicit contempt for the faith: blasphemous inscriptions such as “Where is your God?” scrawled on ammunition, and imagery of the Crucified Christ used as a target.² Such profanation is precisely the kind of “gravely injurious action” Canon 1211 identifies as rendering a church unfit for worship until it is purified and reconciled.³

The Theology of Reconsecration
The Church has always held sacred spaces to be more than functional gathering halls. Once consecrated, they are dedicated to the worship of God, set apart for the sacrifice of the altar and the indwelling of the Eucharistic Lord. To violate such a space with bloodshed, sacrilege, or mockery of the divine is to wound not only the material structure but the mystical Body of Christ that gathers there.

St. John Chrysostom warned that when Christians assemble in the temple, “the place itself is sanctified by the presence of the faithful and the Lord who dwells among them.”⁴ When such sanctity is violated, the rite of reconciliation is not mere symbolism but a sacramental act of reparation, restoring the house of God to its rightful dignity.

The Ordo Dedicationis Ecclesiae et Altaris prescribes prayers, sprinkling of holy water, and the anointing of the altar, echoing the original consecration.⁵ It is a liturgical statement that Christ Himself heals and reclaims what has been profaned.

Historical Precedent and Contemporary Witness
Though rare, reconsecrations are not without precedent. In 2019, Transfiguration Parish in Pennsylvania was reconsecrated after a break-in desecrated the sanctuary.⁶ In 2023, St Joseph’s in Astoria, New York, required rededication after the tabernacle was stolen and the Eucharist desecrated.⁷ Each of these events underscored the reality that desecration is not abstract—it is an assault upon Christ in His sacraments and His people.

What is unique and shocking in Minneapolis is the combination of direct anti-Catholic animus and the slaughter of children at the altar of God. The symbolism is horrific: innocence attacked in the very place where Christ makes Himself present as the spotless Victim.

The Wounds of Anti-Catholic Hatred
This tragedy cannot be separated from the wider cultural context in which hostility toward Catholic teaching has become increasingly violent. The Church’s defence of truth—particularly regarding human identity, sexuality, and the sanctity of life—has made it a target for ideological rage. Where words and ridicule fail, extremists sometimes turn to violence.

The martyrdom of children within the sanctuary echoes the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem, slain out of hatred for Christ.⁸ The blood shed at the Church of the Annunciation will forever testify to the reality that hatred of God inevitably manifests as hatred of His little ones.

A Call to Reparation and Hope
For the faithful of Minneapolis, the reconsecration of their parish will not erase trauma, but it will solemnly proclaim Christ’s victory over desecration and death. As Archbishop Hebda observed, it will be “an important time” for healing.⁹ In the penitential rite of rededication, the Church does more than cleanse stone and wood; she re-asserts that God’s grace is stronger than hatred, and that the gates of hell cannot prevail against her.

The faithful are thus called to prayer, penance, and reparation—not only for this act of sacrilege, but for the rising tide of anti-Catholic sentiment. As Pope Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, society can only find peace when Christ reigns in every heart and institution.¹⁰ The reconsecration of Annunciation parish is a visible sign that even amidst tragedy, the Church responds not with despair, but with fidelity, worship, and hope in Christ the King. 🔝

1. OSV News, Statement of Archbishop Bernard Hebda, 1 September 2025.
2. FBI preliminary report on the Annunciation Church shooting, August 2025.
3. Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), Canon 1211.
4. St. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in II Corinthios, Homily 18 (PG 61: 386).
5. Ordo Dedicationis Ecclesiae et Altaris, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1977.
6. Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Report on Transfiguration Parish, Conemaugh, July 2019.
7. Diocese of Brooklyn, Statement on St Joseph’s, Astoria, June 2023.
8. St. Matthew 2:16–18.
9. OSV News, Statement of Archbishop Bernard Hebda, 1 September 2025.
10. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, 11 December 1925, §19.

---

Pope Leo XIV and the James Martin Question: Pastoral Accompaniment or Doctrinal Ambiguity?

On 1 September 2025, the Holy See Press Office confirmed that Pope Leo XIV received Fr James Martin SJ in a private audience at the Apostolic Palace. The American Jesuit was in Rome accompanying a Jubilee pilgrimage organised by his LGBT ministry, Outreach. The encounter, which Fr Martin quickly made public on X, echoed the frequent papal audiences granted to him under Pope Francis.

“Dear friends: I was honoured and grateful to meet with the Holy Father @Pontifex this morning in an audience in the Apostolic Palace, and moved to hear the same message I heard from Pope Francis on LGBTQ Catholics, which is one of openness and welcome. I found Pope Leo to be serene, joyful, and encouraging. For me, it was a deeply consoling meeting. Please pray for the Holy Father!”¹

The Vatican offered no details beyond the announcement, but Martin’s testimony suggested continuity with Pope Francis’ “pastoral and progressive” tone. This raises pressing questions: does the new pontificate intend to continue the policy of privileging dialogue over doctrinal clarity, or is the audience simply a gesture of courtesy?

The Martin Phenomenon
Fr Martin has been a lightning rod of controversy in the Church since the publication of Building a Bridge in 2017.² In it, he urged a new “dialogue” with LGBT Catholics, emphasising listening, welcome, and inclusion. Admirers, especially among progressive bishops, saw him as a pioneer of pastoral accompaniment. Critics, however, argued that his rhetoric subtly undermines the perennial magisterium on chastity, marriage, and the moral law.³

This tension has only deepened through Outreach, his LGBT ministry. The group’s stated mission is “to support LGBTQ Catholics in their faith,” and Martin often insists that he fully upholds the Catechism.⁴ Yet, the events sponsored by Outreach regularly feature speakers and organisations which openly reject or campaign against Catholic doctrine on sexual ethics, marriage, and even the natural law.⁵ Thus, a profound contradiction emerges: while Martin professes loyalty to the Church’s teaching, the platforms and partnerships of his apostolate repeatedly advance positions at odds with that teaching.

Contradictions in Policy and Teaching
For example, the Catechism teaches that same-sex acts are “intrinsically disordered” and can “under no circumstances be approved,” while calling for respect and pastoral care for persons who experience such inclinations.⁶ By contrast, Outreach conferences routinely invite speakers who promote the blessing of same-sex unions, gender ideology, or the reinterpretation of Catholic anthropology.⁷ Martin himself, when pressed, avoids direct affirmation of the Church’s moral prohibitions, preferring to emphasise “dialogue” and “accompaniment.”

The point is clear: none of the groups with which Martin associates himself champion or even propose the Catholic call to chastity and celibacy. Instead, they consistently mirror and reflect the agendas of secular LGBT activism—promoting sexual expression, recognition of same-sex unions, and gender ideology—while remaining silent on the universal Christian summons to holiness. In this way, Martin’s ministry becomes indistinguishable in practice from secular advocacy, despite his assurances of doctrinal fidelity.

Synodal Politics and Papal Reception
During the Synod on Synodality in 2023, Martin sat with then-Cardinal Robert Prevost, now Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, whom he praised for a leadership style “similar to Pope Francis.”⁸ That association, and now his early audience with Pope Leo XIV, suggest that his influence will remain intact.

The papal reception of Martin is not merely personal—it is political. To grant a private audience to such a polarising figure is to send a signal: pastoral outreach, even when entangled with doctrinal ambiguity and secular activism, will be rewarded with papal attention.

The Perennial Teaching
Against this backdrop, the Church’s magisterium remains unambiguous. From Persona Humana (1975) to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), and reaffirmed in documents such as Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (2003), the teaching is consistent: homosexual acts are contrary to natural law, same-sex unions cannot be blessed, and any pastoral approach must be grounded in the truth of the Gospel.⁹ A ministry that muddles this truth, even with sincere intentions, risks replacing accompaniment with accommodation, and pastoral charity with doctrinal dilution.

Conclusion: Continuity in Confusion
The meeting between Pope Leo XIV and Fr Martin cannot be dismissed as mere courtesy. It represents a conscious decision to extend papal favour to a ministry shaped not by Catholic ascetic and moral tradition, but by the language and priorities of secular activism. It signals that under Leo XIV, as under Francis, “welcome” will often eclipse clarity, and “dialogue” will be allowed to substitute for doctrine.

For Catholics who seek firm leadership in an age of moral confusion, this is not a hopeful sign. The faithful may well interpret the audience as confirmation that the new pontificate is a continuation, not a correction, of the modernist trajectory that privileges worldly recognition over apostolic fidelity.

True pastoral care must unite compassion with truth, welcome with conversion, and accompaniment with the call to holiness. Without this balance, papal gestures risk emboldening those who reject the perennial teaching of the Church and discouraging those who strive to live by it. In this light, the faithful must pray more fervently than ever: that Pope Leo XIV will have the courage not only to console, but to confirm his brethren in the truth. 🔝

Footnotes
¹ James Martin SJ, X (1 September 2025).
² James Martin SJ, Building a Bridge (New York: HarperOne, 2017).
³ Robert Cardinal Sarah, The Day is Now Far Spent (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019), pp. 135–138.
⁴ Outreach, Mission Statement, accessed 2025.
⁵ Outreach Conference 2022–2024 programs, featuring speakers advocating same-sex blessings and gender ideology.
⁶ Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 2357–2359.
⁷ See, for example, Outreach 2023, keynote addresses calling for doctrinal revision on marriage.
⁸ America Magazine, “At the Synod with Cardinal Prevost” (2023).
⁹ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana (1975); CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (2003).

---

Pope Leo XIV’s Private Audience with Controversial Dominican Nun

On August 28, 2025, Pope Leo XIV received Sister Lucía Caram, an Argentine-born Dominican nun residing in Spain, in a private audience. Notably, this meeting did not appear in the Vatican’s official bulletin of papal audiences issued by the Holy See Press Office—an omission that has spurred widespread attention¹.

Who is Sister Lucía Caram?
Born in Tucumán, Argentina, in 1966, Sister Caram entered the Dominican Order during Argentina’s military dictatorship. For nearly three decades, she has lived in Manresa, Spain, where she oversees the Fundación Rosa Oriol, aiding hundreds of disadvantaged families, and orchestrates numerous humanitarian efforts—most prominently, multiple aid convoys and rescue missions to Ukraine².

Prior Papal Interaction
Earlier, on March 13, 2024, Sister Caram and members of the Spanish digital outlet Religión Digital were received by Pope Francis in a private audience that was similarly not listed in the Vatican’s daily bulletin³.

Sources Confirming the August 28 Meeting
Reports of the private audience first appeared in The Catholic Herald, which noted its absence from the official Vatican bulletin¹. LifeSiteNews subsequently corroborated the account, citing photographs and references from Spanish Catholic media⁴. The meeting is also recorded in reference works, including recent updates to the biographical entry on Sister Caram².

Why Is Sister Caram Controversial?

• On Mary: In 2017, she questioned the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary—suggesting that Mary and Joseph experienced a “normal couple” relationship—provoking strong rebuke. The Dominican Federation of the Immaculate Conception declared such media activity “not compatible” with her vocation when it “denies the most sacred truths”¹.
• On Homosexuality: In 2023, during a television appearance, she endorsed the blessing of same-sex unions, saying, “God always blesses love… I am nobody to condemn anyone.”¹ ⁵
• Other Dissenting Views: Additional controversial statements include defending abortion rights, endorsing contraception, denying the existence of hell, and urging the Church not to judge those who choose abortion⁴.

Implications of the Audience
The secrecy surrounding the meeting has added a layer of intrigue. While private papal audiences are common, discretion in this case—combined with Sister Caram’s public theological dissent—has led to speculation that Pope Leo XIV may be signaling a more open, Francis-style pastoral approach. LifeSiteNews noted that the audience took place only days before a meeting with Fr. James Martin, SJ, suggesting a deliberate continuity of outreach⁴. 🔝

1. Niwa Limbu, “Pope Leo receives controversial Dominican nun in private audience,” Catholic Herald, 2 September 2025.
2. “Lucía Caram,” Wikipedia entry, revised 2025.
3. Catholic News Agency, “Pope Francis receives controversial Sister Lucía Caram and Religión Digital team,” 14 March 2024.
4. “Pope Leo met with pro-LGBT, pro-abortion nun shortly before Fr. James Martin,” LifeSiteNews, 2 September 2025.
5. “Dominican Nun Speaks in Favor of Homosexuals Being Able to Marry in the Catholic Church,” National Catholic Register, 2023.

---

Germany’s Inner Divide: Fulda Priest Barred from Sunday Masses after LGBT Critique

Nuntiatoria — September 4, 2025 Father Winfried Abel, a retired priest known widely to German-speaking Catholics through his media presence, has been removed from the schedule of Sunday Mass celebrants in the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Hünfelder Land. The decision followed his outspoken criticism of the Diocese of Fulda’s approach to LGBT issues, sparking fresh debate over the trajectory of the German Church under the Synodal Way.

A Priest’s Protest
Ordained in 1964, Father Abel has served the Church for over six decades, from prison ministry to parish leadership and seminary spiritual direction. Even in retirement, he has remained active in pastoral service and Catholic broadcasting, appearing on EWTN, K-TV, and Radio Horeb. Yet his long ministry has now been overshadowed by his refusal to endorse the course taken by his diocese.

In July, Abel declared publicly: “In this diocese, I no longer wish to be a priest!” In an open letter published by kath.net, he announced that he would henceforth identify not as a priest of Fulda but simply as “a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.” Abel explained that only in communion with the See of Peter did he still perceive the guarantee of Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Matt. 16:18). Fulda, he warned, had forfeited that guarantee.

The parish’s lead pastor, Michael Müller, himself a strong supporter of the German Synodal Way, cited Abel’s “fear-mongering sermons” as grounds for removing him from the rota of Sunday celebrants. The diocesan spokesman, Matthias Reger, insisted that there was “no knowledge” of any formal disciplinary measures. Abel, however, confirmed to the press that he had been barred from presiding at Sunday Mass.¹

Words Against the Zeitgeist
The spark was Abel’s uncompromising critique of the diocese’s support for LGBT activism, particularly its official approval of Christopher Street Day parades. He described them as “a colourful display of perversions, the glorification of tasteless obscenities, and a spectacle of lost shame—all under the slogan ‘free love for all’.”²

He also denounced the April 2025 document jointly issued by the German Bishops’ Conference (DBK) and the Central Committee of German Catholics (ZdK), which proposes liturgical blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.³ Abel lamented that after sixty-one years of priestly service, he now saw bishops unable or unwilling to distinguish between sexus, eros, philia, agape: between bodily appetite, erotic attraction, friendship, and divine love. Instead, he said, they “indiscriminately approve and bless whatever presents itself under the name of ‘love’.”

For Abel, the question is not abstract theology but moral integrity: “If an alcoholic asks for a blessing, he seeks to be freed from his addiction—but he does not ask that his alcoholism be blessed. If a homosexual couple asks for the Church’s blessing in order to be confirmed in their way of life, then the Church must refuse that blessing.” A Church that confuses divine grace with worldly affirmation, he concluded, will ultimately not be taken seriously by anyone.⁴

The Synodal Way and Fulda’s Course
The Diocese of Fulda, led since 2019 by Bishop Michael Gerber, has been an active participant in the Synodal Way (Synodaler Weg), Germany’s controversial process of ecclesial reform. Promoted as a response to the clerical abuse crisis, the Synodal Way has developed into a platform for far-reaching proposals: women’s ordination, changes to Catholic sexual morality, democratic governance structures, and the blessing of same-sex unions.⁵

Bishop Gerber, a figure noted for openness to dialogue and structural reform, has sought to balance fidelity to Rome with the pressures of German Catholic opinion. Yet his critics accuse him of complicity in a programme that departs radically from perennial teaching. Abel’s removal highlights the cost for priests who resist this programme at the parish level. While the diocese distances itself from disciplinary framing, the practical effect is silencing.

The Wider Battle over Blessings
Germany’s push for same-sex blessings has become a central fault line in the universal Church. In March 2021, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then under Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, declared unequivocally that the Church lacks the authority to bless same-sex unions, since God *“cannot bless sin.”*⁶ Despite this, German dioceses—with the public support of ZdK leaders and many bishops—have pressed ahead with liturgical experiments and pastoral “guidelines” that directly contradict this ruling.⁷

Before his death in April 2025, Pope Francis had repeatedly warned against national churches pursuing doctrines apart from the universal Magisterium, even as he emphasised pastoral accompaniment.⁸ Critics now argue that with Francis gone, and Pope Leo XIV still consolidating his pontificate, the German Church may push even further toward open defiance. The risk of schism, masked in bureaucratic language but revealed in sacramental practice, looms larger than ever.

A Symbol of the Times
Father Abel’s fate has become emblematic of the Church’s inner division. To his supporters, he is a faithful priest punished for defending Catholic teaching against capitulation to the spirit of the age. To his detractors, he is an alarmist voice unable to accept pastoral development.

What cannot be denied is that the German Church now lives in open contradiction: bishops and priests invoking the same Gospel yet proclaiming opposite moral teachings. In this atmosphere, Abel’s declaration that he is no longer a priest “of Fulda” but of the Roman Church strikes a chord far beyond his diocese. Haec est via. 🔝

1. Die Tagespost, “Pfarrer Winfried Abel nach LGBT-Kritik nicht mehr für Sonntagsmessen eingeplant,” August 27, 2025.
2. Abel quoted in CNA Deutsch, August 28, 2025.
3. Deutsche Bischofskonferenz & ZdK, Handreichung zu Segensfeiern für Paare, die sich lieben, April 2025.
4. Abel, Open Letter published by kath.net, July 2025.
5. Synodaler Weg documents, Frankfurt Assembly, 2022–2023.
6. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum ad dubium on blessings of unions of persons of the same sex, March 15, 2021.
7. ZdK & DBK joint pastoral guidelines, April 2025.
8. Francis, Address to the German Bishops’ Ad Limina Visit, November 18, 2022.

---

Cardinal McElroy and the Laicization of a Whistleblower Priest

The Archdiocese of Washington has been thrown into controversy once again. Cardinal Robert McElroy, recently installed as Archbishop of Washington, is moving to laicize Father Michael Briese, a diocesan priest who has spent years pressing allegations of sexual misconduct and cover-up involving senior clergy. At stake are not merely one priest’s future but the credibility of episcopal governance, the balance of conscience and obedience, and the unresolved legacy of clerical abuse in the United States.

The McElroy Letter
According to correspondence reported by LifeSiteNews, McElroy wrote to Briese on August 12, 2025, informing him that he had petitioned the Dicastery for the Clergy for his dismissal from the clerical state. The letter accused Briese of “defamatory” writings on his personal Substack against himself, his predecessor Cardinal Wilton Gregory, and two priests in good standing, Fathers Adam Park and Carter Griffin. McElroy claimed Briese had threatened to “bring down the Church” unless the allegations were addressed. He offered a compromise—continued limited ministry if Briese would retract his writings—but, when refused, pressed forward with laicization proceedings. Crucially, McElroy did not refute the underlying accusations of misconduct or cover-up, relying instead on charges of disobedience and defamation¹.

The Earlier Penal Process
This is not the first time the Archdiocese has moved against Briese. A defense brief circulated online confirms that in January 2024, under Cardinal Gregory, an administrative penal process was opened against him. The cited delicts included inciting animosity against the Ordinary (canon 1373), harming reputations (canon 1390 §2), and disobedience of a legitimate precept (canon 1371 §1)². McElroy’s escalation from this diocesan process to a petition for dismissal shows continuity of strategy: treating Briese’s whistleblowing as disobedience rather than as a call for investigation.

The Allegations Against Clergy: Briese’s accusations focus on two priests

Fr. Adam Park, former vice rector of the Pontifical North American College (NAC) in Rome, was named in a 2021 civil lawsuit by ex-seminarian Anthony Gorgia alleging harassment and predatory behavior. Park quietly stepped down from the NAC in 2021 but remained in good standing in Washington. The civil case was dismissed in 2022 for jurisdictional reasons, leaving the allegations legally unresolved³.

Fr. Carter Griffin, now rector of the Saint John Paul II Seminary, was accused in letters sent to the papal nuncio in November 2019 of sexually harassing a seminarian during his tenure as vice rector. Griffin reportedly defended himself with the assertion that “people in my position don’t do things like that.” The letters were made public online but have never been acted upon by the archdiocese⁴.

Briese insists that both Cardinals Gregory and McElroy ignored his attempts to raise these matters privately. His decision to publish was, he argues, compelled by conscience and by the Church’s own Safe Environment policies, which prohibit the concealment of abuse allegations.

Canonical Framework
The laicization of a priest can occur in three ways under canons 290–293: by declaration of invalid ordination, by penal dismissal, or by papal rescript. Dismissal from the clerical state is an expiatory penalty under canon 1336 §1, 5°, reserved for grave cases. Such penalties require a canonical process: a preliminary investigation (c. 1717) and either a judicial trial or an administrative penal process (c. 1720). The Holy See must confirm dismissal, and the Dicastery for the Clergy is competent in non-reserved cases. By contrast, crimes of sexual abuse by clerics are reserved to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith⁵.

The charges against Briese—defamation, disobedience, incitement of animosity—fall under canons 1371, 1373, and 1390. Each allows penalties ranging from censures to dismissal. Past precedent shows the dicastery does act: the 2022 dismissal of Fr. Frank Pavone for persistent disobedience was handled by the same office⁶.

Whistleblower Protections
Yet Church law since Vos estis lux mundi (2019, revised 2023) complicates matters. Article 4 §2 prohibits retaliation against those who report abuse, and §3 forbids imposing silence on victims or witnesses. Reports against bishops are explicitly within its scope. On paper, Briese should be protected for reporting allegations of cover-up. At the same time, canon 220 safeguards the right to a good reputation, and a March 2025 note from the Dicastery for Legislative Texts cautioned against publishing names of accused clerics without legitimate reason. The Briese case sits at this fault line: between transparency demanded by Vos estis and the reputational protections invoked by bishops against public accusations⁷.

McElroy and Gregory’s Record
The broader context heightens the tension. Cardinal Gregory previously faced criticism for his response to abuse in Washington, and his tenure was preceded by the fall of Cardinal Donald Wuerl amid the McCarrick scandal. McElroy, a leading progressive voice, was translated from San Diego to Washington in 2025 and elevated to cardinal by Francis. Both Gregory and McElroy are known for their pro-LGBT initiatives, celebrating Masses for dissident groups and calling for sacramental access for those living in objectively sinful states. Briese has publicly asked whether such stances reflect complicity with a broader homosexual subculture in the clergy. Neither prelate has answered his pointed questions⁸.

Implications
If the Dicastery for the Clergy upholds McElroy’s petition, Briese will be dismissed from the clerical state. Ontologically, ordination is indelible, but juridically he would lose the right to exercise ministry except in danger of death. Unless a papal dispensation is added, he would remain bound by the obligation of celibacy.

For the faithful, the optics are stark: the hierarchy appears to move swiftly against a whistleblower while leaving accused clergy in good standing. Briese himself has urged fellow priests to publish threatening episcopal letters and refuse to suffer in silence: “The public deserves the truth.” His case will test not only the application of canon law but the Church’s credibility in keeping the promises of reform made after McCarrick.

Conclusion
The confrontation between Cardinal McElroy and Fr. Briese embodies the unresolved crisis of clerical abuse and episcopal accountability. It pits obedience against conscience, secrecy against transparency, and institutional protection against the faithful’s right to know. Whether Rome sides with McElroy or Briese, the case exposes the tension at the heart of the post-McCarrick Church: has reform produced a culture of truth, or merely a system better able to silence its critics? 🔝

¹ LifeSiteNews, “Cardinal McElroy asks Vatican to laicize whistleblower priest,” Sept. 3, 2025.
² Defense brief, Archdiocese of Washington administrative penal process, Jan. 2024.
³ Civil complaint Gorgia v. NAC, dismissed Jan. 2022, New York court records.
⁴ Letters to Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Nov. 2019, alleging misconduct by Fr. Carter Griffin.
⁵ Code of Canon Law, cc. 290–293, 1336 §1, 5°; see also Praedicate Evangelium; Dicastery for the Clergy, Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
⁶ Vatican Press Office, Dec. 2022, dismissal of Fr. Frank Pavone.
⁷ Vos estis lux mundi (2019; revised 2023), arts. 1, 4; Dicastery for Legislative Texts, note on canon 220, Mar. 2025.
⁸ Public record of Cardinals Gregory and McElroy’s statements on LGBT initiatives, ADW and San Diego diocesan reports.

---

Carlo Acutis and the Question of Canonisation

When on 7 September 2025 Pope Leo XIV raises Blessed Carlo Acutis to the altars, the Church will witness something unprecedented: the first canonisation of a millennial. Born in 1991 and taken by leukaemia in 2006, Carlo’s short life has already inspired a generation. His devotion to the Eucharist, his joy in ordinary friendship, his use of technology for evangelisation, and his innocent purity have made him a luminous sign of sanctity in an age often hostile to holiness.

The miracles attributed to his intercession—the healing of a Brazilian child with a pancreatic defect, and the recovery of a Costa Rican student from a catastrophic brain injury—have met the requirements for canonisation in the post-conciliar Church¹. His memory is cherished by the faithful, and his tomb at Assisi has become a place of global pilgrimage. None can doubt his heroic virtue, nor his Christ-centred witness.

Yet his canonisation inevitably raises a deeper question: how does the modern process compare with the tradition of the Church?

Before Vatican II, canonisations were deliberately slow and juridical. The role of the Promotor Fidei—the so-called “Devil’s Advocate”—was to test the cause with rigorous objections². Four miracles were required: two for beatification and two for canonisation³. A fifty-year waiting period was normal, ensuring reputations were enduring and not mere enthusiasm⁴. Such processes could take centuries, but they ensured that canonisation was beyond reasonable doubt a solemn exercise of papal infallibility, binding the Church to venerate a true saint⁵.

After Vatican II, the process was reformed. Paul VI created the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 19696, and John Paul II’s 1983 constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister reduced both the waiting period (from fifty years to five) and the number of required miracles (from four to two)⁷. The Devil’s Advocate was abolished in favour of a more “pastoral” approach⁸. These changes have enabled canonisations to proceed rapidly: John Paul II was canonised within nine years of his death, Mother Teresa in nineteen, and now Carlo Acutis within two decades⁹.

For many Catholics, this is a gift. Saints are raised up in their own lifetimes as models for today. Yet for traditional voices, questions remain. Monsignor Brunero Gherardini lamented the loss of adversarial scrutiny¹⁰. Abbé Jean-Michel Gleize of the Society of St. Pius X has argued that the reduction in miracles weakens the divine confirmation historically required¹¹. Archbishop Lefebvre warned that canonising popes of the Council risked canonising the Council itself¹².

The result is a tension. On one hand, the holiness of figures like Carlo Acutis is transparent: his life breathes the supernatural fragrance of Christ, and his sanctity is beyond doubt. On the other, the altered process has led some to question whether every modern canonisation bears the same guarantee of infallibility as before¹³. The Old Roman Apostolate shares the concerns of the traditional movement here. Unlike sedevacantists, it does not deny outright the validity of these acts. But prudence demands that canonisations no longer be taken as self-authenticating demonstrations of the Church’s unbroken judgment.

Carlo Acutis’ canonisation is therefore both a cause for joy and a moment for reflection. Joy, because a modern youth who loved the Mass and adored the Eucharist will be held up for universal veneration. Reflection, because the manner in which the Church proclaims saints has changed, and with it the weight of certainty traditionally attached.

In the end, sanctity itself is what matters most. Carlo’s life already calls the faithful to rediscover devotion to the Blessed Sacrament, to see technology as a tool for evangelisation, and to embrace purity of heart. He shows that even in the twenty-first century, holiness is possible and attractive. That is the lesson to be drawn. The Church must ever walk carefully in declaring saints, but when the fruit of a life shines clearly, the faithful recognise the Way. 🔝

1. Vatican News, “Pope approves miracles attributed to Carlo Acutis,” 23 May 2024.
2. John F. Clarkson, Canonization and the Devil’s Advocate (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1955).
3. Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione (1734–1738).
4. Code of Canon Law 1917, c. 2101.
5. Pius XI, Allocution on Canonisations, 1930.
6. Paul VI, Sacra Rituum Congregatio (Apostolic Constitution), 8 May 1969.
7. John Paul II, Divinus Perfectionis Magister (Apostolic Constitution), 25 January 1983.
8. Kenneth Woodward, Making Saints: How the Catholic Church Determines Who Becomes a Saint, Who Doesn’t, and Why (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), pp. 61–65.
9. Vatican Press Office, “Canonisations of John Paul II and John XXIII,” 27 April 2014; “Canonisation of Mother Teresa,” 4 September 2016.
10. Brunero Gherardini, La Canonizzazione dei Santi (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2005).
11. Jean-Michel Gleize, “La canonisation est-elle infaillible?” Courrier de Rome, no. 499 (2017).
12. Marcel Lefebvre, They Have Uncrowned Him (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1988), p. 234.
13. Roberto de Mattei, “Canonisation and Infallibility,” Corrispondenza Romana, 15 May 2014.

---

A Priest’s Life Cut Short: The Murder of Father Augustine Dauda Amadu in Sierra Leone

The Catholic Church in Sierra Leone has been plunged into mourning following the brutal killing of Father Augustine Dauda Amadu, parish priest of the Immaculate Conception Church in Kenema Diocese. He was murdered on the night of 29 August 2025, only hours before he was due to celebrate his farewell Mass and depart for a new assignment at St John’s Parish in Kailahun after five years of ministry in Kenema¹.

Parishioners arriving for morning Mass on 30 August discovered signs of forced entry at the rectory, where Father Amadu was found fatally stabbed. Assailants are believed to have entered through a broken window; though robbery has been suggested as a possible motive, it remains unclear whether anything was taken². Police confirmed they were alerted at 07:43 a.m. and that an investigation is ongoing, though no arrests had been made by the end of August³.

The shock reverberated through the Catholic community and beyond. The Archdiocese of Freetown described the murder as “deeply shocking,” while Father Peter Konteh of Caritas Freetown and the Sierra Leone Priests’ Association denounced the crime and called for justice⁴. The Diocese of Kenema issued a statement lamenting a “dark and painful moment” for the Church, stressing the grief and fear experienced by the faithful who had long considered the rectory and parish to be places of safety⁵.

Father Amadu’s death highlights a grim reality increasingly felt in West Africa: that violence and insecurity do not spare sacred spaces or their ministers. For Sierra Leonean Catholics, the loss is both personal and symbolic, reminding them of the vulnerability of those who dedicate their lives to the Gospel. The faithful had prepared to gather in gratitude for a priest’s ministry; instead, they were forced to mourn his violent death.

Yet the witness of Father Amadu’s life endures. In his years at Kenema, he shepherded his people with constancy, preparing to continue his mission elsewhere with the same devotion. His abrupt passing before the altar of farewell underlines the precariousness of human plans in the face of evil—but also the promise that no life given to Christ is lost. In death as in life, he serves as a sign pointing to the Cross, where suffering is not the end, but the beginning of eternal victory. 🔝

1. Premier Christian News, Sierra Leone priest killed hours before farewell Mass, 3 September 2025.
2. Crux, Murder of priest in Sierra Leone a dark moment for Church, 2 September 2025.
3. Catholic News Agency, Priest in Sierra Leone murdered while preparing for new mission, 2 September 2025.
4. Crux, Murder of priest in Sierra Leone a dark moment for Church, 2 September 2025.
5. Diocese of Kenema, Statement on the death of Father Augustine Dauda Amadu, 31 August 2025.

---

A Filipino Priest Suspended for Masonic Marker Blessing

On August 30, 2025, a ceremony in Ormoc City, Leyte, saw the unveiling of a Masonic marker in Barangay San Pablo. Unexpectedly, among those present was Father Libby Daños, a priest of the Order of the Discalced Augustinians (OAD), who participated in a blessing over the stone. The act caused immediate concern among the faithful, for the Church has repeatedly and solemnly condemned Freemasonry as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine.

On September 1, the OAD issued a statement announcing Father Daños’s suspension from public ministry pending canonical investigation. The order emphasised that the priest had expressed remorse, claiming he was not fully aware of the nature of the event, and that he was cooperating with ecclesiastical authorities. Nevertheless, the incident was deemed to have caused scandal among the faithful, and disciplinary action was deemed necessary.

The Church’s rejection of Freemasonry is not a mere disciplinary formality but an enduring doctrinal judgement. Pope Clement XII, in his 1738 bull In eminenti apostolatus, forbade Catholics from entering into Masonic associations, declaring: “We have resolved and decreed to condemn and forbid such societies, assemblies, meetings, gatherings, aggregations, or conventicles … under pain of excommunication to be incurred by the very fact, without any declaration.”¹ Pope Leo XIII, in Humanum genus (1884), exposed the naturalist and relativist principles of Freemasonry, warning: “The fundamental doctrine of the naturalists is that human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide. … They deny that anything has been taught by God; they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the human intelligence.”²

In 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reaffirmed the perennial prohibition in direct terms: “The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. The local ecclesiastical authorities do not have the faculty to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would involve a derogation from the above.”³ Most recently, in November 2023, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith again addressed the matter in a letter to the bishops of the Philippines, stating unequivocally: “Active membership in Masonic associations remains forbidden by the Church. This incompatibility is not a matter of disciplinary adjustment but arises from irreconcilable principles. No form of participation in Masonic rituals or public endorsement of Masonic symbols is permissible for Catholics.”⁴

This case in the Philippines thus highlights not only the vigilance of the Church in safeguarding the faithful from scandal, but also the fragility of priestly ministry in a context where civic, cultural, and ideological pressures can easily compromise the clarity of witness. Though Father Daños may not have intended to signal support for Freemasonry, the public character of his actions required decisive intervention.

For the Old Roman Apostolate, the lesson is twofold. First, the need for continual catechesis, so that clergy and laity alike remain clear about the perennial incompatibility of the Church and Freemasonry. Second, the recognition that even inadvertent participation in Masonic rites or symbols risks weakening the faithful’s confidence and obscuring the light of truth. The faithful must pray for their priests, that they may be granted the wisdom and courage to discern and resist the entanglements of the world.

In an age where compromise and confusion are constant threats, the way forward lies only in fidelity to revelation and tradition. The true blessing is not upon the monuments of men but upon those who, by grace, remain steadfast in Christ. And it is along that path alone that we must walk, for it is the Way. 🔝

Footnotes
¹ Clement XII, In eminenti apostolatus specula (1738): “Nos attendentes praedictas Societates … damnamus, proscribimus, atque prohibemus … sub excommunicationis latae sententiae poena ipso facto incurrenda, absque ulla declaratione.”
² Leo XIII, Humanum genus (1884), §12: “Hoc est praecipuum et praecipuum fundamentum ipsorum naturalistarum: naturam humanam et rationem humanam esse in omnibus rebus magistram et ducem … nihil agnoscunt divinitus traditum; nullum religionis dogma aut veritatem admittunt quae humanae intelligentiae non subiaceat.”
³ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Masonic Associations (26 November 1983), signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “Quapropter sententia negativa Ecclesiae super associationibus Masonicis manet immutata … Christifideles qui associationibus Masonicis nomen dant, in statu peccati gravi sunt et ad sacram Communionem accedere non possunt.”
⁴ Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Philippines on Freemasonry (November 2023): “Active membership in Masonic associations remains forbidden by the Church. This incompatibility is not a matter of disciplinary adjustment but arises from irreconcilable principles. No form of participation in Masonic rituals or public endorsement of Masonic symbols is permissible for Catholics.”

---

Black August: Catholic Churches Attacked Across Spain

August 2025 has entered Spanish Catholic memory as “Black August”, a term used by the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Spain (OLRC) to describe a wave of assaults against churches across the country. Seven incidents were recorded in a single month, ranging from sacrilege and vandalism to physical assaults and political protests, including the desecration of Barcelona’s Sagrada Família. These events have rekindled concern over anti-Catholic hostility in Spain and underscored the fragility of religious freedom in Europe.

A Month of Violence and Vandalism
The sequence began on 11 August at Santa Catalina, Rute (Córdoba), when black paint was poured over the church steps just before the feast of the Assumption—an intentional act of desecration marking one of the great Marian solemnities of the liturgical year¹.

On 12 August, during adoration at the Parish of San Martín, Valencia, a man entered and smashed the monstrance containing the consecrated Host. Reports identified him as suffering from mental illness, yet the act still constituted a grave sacrilege. The Blessed Sacrament was reverently transferred to the Cathedral, with the faithful accompanying the procession in silent reparation².

The following day, 13 August, graffiti accusing the Catholic Church of corruption was sprayed on the walls of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Palma de Mallorca. The messaging bore a distinctly ideological tone, reflecting the longstanding strain of anti-clerical sentiment in Spanish politics and society³.

On 14 August, violence erupted at Valencia Cathedral, where the sacristan and parishioners were attacked during a liturgical celebration. Just one day later, on the 15 August feast of the Assumption, the same cathedral was again targeted: an intoxicated individual physically assaulted worshippers and staff, injuring several⁴.

On 17 August, St James the Apostle, Albuñol (Granada), was subjected to serious vandalism. Statues were destroyed, and a fire was set within the building. Firefighters required two hours to contain the blaze, which inflicted significant damage on sacred property⁵.

On 24 August, a woman in Yeles (Toledo) vandalised images of the Virgin of Solitude and the Child of Remedies. She too was believed to be suffering psychiatric distress, yet the frequency of such incidents throughout the month raised questions about whether opportunistic acts of desecration are becoming normalised⁶.

The month concluded with a high-profile political protest at the Sagrada Família, Barcelona, on 31 August. Activists from the radical environmental group Futuro Vegetal hurled dye at the basilica’s façade in protest against livestock farming and wildfires. They were arrested and fined €600, later appealing for public donations to cover the cost. Their choice of target—Spain’s most iconic church—was a symbolic gesture that placed political ideology above reverence for the sacred⁷.

Religious Freedom Under Strain
The OLRC described these events as symptomatic of a broader hostility to Christianity. While some incidents involved individuals suffering psychological distress, others—particularly the vandalism in Palma de Mallorca and the Sagrada Família protest—were openly ideological.

María García, president of the OLRC, warned that such attacks are part of a trend of “Christianophobia” in Spain. She called for firm governmental action to protect religious sites and for hate crime laws to be applied with consistency, noting that Catholic churches are among the most frequently targeted public buildings in Spain⁸.

The OLRC has also drawn attention to the material consequences: parishes feel compelled to install cameras, hire private security, or lock churches outside liturgical hours. This undermines the openness of churches as places of refuge and prayer, and ironically shifts the burden of security from the state—responsible for protecting religious freedom—onto impoverished parishes⁹.

Historical Echoes
Spain’s history adds depth to these concerns. The 20th century witnessed violent anti-Catholic persecution during the Second Republic and the Civil War, when thousands of priests, religious, and laity were killed in the so-called “Red Terror.”¹⁰ While today’s attacks are not of the same magnitude, their symbolism resonates deeply. Every act of desecration reopens memories of Spain’s long struggle with militant secularism.

A Broader European Pattern
These Spanish events form part of a wider European phenomenon. Across the continent, Catholic churches face desecration, arson, and theft. France has recorded hundreds of church vandalism incidents annually in recent years. Italy, Germany, and the UK have also reported a rise in anti-Christian hostility, often tied to secular radicalism, political activism, or social disaffection¹¹.

In this sense, “Black August” is both a national crisis for Spain and a microcosm of Europe’s broader religious malaise.

Faith in the Midst of Hostility
The faithful, however, have responded with prayer and steadfastness. In Valencia, the Eucharist was carried in solemn procession after the destruction of the monstrance, uniting the people in reparation. In Granada, parishioners gathered to pray amidst the ruins left by fire. At the Sagrada Família, despite the dye staining its walls, Mass and devotion continued undisturbed.

For Catholics, these events serve as reminders of Christ’s own words: “If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated me before you” (John 15:18)¹². Hostility to the Church has always been a mark of her fidelity. The response of the faithful must not be fear or bitterness, but renewed courage, reparation, and prayer for the conversion of those who attack what is holy. 🔝

1. The Catholic Herald, “Seven Catholic churches attacked in Spain during August, including Barcelona’s Sagrada Familia,” 3 Sept 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Catholic News Agency, “7 Catholic churches attacked in Spain last month,” 3 Sept 2025.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. CBS News, “Spanish activists throw paint at Barcelona’s Sagrada Familia,” 1 Sept 2025.
8. Catholic News Agency, op. cit.
9. Observatory for Religious Freedom in Spain (OLRC), statement cited in CNA, op. cit.
10. Julius Ruiz, The ‘Red Terror’ and the Spanish Civil War: Revolutionary Violence in Madrid (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
11. OSCE/ODIHR Annual Hate Crime Report, 2024 edition.
12. Holy Bible, John 15:18 (Douay-Rheims).

---

Catholic Priest Commits Suicide: The Weight of Clerical Loneliness

The Diocese of Paterson was struck with grief on August 27, 2025, at the sudden death of Father Rafael A. Ciro, aged 45. Born in Colombia in 1979 and ordained in 2013, he had served faithfully in missionary work in Medellín and Mexico City, ministered to Hispanic migrants in Alabama, and laboured in numerous New Jersey parishes. At the time of his death, he was pastor of St. Stephen Parish in Paterson.

Bishop Kevin J. Sweeney confirmed that Father Ciro died by suicide, after a long battle with mental illness. Parishioners remembered him as “a very good priest… very well-loved… We miss him.”¹

The tragedy highlights a painful reality: priests are often expected to be angelic figures, tireless and unbreakable. In truth, they are men—men who can weep, suffer loneliness, wrestle with depression, and, at times, feel crushed beyond endurance. Behind every Eucharist, homily, and absolution stands a heart longing for love, understanding, and care.

We demand so much of them—Masses, confessions, visits, counsel—yet how often do we stop to pray for them, to support them, or to simply say, “Thank you, Father”? A word of gratitude may be more powerful than we realise; a prayer whispered for him may be the shield that carries him through a dark night.

The Church on Suicide
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that suicide is objectively a grave matter, for life belongs to God alone². Yet it also affirms that psychological suffering, grave fear, or illness may lessen responsibility³. Thus, the Church does not condemn but commends such souls to the mercy of God: “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to Him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.”⁴

Father Ciro’s death, though tragic, should not lead us to despair but to greater compassion, solidarity, and intercession. His life of service was real; his struggle was real; and the mercy of God remains greater still.

A Call to Action
The faithful must take this moment as a summons: pray for priests. Support them. Remember that they are human. Do not wait until they are gone to appreciate the burdens they bore in silence.

Rest in peace, Father Rafael. May the Good Shepherd, whom you served, grant you eternal rest, and may your struggle awaken in us a deeper care for the humanity of our priests.

¹ Catholic News Agency, Aug. 30, 2025.
² CCC 2280.
³ CCC 2282.
⁴ CCC 2283.

Pastoral Reflection
The sorrowful loss of Father Rafael reminds us that the priestly path is not one of triumph without trial, but of sacrifice carried in fragile vessels. Like every disciple, the priest walks the narrow road where the Cross and consolation meet. He preaches hope while often wrestling with shadows, he offers the Bread of Life while himself hungering for encouragement and prayer.

We who are the faithful must not only receive but also give—prayers for our shepherds, words of gratitude, gestures of love that remind them they are not alone. The Lord Himself bore loneliness in Gethsemane, yet He pressed forward in obedience and love. So too His ministers, and so too must we who follow Him.

The way forward is not to flee from suffering, nor to romanticise it, but to accompany one another with the charity that heals and the truth that saves. In this mutual bearing of burdens, in this fidelity to Christ and His Cross, we find the path laid before us from the beginning: Haec est Via. 🔝

---

Cardinal Francis Arinze at Sixty Years of Episcopal Service

On 29 August 1965, Francis Arinze was consecrated bishop at the age of thirty-two, becoming at that time the youngest Catholic bishop in the world. He arrived in Rome just in time to take his seat at the closing session of the Second Vatican Council, making him a living bridge between that turbulent conciliar era and the contemporary Church¹. This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of his episcopal consecration, a rare milestone that invites both thanksgiving and reflection.

A Life of Service in Africa and Rome
After early years in pastoral leadership during the Biafran War, Arinze was appointed Archbishop of Onitsha in 1967 at only thirty-five, where he steered the archdiocese through immense challenges of war, poverty, and rebuilding². In 1985 Pope John Paul II created him cardinal, summoning him to Rome first as President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue³.

But it was his appointment in 2002 as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDWDS) that left perhaps his most enduring mark on the universal Church⁴.

Vatican II: The Youngest Bishop
When Arinze entered St. Peter’s Basilica in the autumn of 1965, he was the youngest bishop present. Newly consecrated and untested, he did not take the floor in the debates, later recalling with humility: *“I was a new bishop and did not speak at the Council. I listened. I was learning.”*⁵ For him, the Council was first a school of the Church’s universality—a vivid experience of bishops from every continent gathered around Peter.

That memory is now uniquely precious. Out of the more than 2,500 bishops who took part, only four Council Fathers are still alive today: Cardinal Francis Arinze (92), Archbishop Victorinus Youn Kong-hi of South Korea (100), Bishop José de Jesús Sahagún de la Parra of Mexico (103), and Bishop Daniel Verstraete, O.M.I., of South Africa (100)⁶. Their longevity preserves a living link with one of the most consequential events of the modern Church.

Yet Arinze’s listening role in 1965 shaped his later ministry. He consistently stressed that Vatican II was a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit, but one that must be interpreted in continuity with the Church’s two millennia of tradition. He warned against the so-called “spirit of Vatican II,” a phrase he said had been used to justify abuses the Council never authorised. *“Some people think that because we had Vatican II, we must now invent a new Church. That was not the mind of the Council.”*⁷ In his later service at the CDWDS, this fidelity to the Council’s authentic meaning guided his defence of reverence, continuity, and doctrinal clarity.

Defender of Worship and Doctrine
Arinze’s leadership at the CDWDS came at a delicate moment. The decades following Vatican II had seen widespread experimentation and desacralisation in the liturgy, often justified in the name of pastoral adaptation. As prefect, he was tasked with restoring balance and reverence.

In 2004, under his direction, the Congregation issued Redemptionis Sacramentum, an instruction reaffirming the centrality of the Eucharist and warning against abuses in liturgical practice. It reasserted the prohibition of unauthorized innovations, lay “presiding,” and the trivialisation of sacred rites⁸. Arinze consistently reminded bishops and priests that the liturgy belongs to the Church, not to individual communities or celebrants. In speeches and writings, he stressed that the Mass is first and foremost the action of Christ Himself, not a stage for creativity⁹.

He also oversaw debates concerning translation of the Roman Missal. His tenure coincided with the intense work of revising vernacular editions in line with the 2001 instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, which called for fidelity to the Latin originals. Arinze was firm in insisting that accuracy and doctrinal clarity take precedence over dynamic equivalence. In this he sought to safeguard the universality of worship while ensuring the faithful receive the fullness of Catholic teaching in the prayers of the Mass¹⁰.

Tradition and Communion
Arinze’s years in office also coincided with the renewed debates over the Traditional Latin Mass and the status of the Society of St. Pius X. He consistently recognised the 1962 Missal as a legitimate expression of the Roman Rite, insisting that it was never formally abrogated. When Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum in 2007, Arinze welcomed it as an act of reconciliation, stressing that the Church has “one Roman Rite with two usages” and that attachment to the older form was not a rejection of Vatican II but a legitimate enrichment of the Church’s worship¹¹.

On the SSPX, Arinze acknowledged the irregularity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 episcopal consecrations, but he avoided declaring the society outside the Church. He urged its clergy and faithful to remain obedient to the Pope and open to dialogue, while affirming their desire for tradition as sincere. For Arinze, the path forward was not rupture, but the restoration of unity through fidelity: a reminder that true tradition is preserved within the communion of the Church, never in opposition to it¹².

Continuity into the Present
This legacy of liturgical fidelity is strikingly relevant in today’s Church. Under Pope Leo XIV, debates over the liturgy have once again risen to prominence, with progressives calling for new adaptations and traditionalists urging a return to the perennial forms. In this context, Arinze’s voice remains instructive: he neither romanticised the past nor embraced novelty for its own sake. Instead, he called for obedience to the Church’s received tradition, recognising that authentic renewal comes only when worship is firmly anchored in the Eucharistic mystery itself.

Tributes to Cardinal Arinze on this sixtieth anniversary have emphasised his wisdom, warmth, and constancy. Former governor Peter Obi called him a “living witness of faith and renewal”, noting his influence well beyond ecclesial life in Nigeria¹³. The Nigeria Catholic Network praised him as a father of faith for a continent whose Catholic population has grown dramatically in the decades of his ministry¹⁴.

His motto, Caritas Christi urget nos—“the love of Christ impels us”—remains the key to interpreting his work. In interreligious dialogue, in episcopal governance, and above all in his stewardship of the Church’s worship, Arinze has consistently sought to safeguard the heart of Catholic life: that the love of Christ is not an idea but a sacramental reality communicated to the faithful through the Eucharist.

Pastoral Reflection
Cardinal Arinze’s years at the Congregation for Divine Worship remind us that fidelity in worship is fidelity to Christ Himself. The temptation in every age is to fashion the liturgy in our own image, but Arinze’s voice still echoes: the liturgy is gift, not invention; it is Christ’s work, not our possession. His episcopal ministry of sixty years, rooted in reverence and clarity, offers the faithful today a reminder that the way forward is not innovation for its own sake but fidelity to what we have received. In a Church once more torn between novelty and tradition, his witness points us back to the path of steadfast discipleship, compelled by the love of Christ—Haec est Via. 🔝

1. Vatican Press Office, Biographical Note: Francis Cardinal Arinze (Press.Vatican.va, accessed September 2025).
2. Nigeria Catholic Network, “Francis Cardinal Arinze Marks 60 Years of Episcopal Ministry,” 29 August 2025.
3. Annuario Pontificio (1985); cf. Pope John Paul II, Consistory of 25 May 1985.
4. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Quod a Nobis, 1 October 2002, appointing Cardinal Arinze Prefect of the CDWDS.
5. Arinze, interview with Inside the Vatican, October 2012.
6. Aleteia, “Only 4 Fathers of the Second Vatican Council Still Alive,” 11 August 2024.
7. Arinze, address at the 40th anniversary of Vatican II, Rome, 2005.
8. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum, 25 March 2004.
9. Arinze, F., The Holy Eucharist: Our Greatest Treasure (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001), pp. 17–21.
10. Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 28 March 2001.
11. Interview with Cardinal Arinze, Inside the Vatican, July 2007.
12. Catholic News Service, “Cardinal Arinze: Hope for SSPX Reconciliation,” 2006.
13. Vanguard, “Peter Obi Hails Cardinal Arinze on 60th Episcopal Anniversary,” 30 August 2025.
14. Nigeria Catholic Network, ibid.

---

---

IN OTHER NEWS…

---

Crisis at Sinai: Historical Autonomy, Ecclesiastical Division, and Diplomatic Fallout

The crisis unfolding at St Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, where Archbishop Damianos faces rebellion from within the Sinai Brotherhood, is not merely an internal matter of monastic governance. It threatens to unravel a 1,500-year legacy of autonomy, destabilize Orthodox unity, and complicate relations between Greece and Egypt.

The Historical Legacy of Sinai
Founded by Emperor Justinian I in the sixth century, St Catherine’s Monastery was established as both fortress and sanctuary, guarding the relics of St Catherine of Alexandria and marking the site of the Burning Bush¹. From the beginning, the monastery was placed under a unique dispensation: it was not subject to nearby patriarchates but given an autonomous archbishopric, titled “of Sinai, Pharan, and Raitho”². This arrangement preserved both the independence of the monks and the neutrality of the site, revered by Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike.

The autonomy was reinforced not only by imperial charters but also by Muslim rulers. The Prophet Muhammad is traditionally said to have granted the monks the Ashtiname of protection, a covenant guaranteeing security of persons and property³. Thus, Sinai became a rare locus of continuity—respected by Byzantine emperors, Muslim caliphs, Crusader kings, and Ottoman sultans. The current rupture, if it results in external control or dual succession, risks undermining this long tradition of recognized independence.

Ecclesiastical Divisions
The rebellion against Archbishop Damianos brings into sharp relief the wider tensions in global Orthodoxy. At issue are not only allegations of absentee leadership, financial misrule, and scandalous concubinage, but also the question of who holds authority to intervene when a monastery’s governance falters⁴.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I has declared Damianos the lawful and canonical abbot. Yet the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilos III, has sided with the Sinai Brotherhood, reflecting the historic contest between Constantinople and Jerusalem for influence in the region⁵. If the Brotherhood proceeds to elect a successor without recognition from Constantinople, Orthodoxy risks the spectacle of competing hierarchs at Sinai—a pattern familiar from past jurisdictional conflicts in the Balkans and Middle East. Such a fracture would corrode the prestige of the monastery, long seen as a pure guardian of early Christian witness.

Diplomatic Fallout: Greece and Egypt
The crisis also bears directly on international diplomacy. Greece regards Sinai as a spiritual outpost of Hellenism, and dispatched Secretary-General Giorgos Kalantzis in September to mediate⁶. Egypt, however, asserts sovereignty: a court ruling in May placed monastery properties under state control, raising alarm in Athens about encroachments on canonical autonomy⁷.

This dispute comes at a delicate time. Greece and Egypt have cultivated close cooperation in energy exploration, maritime security, and countering Turkish influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Should the Sinai crisis deepen, it may strain a vital regional partnership. Moreover, Cairo cannot allow disorder at one of its UNESCO World Heritage sites. If violence escalates, the Egyptian state may intervene more directly, setting a precedent for tighter oversight of Christian institutions within its borders.

Wider Orthodox and Interfaith Implications
The struggle for Sinai resonates beyond the desert. The rivalry between Constantinople and Jerusalem recalls the fault lines exposed by the recognition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s autocephaly in 2019. Moscow and other patriarchates may seek to exploit the Sinai turmoil to weaken Constantinople’s fragile authority⁸.

At the same time, the monastery’s reputation as a bastion of interreligious coexistence is imperilled. For centuries, Sinai has been a pilgrimage site visited by popes, patriarchs, and Muslim leaders, embodying dialogue and peace. Allegations of corruption, violence, and concubinage at the heart of this holy place risk tarnishing that witness and diminishing the monastery’s role as a bridge between faiths.

Conclusion
The Mount Sinai crisis is therefore more than a quarrel between monks. It strikes at the historical autonomy of one of Christianity’s holiest sites, exposes the fissures within global Orthodoxy, and threatens to disturb delicate diplomatic balances in the Eastern Mediterranean. What began as a rebellion in the cloisters could become a turning point in the history of both the Church and the region. 🔝

¹ Procopius, Buildings, I.8, on Justinian’s foundation of the monastery.
² J. Nasrallah, Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’église melchite du Ve au XXe siècle, vol. I (Louvain, 1979), pp. 174–177.
³ The Ashtiname of Muhammad preserved at Sinai; see A. S. Atiya, The Arabic Manuscripts of Mount Sinai (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1955).
⁴ Reports of absenteeism, financial mismanagement, and concubinage: Catholic Herald, 2 Sept. 2025; Almanassa, 31 Aug. 2025.
⁵ Statements of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Theophilos III: Catholic Herald, 2 Sept. 2025.
⁶ Intervention of Giorgos Kalantzis, Greek Secretary-General for Religious Affairs: Ekathimerini, 1 Sept. 2025.
⁷ Egyptian court ruling, 28 May 2025: Catholic Herald, 2 Sept. 2025.
⁸ On the Ukrainian autocephaly crisis and its repercussions: A. Krawchuk & T. Bremer (eds.), Eastern Orthodox Encounters of Identity and Otherness (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), pp. 211–230.

---

Intimidation Campaign Clears Catholic Residents from Belfast Homes

A new housing development in North Belfast, intended as a symbol of shared community, has instead become the site of a campaign of sectarian intimidation. Of the four Catholic families originally housed on Alloa Street, only one now remains, the others having been driven out by violence and threats.

From welcome to hostility
The Alloa Street development, opened in November 2024, was designed as a mixed neighbourhood where Catholic and Protestant families could live side by side. A public welcoming event was held the following month, attended by political figures including Democratic Unionist Party councillor Brian Kingston, who spoke of a hopeful future for integration in one of Belfast’s most contested districts¹.

Yet only months later, the optimism unravelled. Beginning in May 2025, Catholic families reported attacks on their homes, including masked men throwing masonry and smashing windows in Annalee and Alloa Streets². The incidents created an atmosphere of terror that forced families to abandon their properties.

UDA and the shadow of paramilitary control
Local residents and community representatives have accused the West Belfast Ulster Defence Association (UDA) of orchestrating a campaign to remove Catholics from the area. Though the organisation denies involvement, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) has not confirmed responsibility, the pattern of intimidation bears all the marks of organised paramilitary activity³.

Reports suggest there had been an informal understanding that Catholic families could remain until rehousing was arranged, but this agreement appears to have broken down, leaving them exposed to renewed hostility⁴.

The GAA jersey and the politics of identity
One particular flashpoint came when children in the area were seen wearing a GAA jersey—the kit of the Gaelic Athletic Association, Ireland’s principal sporting body. The GAA is strongly associated with Irish national identity and Catholic communities; its colours and crests are often read in Northern Ireland as cultural markers.

For Catholic families, a GAA jersey is simply the sign of ordinary sporting loyalty—no different than supporting a local football club. But in this fraught context, it was interpreted by loyalist elements as a territorial provocation. According to residents, threats escalated after the appearance of such jerseys, signalling how even a child’s game can become weaponised in Northern Ireland’s sectarian divide⁵.

Personal cost of sectarian hatred
The impact on families has been devastating. In one instance, a Catholic mother of four was told her children would be attacked if they continued to play in the local park. Traumatized, she fled with her family. Her legal representatives have since initiated proceedings against Clanmil Housing Association, alleging that it failed to protect residents under its care⁶.

Critics argue that despite public commitments, housing associations and political leaders have not provided adequate security or relocation support, leaving ordinary Catholics to bear the cost of failed policy and paramilitary coercion.

Political condemnation and calls for action
Political leaders have condemned the intimidation. Sinn Féin MP John Finucane demanded an urgent meeting with police officials to secure assurances of protection for Catholic families, while Alliance MLA Nuala McAllister insisted that “no family should ever be left at the mercy of sectarian threats in 2025.”⁷

Community leaders have described the situation as “outrageous and totally unacceptable,” warning that if such intimidation is tolerated, the fragile progress of Northern Ireland’s peace process is placed in jeopardy⁸.

The PSNI has stepped up patrols in the district, but critics note that visible security is only one element of the problem: unless the political system decisively rejects paramilitary influence in housing and neighbourhood life, mixed community developments will remain vulnerable.

A return to the old divisions
This episode reveals how quickly sectarian divisions can reassert themselves in Belfast, undermining decades of peacebuilding rhetoric. The displacement of Catholic families under threat is more than an attack on individuals—it is a re-imposition of territorial boundaries policed by fear.

As one local resident lamented, “We were told we could have a mixed future here, but all it took was a few threats to tear it down.”

If a family cannot display a child’s GAA jersey without fear of reprisal, or send their children to play without threats, then the promised “new Belfast” remains unfulfilled. The silence of intimidation echoes louder than any political speech, and the Church must continue to call for justice, reconciliation, and protection of the innocent. 🔝

1. Catholic Herald, “Intimidation campaign clears Catholic residents from Belfast homes,” Sept. 2025.
2. Irish News, “Masked men attack homes of Catholic families in north Belfast,” May 2025.
3. Catholic Herald, ibid.
4. Irish News, “Fear and silence in Annalee Street: just one Catholic family left,” June 2025.
5. Irish News, “GAA jersey in mixed area sparked north Belfast campaign against Catholic families,” July 2025.
6. Ibid.
7. Irish News, “Sinn Féin seeks urgent meeting with police after reports of fresh threats,” May 2025.
8. Belfast Media, “Intimidation of Catholic families in Oldpark outrageous and totally unacceptable,” May 2025.

---

The Manufactured Martyr: Gaza Boy ‘Killed by Israel’ Found Alive

The story of a Gazan child allegedly “gunned down” by the Israel Defense Forces has collapsed under scrutiny. The boy—misidentified as “Amir” by former Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) contractor Anthony Aguilar—is in fact Abdul Rahim Muhammad Hamden, known as Abood, and is alive.

Exclusive video published by Fox News shows Abood smiling and introducing himself, contradicting Aguilar’s widely circulated claim that he had been killed at a humanitarian aid distribution site. Yahoo News and Israel National News have confirmed the child’s survival, reporting that he was found living with his birth mother and later relocated for safety after his identity was verified biometrically and through the shirt he wore in Aguilar’s original video¹.

Aguilar’s account, first told in June and repeated in July, alleged that on 28 May he saw the boy fatally shot in the torso and leg minutes after collecting food at a GHF site. He repeated the story on MSNBC, the Tucker Carlson Show, and activist platforms including Al Jazeera and Middle East Eye, where it was presented without verification².

The contradictions soon emerged. Body-cam footage from another security contractor showed only a brief, calm interaction before the boy rejoined the crowd. The child’s stepmother testified that he remained alive until at least 28 July, when he went missing—weeks after Aguilar claimed his death³. GHF then launched a search, confirming his identity through biometrics and ensuring his safe relocation⁴.

The propagation of the falsehood illustrates the machinery of disinformation. Activist outlets amplified Aguilar’s testimony before any fact-checking, while GHF officials warned that Hamas had an incentive to hide the boy, since finding him alive would collapse a useful propaganda narrative⁵.

Questions also surround Aguilar himself. GHF records, reported by the Times of Israel, show that he was terminated in June for poor performance and erratic behaviour, later attempting to back-date a memo to justify himself and even seeking re-hire after his dismissal⁶.

Chapin Fay, a GHF spokesperson, criticised media negligence: “Too many people … were quick to spread unverified claims. When a child’s life is at stake, facts must matter more than headlines”⁷.

For Christians, the episode reveals a deeper pattern. Christ warned that the devil is “the father of lies” (Jn. 8:44)⁸, manipulating compassion to obscure truth. The exploitation of a living child as a martyr-symbol is one instance of this tactic. St Paul foresaw such times when men would “turn away their hearing from the truth, and will be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 4:4)⁹. The Fathers of the Church and Catholic teaching are unequivocal: “The tongue that lies slays the soul” (Augustine)¹⁰; lying is intrinsically contrary to the divine order of truth (Aquinas)¹¹; and “by its very nature, lying is to be condemned” (Catechism)¹².

The boy was not killed. But his dignity was violated, his safety imperilled, and truth obscured—because activists and journalists found a lie too useful to resist. The rapidity with which Aguilar’s tale spread was not accidental. It was believed because it was emotionally compelling, and it was circulated because it served ideological ends.

This is the danger of narrative-driven reporting. Images of frail children, emotive testimony, and carefully staged soundbites are powerful because they bypass reason and lodge directly in the heart. Modern propagandists understand that pity can be weaponised, and modern activists and media outlets willingly exploit that tactic. In Gaza, the image of a child’s supposed martyrdom was allowed to circulate without verification because it fulfilled pre-set political assumptions. In the West, the same dynamic is at work whenever identity politics, gender ideology, or race activism trades in tragic anecdotes or manipulated imagery to silence debate and suppress inconvenient truths.

Christ’s words are prophetic: the devil is “the father of lies” (Jn. 8:44), and he distorts compassion into a cloak for error. By manipulating emotion, he enslaves minds to ideology. The Church warns us that true charity is never divorced from truth. “The tongue that lies slays the soul” (St Augustine)¹⁰, and those who propagate lies—whether through activist fervour or journalistic negligence—bear responsibility for the harm caused.

In an age when feelings are exalted above facts, the Christian must stand firm. Compassion divorced from truth is counterfeit; pity that obscures reality becomes cruelty. To remain faithful to Christ is to resist manipulation, to refuse sentimental falsehoods, and to insist that justice and mercy can never be built on lies. Fidelity to truth is not only a journalistic duty but a Christian imperative: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32)¹³. 🔝

1. Fox News Digital, Exclusive video reveals Gaza boy, said to be killed by IDF, is alive (Sept. 4, 2025); Yahoo News, “Exclusive video reveals Gaza boy … is alive” (Sept. 4, 2025); Israel National News, Gazan boy found alive, debunking viral death lie (Sept. 4, 2025); Israel Hayom, Child reported killed in Gaza found alive (Sept. 4, 2025); Times of Israel liveblog, Sept. 4, 2025.
2. MSNBC broadcast (July 2025); Tucker Carlson Show (July 31, 2025); Al Jazeera, “GHF whistleblower says boy killed by Israel just after he collected aid” (July 31, 2025); Middle East Eye, “Aid worker says child was killed after receiving food at Gaza site” (July 30, 2025).
3. The Jewish Chronicle (via JNS syndication), Aug. 14, 2025; investigative reporting, Aug. 10, 2025.
4. Fox News Digital, Sept. 4, 2025; Times of Israel liveblog, Sept. 4, 2025; Israel National News, Sept. 4, 2025.
5. Fox News Digital, Sept. 4, 2025 (GHF concern re: Hamas incentive); Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye dissemination of Aguilar’s claims.
6. Times of Israel, “Ex-US contractor … GHF rejects ‘false claims’” (July 30, 2025).
7. Fox News Digital, Sept. 4, 2025.
8. John 8:44, Douay-Rheims.
9. 2 Timothy 4:4, Douay-Rheims.
10. St Augustine, Enchiridion, ch. 22.
11. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.110, a.3.
12. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2485.
13. John 8:32, Douay-Rheims.

---

The UK’s Fertility Crisis: A Failure of Honesty

New data from the Office for National Statistics reveal that women in England and Wales bore, on average, just 1.41 children in 2024—the lowest figure since records began in 1938. Public debate has treated this decline as the result of smaller families, but as Stephen J. Shaw has argued, the real crisis is that increasing numbers never become parents at all.¹

Contrary to the prevailing narrative, British parents are still having roughly two or more children, much as they did in the 1970s. What has changed is the rising tide of childlessness. ONS projections suggest that only 65% of women are likely to become mothers if current patterns continue—down from 71% in 2020.² The issue is not rejection of parenthood, for surveys consistently show that most still desire children, but what Shaw terms “unplanned childlessness”—a hoped-for family that never materialises.

This exposes the falsehood of the modern myth that parenthood can be postponed indefinitely. While biological fertility does not collapse at 28, ONS analysis shows that women childless at that age in 2023 had only a 50% chance of ever becoming mothers.³ The issue is not biology alone but the increasing unlikelihood of forming a stable union at the right time. Society has built a world that frustrates family formation, with prolonged education, careerist structures hostile to early parenthood, and cultural narratives that treat family as secondary to self-realisation.

Shaw observes that governments have spent decades “throwing money at the wrong end of the problem” with childcare subsidies, parental leave, and IVF access—policies that support those already in relationships, but do nothing for the growing number who never arrive at that point.⁴ The problem is not merely economic but profoundly cultural. The modern secular creed of autonomy and delay corrodes the natural progression to marriage and family life.

The Church has long warned that when society undermines the family, it undermines itself. Pope Pius XI taught that “the family holds directly from the Creator the mission and hence the right to educate the offspring” and that no social order can be healthy if it neglects or suppresses this divine institution.⁵ Likewise, St. John Chrysostom urged his flock to embrace marriage and parenthood not as optional but as the ordinary path of sanctity for most: “The begetting of children is the most suitable cause of marriage… The home is a little Church.”⁶

Today, a third or more of the population faces lifelong childlessness. This is not merely demographic decline but civilisational decay. For without renewal in marriage and family, society itself cannot be renewed. As Pope Leo XIII declared: “The domestic household is the cornerstone of the State… when the home is destroyed, the nation itself totters.”⁷

The Catholic answer to this crisis is not technocratic but evangelical: to recall men and women to the truth that family is not an accessory to life but its natural fulfillment, a vocation written into our nature by God Himself. Until Britain rediscovers this, her fertility will continue to collapse—not through shrinking families, but through a society that no longer allows its people to become mothers and fathers at all. 🔝

1. Office for National Statistics, Births in England and Wales: 2024 (London: ONS, 2025).
2. Stephen J. Shaw, “Britain’s Birthrate Crisis,” Sunday Times, 31 August 2025.
3. Ibid., citing ONS data on age and fertility probabilities.
4. Shaw, Sunday Times, 2025.
5. Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), §32.
6. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Ephesians 20.
7. Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891), §12.

---

The Linehan Case: Law, Free Speech, and the State

The arrest of Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan, creator of Father Ted, The IT Crowd, and Black Books, has become a defining moment in Britain’s cultural and legal battles.

The Arrest
On 1 September 2025, Linehan was detained by armed officers at Heathrow Airport upon returning from the United States. He was held on suspicion of inciting violence, based on three social media posts made in April 2025, including a remark on male intrusion into women’s spaces, a caption beneath a trans rights protest, and a condemnation of activists as misogynists and homophobes¹. The Metropolitan Police confirmed the arrest and bail conditions, including a ban on using X (formerly Twitter). Linehan suffered a hypertensive episode during custody, requiring hospitalisation before release².

Political Outcry
The arrest was denounced across the political spectrum. J.K. Rowling described it as “deplorable”³, while Wes Streeting, Labour’s Health Secretary, urged the police to focus on “streets not tweets”⁴. Nigel Farage and Claire Coutinho warned that Britain’s reputation for liberty and humour is at risk⁵. Legal figures such as Shami Chakrabarti and Sir Max Hill have called for a review of hate speech laws and their enforcement⁶.

The Free Speech Union
The Free Speech Union (FSU), under Toby Young (Lord Young of Acton), announced it would support Linehan’s defence. On X, the FSU declared: “We do not believe Graham’s arrest or the bail conditions imposed were lawful. We will be backing him all the way in his fight against these preposterous allegations and the disproportionate response from the police.”⁷ Young described Britain’s “over-zealous policing of social media” as turning the country into an “international laughingstock,” noting the contrast with the neglect of burglary and shoplifting⁸.

The Law
The police stated that Linehan was arrested under suspicion of breaching Section 3A of the Public Order Act 1986, which criminalises distributing threatening recordings with intent to stir up religious hatred or hatred on grounds of sexual orientation⁹.

On X, Toby Young responded: “@Glinner cannot possibly be guilty of this offence since it makes no reference to transgender status… That makes it clear that, as it stands, s3A of the Public Order Act does not make it a criminal offence to stir up hatred against someone on the grounds of transgender status.”¹⁰ He concluded that there is “zero chance” of prosecution and demanded that Sir Mark Rowley, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, apologise and compensate Linehan for false arrest and wrongful imprisonment.

New Developments
In the days following, Sir Mark Rowley himself called for legal reform, acknowledging that police are forced into “toxic culture war” disputes by the law’s ambiguity¹¹. Prime Minister Keir Starmer likewise pressed for police to prioritise serious crime over online disputes¹². Meanwhile, Linehan appeared in court on separate charges of harassment and criminal damage concerning a trans activist, to which he pleaded not guilty¹³. The FSU confirmed that he intends to sue the Met for wrongful arrest¹⁴.

Legal Context
The Equality Act 2010 recognises nine “protected characteristics,” including sex, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment¹⁵. Yet the “stirring up hatred” provisions of the Public Order Act extend only to religion and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court’s April 2025 judgment reaffirmed that “sex” refers exclusively to biological categories and not to gender identity. While trans persons are protected under the characteristic of “gender reassignment,” there is no statutory offence of stirring up hatred on this ground¹⁶.

Analysis
The Linehan affair reveals the gulf between statute and practice. Police, under pressure from cultural forces, have applied laws beyond their wording, engaging in political policing where free speech is curtailed by ideological zeal. Regardless of one’s view of Linehan’s rhetoric, the fact remains: he was arrested under a statute that does not apply to “transgenderism.”

This misapplication of law illustrates not only institutional overreach but also the fragility of liberty in Britain today. Unless corrected, such abuses risk undermining trust in both law enforcement and the courts, replacing justice with ideology. 🔝

¹ AP News, “TV writer Graham Linehan’s arrest over transgender posts sparks free speech outcry in the UK,” 3 Sept 2025.
² Sky News, “Father Ted co-creator Graham Linehan arrested at Heathrow over posts on X,” 2 Sept 2025.
³ The Guardian, “Police should focus on ‘streets not tweets’, says Wes Streeting after Graham Linehan arrest,” 3 Sept 2025.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ AP News, “TV writer Graham Linehan’s arrest…” (cited above).
⁶ The Guardian, “Police should focus on ‘streets not tweets’…” (cited above).
⁷ Free Speech Union statement on X, 2 Sept 2025.
⁸ Fox News Digital, “UK comedy writer Graham Linehan arrested over social media posts criticizing trans activists,” 3 Sept 2025.
⁹ Public Order Act 1986, Section 3A.
¹⁰ Toby Young (@toadmeister), X post, 2 Sept 2025.
¹¹ The Guardian, “Met police chief calls for review of law after Graham Linehan arrest,” 3 Sept 2025.
¹² The Independent, “Keir Starmer says police must prioritise serious crime after Linehan arrest,” 3 Sept 2025.
¹³ The Sun, “Graham Linehan arrives at court charged with harassing trans woman online,” 3 Sept 2025.
¹⁴ Washington Examiner, “London police chief calls for law reform after Linehan arrest,” 3 Sept 2025.
¹⁵ Equality Act 2010, Part 2, Chapter 1.
¹⁶ For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, UK Supreme Court judgment, April 2025.

---

From Protest to Vindication: Epping’s Pink Ladies and the Politics of Justice

The conviction of Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, the Ethiopian asylum seeker whose crimes against teenage girls in Epping Forest triggered outrage, has reshaped the debate over protest, community safety, and asylum policy. What was once dismissed as reactionary anger now looks like foresight.

Mothers in Pink
When protests first broke out at the Bell Hotel, national media were quick to frame them as “far-right inspired.” The involvement of splinter groups such as Homeland gave weight to that charge.¹ But the first to act were not extremists; they were local women. Known as the Pink Ladies, they were mothers, grandmothers, and residents who donned pink clothes and gathered to demand protection for their children after news spread that a 14-year-old girl had been sexually assaulted by a recent hotel arrival.²

At the time, commentators doubted their motives. Were they simply manipulated by agitators? Today, after Kebatu’s guilty verdict on multiple counts of sexual assault and incitement, those doubts ring hollow.³ The women’s fears were not only legitimate but tragically justified. Their protests, initially caricatured, are now being recast as an authentic expression of community vigilance.

Political Prisoners?
Running alongside this grassroots movement is the more contentious case of Sarah White, a Reform UK activist arrested for raising the Union Jack above Epping’s civic offices during the protests. Charged under a Section 14 order, she has been portrayed by Dan Wootton and other new media voices as a “political prisoner” — a symbol of state overreach against patriotic dissent.⁴

Mainstream outlets have treated her more coolly, describing her as a protester who overstepped legal boundaries.⁵ Yet with public sympathy for the Pink Ladies on the rise, White’s arrest looks less like a disruption and more like an extension of the same instinct: an act of protection and protest, now cast in the colours of the national flag.

Cultural Shift
The cultural narrative is changing. Britain’s establishment media often reach for the “far-right” label to explain unrest. In Epping, they missed something crucial: that ordinary women were driven to action by the most primal of concerns, the safety of their children. The Pink Ladies stood for maternal duty in the face of bureaucratic negligence. White’s Union Jack moment spoke to the patriotic duty of defending national identity.

Neither image fits neatly into the categories of extremist politics. Both resonate more deeply with older traditions of civic responsibility.

Political Consequences
The guilty verdict has intensified demands to end the practice of housing asylum seekers in residential hotels. Local authorities, led by Epping Forest District Council, have long argued that this policy exposes vulnerable communities to unnecessary risks.⁶ Now those warnings carry the weight of lived experience.

For Westminster, the fallout is clear. Ignoring these concerns risks deepening public alienation. Reform UK and other populist voices will seize the moment, but even mainstream parties will struggle to resist calls for reform after such a high-profile case.

Sentencing Preview
Kebatu’s offences include assaults on two 14-year-olds and an adult woman, incitement of a minor to sexual activity, and harassment.⁷ Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he faces a substantial custodial sentence — likely between 8 and 15 years — and will almost certainly be placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register for life.

Following imprisonment, deportation is almost inevitable under the UK Borders Act 2007, which mandates removal of foreign nationals sentenced to over 12 months.⁸ The sentencing, expected later this month, will be closely watched. A lenient outcome would provoke fury; a stern one could further legitimise the protests.

Pastoral Reflection
The events in Epping Forest are a sobering reminder of the Church’s perennial call to defend the innocent. When St James wrote that “pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself unspotted from this world”⁹, he expressed the same instinct that moved mothers and grandmothers in pink to stand guard for their children.

Our Lord Himself taught: “Whoso shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.”¹⁰ The cry for justice in Epping is not merely political, but profoundly moral. It is the instinctive demand of a community that its children be safe, its families respected, its life ordered to the good.

At the same time, Christians are called to remember that justice and mercy meet in God’s law. The guilty must be punished, the innocent protected, and the wayward called to repentance. Public anger must never become vengeance; yet neither can compassion become excuse. The Cross stands as both judgment and hope.

In such moments, the faithful are reminded that the path of discipleship is not abstract. It calls us to speak truth, to defend the weak, and to live visibly in the light of Christ. It is not a way of convenience, but of fidelity — the narrow road that leads to life.¹¹ This is the way. 🔝

1. The Guardian, “Members of far-right party organising asylum hotel protests across UK,” Aug 23, 2025.
2. The Sun, “Epping hotel migrant guilty of sexually assaulting girl, 14,” Sept 4, 2025.
3. Reuters, “Asylum seeker in UK found guilty of sex assault on teen that sparked protests,” Sept 4, 2025.
4. Dan Wootton, Outspoken (YouTube/Podcast), “Reform Epping Leader Sarah White Charged…,” Sept 3, 2025.
5. Evening Standard, “Epping protester Sarah White calls arrest an absolute disgrace,” Sept 1, 2025.
6. The Times, “Calls to amend planning laws for asylum hotels,” Aug 2025.
7. The Guardian, “Epping asylum hotel resident found guilty of sexual assault,” Sept 4, 2025.
8. UK Borders Act 2007, Section 32 (automatic deportation orders).
9. James 1:27, Douay-Rheims Bible.
10. Matthew 18:6, Douay-Rheims Bible.
11. Matthew 7:14, Douay-Rheims Bible.

---

A Preacher in the Square: Street Evangelist Banned from Brighton City Centre

Brighton, 3 September 2025 – A Christian street preacher was temporarily banned from Brighton’s city centre under public order powers in what observers describe as part of a growing national pattern of suppressing religious expression. Ollie Sabatelli, a prominent evangelical preacher with over 184,000 followers on TikTok, was issued a Section 35 dispersal order by Sussex Police on Friday, 29 August, reportedly for “antisocial behaviour.” The order barred him from returning to the city centre for 24 hours.

Mr Sabatelli, who regularly preaches near Brighton’s Clock Tower using amplification equipment, stated in a video that he was banned simply for “preaching out the Bible.” He added, “The work of God and the word of God will prevail,” and noted that police are “always being called on [him].”

Police confirmed the dispersal order but declined to specify what conduct led to it. No criminal charges were filed.

Legal Grounds and Growing Concerns
A Section 35 dispersal order, permitted under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, allows police to exclude individuals from a designated area for up to 48 hours if their presence is deemed likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”, even without the commission of any crime¹. Critics argue that the broadness of this standard enables authorities to stifle unwelcome viewpoints—including religious beliefs—under the guise of maintaining public comfort.

Mr Sabatelli’s case is not isolated. In recent years, multiple legal challenges have emerged in response to police and council attempts to restrict or penalise public preaching:

• In July 2025, the Kingsborough Centre, a Pentecostal church in West London, overturned a PSPO that banned Bible verses and public preaching in Uxbridge².
• In 2024, charges were dropped against John Dunn and Shaun O’Sullivan, arrested for street preaching. Courts acknowledged their rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the Human Rights Act³.
• Preacher Dia Moodley received a formal settlement after Avon & Somerset Police admitted they acted disproportionately in restricting his speech⁴.
• In Rotherham, preacher John Steele was arrested and later cleared after discussing religious texts with a Muslim woman⁵.
• A controversial Rushmoor Borough Council proposal in early 2025 would have criminalised unsolicited prayer, Bible distribution, and perceived ‘hostile’ religious messages. It was suspended following legal pressure⁶.

Older landmark cases also provide important legal backdrop:

• In Redmond-Bate v DPP (1999), the High Court upheld the right to preach lawfully even if the message causes offence⁷.
• In contrast, the conviction of Harry Hammond (2001) for holding a placard against homosexuality was upheld by the ECHR as a legitimate restriction⁸.

Brighton’s Double Standard?
Brighton is often styled as a beacon of inclusivity and progressive values, but Sabatelli’s temporary removal exposes an unresolved tension: whose speech is protected in the public square? Religious groups have long voiced concern that while secular, activist, or identity-based messages are celebrated in civic spaces, orthodox Christian proclamation is met with increasing hostility.

Sabatelli’s public preaching—forceful, visible, and deeply counter-cultural—represents precisely the kind of expression that tests society’s true tolerance. While some may find his tone provocative, there is no indication that he incites violence or hatred. Yet, as in other recent cases, the mere expression of traditional Christian teaching in a public setting is increasingly treated as threatening, intolerant, or socially disruptive.

The Broader Ecclesial Witness
The Church’s mandate to preach is not conditioned on popularity or public approval. Christ commanded His followers to go into all nations, proclaiming repentance and the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 28:19; Mark 1:15). The Apostles preached openly, even under threat of imprisonment. St Paul declared, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” (1 Cor. 9:16).

In this light, the action against Mr Sabatelli should concern all who cherish the freedom of religious expression, regardless of doctrinal alignment. Evangelism is not merely a right—it is a duty. And public space must remain a place where truth, even when unpopular, can be spoken.

“Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.”
— 2 Timothy 4:2

¹ Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Section 35. 🔝
² Kingsborough Centre v. London Borough of Hillingdon, July 2025. [Premier Christian News]
³ R (Dunn & O’Sullivan) v CPS, 2024. Charges dropped; articles 9 & 10 invoked (HRA 1998).
⁴ Moodley v. Avon & Somerset Police, 2024. Settlement awarded after unlawful restriction. [ADF UK]
⁵ John Steele, Rotherham, 2025. Arrested, then cleared after street preaching incident.
⁶ Rushmoor Borough Council proposed injunction, March 2025. Suspended following legal challenge.
⁷ Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] EWHC Admin 733 – affirmed right to preach even if offensive.
⁸ Hammond v DPP, 2001–2004. Conviction upheld under Public Order Act; ECHR dismissed appeal.

---

Disney Writer Defends LGBT Content After Snoop Dogg Criticism

The fallout from Disney’s failed 2022 film Lightyear has resurfaced after hip-hop icon Snoop Dogg publicly questioned the inclusion of a lesbian couple in the animated feature, provoking a sharp rebuke from one of its writers. The episode exposes once again the tension between corporate activism, audience expectations, and the cultural role once played by Disney as a unifying family brand.

Snoop Dogg (Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr.) revealed in a recent interview that watching Lightyear with his grandson became unexpectedly awkward. “They just said she and she had a baby. They both women. How does she have a baby?” he recalled his grandson asking. “It threw me for a loop … These are kids … they’re going to ask questions. I don’t have an answer.”¹ His comments resonated with many parents who have accused Disney of forcing ideological messages into children’s programming.

Lauren Gunderson, a co-writer of Lightyear, responded on social media with open contempt: “He sucks … I was bummed.” In a longer statement, she disclosed her personal role in the decision: “So. I created the Lightyear lesbians. In 2018, I was a writer at Pixar … a key character needed a partner, and it was so natural to write ‘she’ instead of ‘he.’ As small as that detail is in the film, I knew the representational effect it could have. Small line, big deal. I was elated that they kept it. I’m proud of it. To infinity. Love is love.”²

Soon after, reports circulated of an Instagram apology from Snoop in which he allegedly admitted being “caught off guard” and asked to “learn.” But Deadline confirmed that the comment was fabricated. A source close to the rapper stated plainly: “It is a fake.”³ Neither Snoop nor his management has issued an authentic apology.

Disney’s trajectory and its cultural crisis
The dispute highlights Disney’s ongoing cultural struggles. Lightyear itself, marketed as the “real” film inspiring the Buzz Lightyear toy, failed at the box office and was widely panned as a politically motivated reimagining rather than a family-friendly adventure. The controversy over its same-sex kiss scene became emblematic of Disney’s “woke” turn, joining a string of initiatives in Marvel, Star Wars, and other properties that critics see as ideological intrusions into storytelling.⁴

In recent months, however, there have been signs of internal correction. A transgender storyline was removed from Pixar’s upcoming Win or Lose; Marvel’s Fantastic Four: First Steps included overtly pro-family themes, including an unborn child seen in the womb; and Gina Carano’s wrongful termination lawsuit against Lucasfilm ended in a settlement that left the door open for her return. Shareholders, meanwhile, have grown increasingly restless. An attempt led by investor Nelson Peltz and former Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter to reshape the board failed in April, but it signaled serious discontent with the current trajectory.⁵

CEO Bob Iger has offered public assurances about “toning down” the culture-war posture, yet Gunderson’s remarks and the treatment of dissenters such as Snoop Dogg suggest that activist priorities remain entrenched within the creative ranks.

Why Catholics must resist the normalization of sin
From a traditional Catholic standpoint, the problem is not merely one of “politics in entertainment,” but of a direct attack on the moral formation of children. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls homosexual acts “acts of grave depravity” and declares them “intrinsically disordered,” contrary to the natural law and incapable of proceeding from genuine complementarity.⁶ To present such unions as normal and wholesome in a children’s film is to invert truth with falsehood, teaching the young that what is sinful is instead praiseworthy.

This is not new. Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri warned that “it is not lawful for the State to intrude itself in any way into the formation of consciences”⁷—yet in the twenty-first century, media conglomerates like Disney have taken upon themselves precisely this role of counterfeit magisterium, catechizing children in the doctrines of modernity. By smuggling ideological content into films that once embodied innocence and wonder, they undermine the natural law written on the heart (cf. Rom 2:15) and erode the foundation of family life, which rests upon the union of man and woman.

When a child like Snoop Dogg’s grandson instinctively asks how “two women” can have a baby, he is witnessing the contradiction between natural reality and artificial ideology. The “awkwardness” his grandfather felt is not ignorance but a testimony to the truth of nature: the family arises only from the complementarity of the sexes. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.”⁸ Attempts to redefine marriage or family through media indoctrination represent an assault on that order.

The failure of catechesis in the modern Church
That so many Catholic families today either tolerate or actively embrace such depictions is itself a symptom of a deeper malaise. Since the advent of the Novus Ordo and the ascendancy of modernist influences, catechesis has suffered a dramatic collapse. Generations have grown up with little more than moralistic platitudes or therapeutic slogans in place of robust doctrinal formation. Without grounding in Scripture, Tradition, and the perennial Magisterium, Catholics have been left vulnerable to the motifs of the zeitgeist.

Where once the Church’s teaching shielded the faithful against worldly corruption, now a thin spirituality leaves them indistinguishable from their secular peers. This is why many Catholic parents, rather than instinctively resisting Disney’s subversion of family life, instead shrug or rationalize it in the name of “inclusion.” It is the bitter fruit of decades of silence, ambiguity, and compromise. As St. Paul warned, “Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2).

A cultural crossroads
The episode is symbolic of Disney’s broader identity crisis. Once synonymous with childhood enchantment, Disney now stands as a battleground in the culture war. Its leadership oscillates between activist factions who push for more radical “representation” and shareholders who see the financial toll of alienating audiences. Yet for Catholics, the deeper issue is spiritual: the loss of innocence, the corruption of the young, and the attempt to normalize what Scripture and Tradition have always condemned.

The Prophet Isaiah warns: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isa 5:20). As long as Disney insists on baptizing sin under the guise of “love,” it forfeits its claim to be a steward of children’s imaginations. The true path forward is not appeasement of activist lobbies but a return to stories that affirm reality, virtue, and the God-given dignity of man and woman as made “male and female” (Gen 1:27). For Catholic families, the way forward is likewise clear: to reclaim authentic catechesis, to immerse themselves in the liturgy and perennial teaching of the Church, and to resist with courage the false gospel of the world. 🔝

1. Entertainment Weekly, report on Snoop Dogg interview, August 2025.
2. Lauren Gunderson, deleted Instagram comments, August 2025, cited in LifeSiteNews.
3. Deadline Hollywood, September 2025, confirming false apology attribution.
4. Box office data, Lightyear performance, 2022.
5. SEC filings and shareholder reports, March–April 2025; coverage by Variety, April 2025.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§2357–2359.
7. Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), §58.
8. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.91, a.2.

---

Europe’s Digital Censorship Regime Confronted in Washington

Washington, D.C., September 3, 2025 — The House Judiciary Committee convened a hearing titled Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation, bringing together legal advocates, technologists, and political figures to examine how the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), together with the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act (OSA), are shaping speech and innovation far beyond their own borders.

Among the witnesses, three contrasting perspectives stood out: Lorcán Price, an Irish barrister representing ADF International (Alliance Defending Freedom International, a faith-based legal advocacy group); Nigel Farage, Reform UK Member of Parliament for Clacton; and Professor David Kaye, law professor at UC Irvine and former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.

Lorcán Price: The Brussels Effect and the New Censorship Apparatus
Price described the DSA as an “anti-speech law” designed not only to police content in Europe but to export European censorship standards globally through the so-called Brussels effect¹. This refers to the EU’s practice of setting stringent regulatory standards that, due to the size of its market, effectively become global rules, impacting businesses and users worldwide.

He warned that this strategy, when applied to speech, risks creating a censorship framework that reaches far beyond Europe. “Trusted flaggers,” codes of conduct on so-called hate speech, and requirements to mitigate “systemic risks” are written in bland, technocratic language but carry sweeping consequences². Price argued that these provisions build a “digital curtain where once there was an iron curtain”, forcing global compliance with a European regulatory vision.

Foremost among the resulting abuses is the case of Dr. Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian and former Minister of the Interior, who has endured five years of criminal prosecution for publicly defending Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality. Her “crime” was to share a 2019 social media post quoting Romans 1:24–27, in which St. Paul condemns homosexual acts. For this, Räsänen was charged with “ethnic agitation,” a hate-speech offence under Finnish law.

In court, prosecutors went so far as to argue that the very act of quoting the Bible could be considered criminal if it was judged offensive. They pressed her to retract her words and to promise that she would not cite such passages again. Räsänen refused, declaring that she would rather obey God’s Word than men. Her defiance recalls the Apostles before the Sanhedrin: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In so doing, she joined the long tradition of martyrs and confessors who bore witness to truth even when threatened with punishment. Though acquitted twice — first by the Helsinki District Court and again by the Court of Appeal — prosecutors appealed each time, leaving her under a continuing shadow of criminal conviction simply for citing Scripture³.

Price also cited Rose Doherty, a Scottish grandmother arrested for offering conversations on faith⁴; Adam Smith-Connor, an army veteran prosecuted for praying silently outside an abortion facility in Bournemouth⁵; and Graeme Linehan, the Irish comedy writer detained by armed police at Heathrow Airport for gender-related tweets made months earlier while in the United States⁶.

Nigel Farage: Britain’s Descent into Authoritarianism
Farage reinforced Price’s warnings with first-hand examples from the United Kingdom. He pointed to the case of Lucy Connelly, sentenced to 31 months’ imprisonment after posting inflammatory comments online in the aftermath of the murder of three young girls. While Farage characterised the sentence as disproportionate and emblematic of speech-criminalisation, committee Democrats entered into the record a Reuters report clarifying that Connelly had pled guilty to inciting racial hatred rather than being jailed merely for “edgy words”⁷.

Farage also highlighted the arrest of Graeme Linehan, a comedy writer best known for co-creating Father Ted. Crucially, Linehan is an Irish citizen, not a British one. He was arrested at Heathrow Airport by armed police for tweets made months earlier while in the United States. Farage stressed that this fact — a non-British citizen prosecuted under UK law for speech expressed abroad — demonstrates the chilling reach of the legislation. “This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow,” he warned.

He argued that the Online Safety Act (OSA), which came into force in 2023 under the Conservative government, has turned Britain into “a genuinely worrying, concerning, and shocking situation” where free expression is endangered even for foreign citizens. Critics have noted that the OSA gives Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) wide-ranging powers to demand content removal and to fine companies that fail to comply⁸.

Though acknowledging parents’ legitimate concern about children’s exposure to harmful content, Farage argued that Parliament’s chosen legislative approach has become “the sledgehammer that misses the nut.” He urged U.S. lawmakers not to replicate Britain’s mistakes: “At what point did we become North Korea?”

Professor David Kaye: Democratic Oversight and Platform Accountability
In contrast, Professor David Kaye cautioned the committee against overstating the authoritarian danger posed by EU and UK laws. Kaye is a clinical professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, and from 2014 to 2020 he served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression⁹. In that role, he monitored abuses of free speech worldwide and regularly reported to the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly.

Kaye reminded lawmakers that the international standard for free expression is set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds”¹⁰. The United States ratified this treaty in 1992, and it was directly inspired by First Amendment principles.

Kaye argued that while the DSA and OSA are imperfect, they do not amount to authoritarian censorship. “Neither established censorship regimes,” he told the committee, “both are subject to democratic judicial oversight.” He contrasted these laws with the more egregious violations he documented in Russia, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, where governments directly criminalise dissent, silence journalists, or tightly control media outlets.

Yet this reliance on judicial appeal is itself symptomatic of bad law. When legislation is so vague or intrusive that citizens must go to court simply to discover whether their speech is protected, the law ceases to serve the common good. It imposes heavy material costs on defendants forced to secure legal counsel and endure penalties before vindication, and grave psychological costs on individuals dragged through investigations and trials. The process itself becomes the punishment. Law should offer clarity and stability, not uncertainty and fear.

History shows the danger. Under the Roman emperors, Christians were often compelled to appeal to local governors or imperial courts, enduring imprisonment and torture simply for refusing to sacrifice to idols. In 17th-century England, Catholics prosecuted under recusancy laws were technically “free” to defend themselves in court, yet the process bankrupted families and branded them as traitors. More recently, modern European cases such as Räsänen’s demonstrate how even acquittals come only after devastating personal and financial costs.

Catholic teaching warns against this positivist error, where legitimacy is thought to arise from mere procedure. Pope Leo XIII reminded the faithful that “if the laws of the State are at variance with the divine law… to resist becomes a duty, to obey, a crime”¹¹. St. Augustine taught that “Lex iniusta non est lex” — an unjust law is no law at all¹². John Paul II warned in Veritatis Splendor that freedom detached from truth becomes “a factor leading to the destruction of others”¹³. Benedict XVI echoed that democracy without truth becomes tyranny by consensus: “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way”¹⁴.

Thus, Kaye’s appeal to judicial oversight may reveal not the health of democratic systems, but their decline: when law ceases to be anchored in truth and natural law, it drifts into endless litigation and arbitrary enforcement.

Partisan Reactions in Committee
Committee members’ responses reflected the stark political divide. Republican members embraced Price and Farage’s warnings, portraying EU and UK regulations as threats to the American First Amendment. Democrats, however, sought to downplay European risks, portraying Farage as a fringe figure and redirecting focus to alleged censorship under Donald Trump at home.

Ranking Member Jamie Raskin described Farage as a “far-right Putin-admirer” and accused Republicans of scapegoating allies while ignoring repression in Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia. He disputed Farage’s framing of Connelly’s case by introducing the Reuters report into the record.

This clash underscored the central fault line: whether the danger lies in European regulation shaping global norms, or in American politics itself.

Pastoral Reflection
The testimonies of Price, Farage, and Kaye reveal the tension at the heart of our times: between those who fear the rise of technocratic censorship and those who fear the abuse of unregulated power. Both concerns are real. Yet the Christian cannot lose sight of the first principle: truth is not secured by bureaucratic oversight, nor is it served by the silence of intimidation.

Christ Himself declared, “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32). When law becomes a tool to define what may or may not be said, it is truth that suffers, and with it freedom. Positive law may dress itself in democratic language, but when it contradicts natural law it ceases to be just.

In this light, the witness of Päivi Räsänen is a prophetic reminder. By refusing to renounce Scripture under threat of prosecution, she stood in the line of the Apostles and the martyrs, choosing fidelity to Christ over compliance with unjust law. Her example shows that Christian liberty is not the gift of governments but the fruit of obedience to the Word of God.

From Augustine to Leo XIII, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI, the tradition is clear: freedom without truth becomes licence, and law without reference to God’s law becomes tyranny. Whether in Brussels, London, or Washington, Christians must defend the liberty to speak the Word of God without fear. That way remains narrow, but it leads to freedom, and we must walk in it. 🔝

1. Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect: How the European Union Rules the World (Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 3–5.
2. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act), Articles 14–35.
3. Helsinki District Court, Case R 20/2022 (Acquittal of Päivi Räsänen, March 2022); Helsinki Court of Appeal, Case R 23/2023 (Acquittal, November 2023). Appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Finland, 2025.
4. Glasgow Sheriff Court, Police Scotland v. Rose Doherty (2022).
5. Crown Prosecution Service v. Adam Smith-Connor (Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court, 2023).
6. Reported in UK press: “Father Ted writer Graham Linehan arrested at Heathrow Airport,” The Times (September 2, 2025).
7. Reuters, “Fact Check: UK woman jailed for inciting racial hatred, not posting hurtful words,” October 29, 2024.
8. Online Safety Act 2023 (UK), c. 42, esp. Parts 3–5 (duties on user-to-user services, search services, and Ofcom enforcement powers).
9. United Nations Human Rights Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye” (A/HRC/44/49, 2020).
10. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976; ratified by the United States 8 June 1992, Article 19.
11. Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1885), §10.
12. St. Augustine, De libero arbitrio, I.5.
13. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993), §84.
14. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (2009), §3.

---

Christian Witness on Trial: Finland and the United Kingdom

Helsinki and London, September 2025 — The past decade has witnessed an alarming phenomenon in Europe: the prosecution of Christians for no more than living their faith in public. Nowhere is this clearer than in Finland, where a parliamentarian has faced six years of legal battles for quoting Scripture, and in the United Kingdom, where silent prayers and casual conversations about faith have resulted in arrests. The comparison between the Finnish and British examples reveals two different modes of repression — attrition and intimidation — both converging on the same end: the chilling of Christian witness.

The Finnish Ordeal
Dr. Päivi Räsänen, a physician, parliamentarian since 1995, and former Minister of the Interior, became the focus of state prosecution in 2019 after criticising her church’s sponsorship of Helsinki Pride. Her now-famous tweet included an image of Romans 1:24–27 and a question about how such endorsement could be squared with biblical teaching¹.

Prosecutors not only investigated that post but dredged up a 2004 booklet she authored — Male and Female He Created Them² — and comments she made in a 2019 radio interview³. In 2021, she was indicted on three counts of “ethnic agitation,” Finland’s hate-speech offence under Chapter 11, Section 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code⁴, each carrying up to two years’ imprisonment.

In March 2022, the Helsinki District Court unanimously acquitted her, declaring that quoting the Bible could not be criminalised⁵. The court ordered the state to pay her legal costs. Yet the Prosecutor General appealed. In November 2023, the Court of Appeal again acquitted her on every charge, affirming her right to free expression and religion under Finland’s constitution⁶. Once again, the state appealed. Now, in 2025, the case awaits hearing before the Supreme Court of Finland⁷.

The longevity of the process is what makes it remarkable. The state has lost twice, yet persists. Here the punishment is not conviction but process: six years of litigation, mounting costs, public scrutiny, and professional strain. It is attrition — an attempt to grind down Christian witness through harassment, even after courts have ruled in her favour.

Britain’s Intimidation
Across the North Sea, Britain’s approach is different but no less troubling. Cases come swiftly, and punishments, though often lighter, are designed to intimidate.

• Adam Smith-Connor, a former army medic and veteran, was fined for silently praying outside an abortion facility in Bournemouth in 2023. His prayer was for his own child, lost years earlier to abortion. Police charged him under “buffer zone” legislation surrounding clinics, treating silent prayer as a violation⁸.
• Rose Doherty, a 74-year-old grandmother in Scotland, was arrested in 2022 for offering to converse with passers-by about faith⁹. She faced formal charges under Scottish “hate crime” provisions, though no threats or disturbances were alleged.
• The arrest of Graeme Linehan, while not a Christian case, illustrates the broader climate. Linehan, an Irish citizen best known for co-creating Father Ted, was arrested at Heathrow in September 2025 by armed police for tweets made months earlier while in the United States¹⁰. Farage, testifying before Congress, highlighted this to show that even foreign nationals can be detained for speech outside the UK.

Unlike Finland’s slow grind, Britain’s model is immediacy: arrest, charge, fine, or imprisonment. The signal is unmistakable — dissent from prevailing orthodoxies will be met with police action.

Two Systems, One Drift
The comparison is stark. Finland uses attrition, dragging Christians through years of courts in an attempt to create precedent against biblical teaching. Britain uses intimidation, swiftly prosecuting ordinary believers for prayer, conversation, or conscience.

Yet the logic is identical: both systems presume to decide which expressions of Christian belief are acceptable in public life. In Finland, the prosecutor argued that citing Romans 1 could be criminal “hate.” In Britain, police have treated inner prayer as unlawful protest. Both paths reveal a trajectory towards the criminalisation of Christianity itself.

The Wider Implications
These cases illustrate why vague “harm” and “hate” provisions are dangerous. They do not define wrongdoing clearly but leave discretion to authorities. Law becomes weaponised: not a shield of liberty but a tool of control.

The Christian tradition has long warned against such positivism. St. Augustine wrote: lex iniusta non est lex — an unjust law is no law at all¹¹. Pope Leo XIII taught that if civil law contradicts divine law, “to resist becomes a duty, to obey, a crime”¹². John Paul II cautioned that freedom detached from truth leads to destruction¹³. Benedict XVI warned that democracy without truth degenerates into tyranny by consensus¹⁴.

A Warning for the West
What unites Finland and Britain is not identical statutes but identical drift: towards treating Christian faith as an offence. Attrition in Finland, intimidation in Britain — two tactics, one end.

For believers, these are not distant cases but signs of what may soon confront all Christians in Europe. Räsänen’s ordeal, Smith-Connor’s fine, and Doherty’s arrest reveal that the liberty to obey God rather than men is no longer secure.

The words of Acts resound: “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The martyrs of old bore witness by blood. Today’s Christians must be prepared to witness in courtrooms, police stations, and public squares. The challenge is not hypothetical — it is here. The question is whether Christians will meet it with silence, or with faithful confession of Christ. 🔝

1. Päivi Räsänen, Twitter/X post, June 2019.
2. Päivi Räsänen, Mies ja nainen hän loi heidät [Male and Female He Created Them] (Luther Foundation Finland, 2004).
3. Yle Radio Program, June 2019 interview with Päivi Räsänen.
4. Finnish Criminal Code, Chapter 11, Section 10 (“Ethnic agitation”).
5. Helsinki District Court, Case R 20/2022, Judgment of March 30, 2022 (Acquittal).
6. Helsinki Court of Appeal, Case R 23/2023, Judgment of November 14, 2023 (Acquittal).
7. Supreme Court of Finland, Case KKO 2024: Appeal admitted, proceedings ongoing (2025).
8. Crown Prosecution Service v. Adam Smith-Connor, Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court, 2023.
9. Glasgow Sheriff Court, Police Scotland v. Rose Doherty, 2022.
10. “Father Ted writer Graham Linehan arrested at Heathrow Airport,” The Times, September 2, 2025.
11. St. Augustine, De libero arbitrio, I.5.
12. Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1885), §10.
13. Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (1993), §84.
14. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (2009), §3.

---

The Bayeux Tapestry: Fragile Artefact, Political Instrument

When French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed in July 2025 that the Bayeux Tapestry would travel to London for exhibition at the British Museum between September 2026 and July 2027, he described the loan as a gesture of friendship and reconciliation in a post-Brexit world. The announcement was hailed as a coup for the museum, which will host the nearly seventy-metre embroidery for the first time on English soil in almost a thousand years. Yet the decision has sparked fierce controversy, exposing the tension between conservation and politics, between historical integrity and diplomatic spectacle.

Conservation Concerns and Public Petition
A petition opposing the loan, launched by art historian Didier Rykner, has now drawn more than 64,000 signatures, with some reports suggesting as many as 70,000.² At the heart of the protest is the undeniable fragility of the tapestry. A comprehensive study in 2020 catalogued over 24,000 stains, 16,445 creases, and numerous tears in the linen and wool.³ The prospect of transporting such a delicate object across the Channel is regarded by many specialists as reckless. Rykner and his supporters argue that Macron has elevated diplomatic theatre above curatorial responsibility, treating the tapestry as a pawn in the game of soft power. One critic summarised the mood with bitter irony: “La tapisserie, c’est moi.”⁴

French officials have countered that elaborate safeguards are being prepared and that the tapestry will be accompanied by conservation experts. But unease remains, particularly among those who remember how easily cultural treasures have been damaged by past political zeal.

A Propaganda Piece from the Beginning
The Bayeux Tapestry was propaganda long before Napoleon or Macron discovered its symbolic potential. Commissioned in the late eleventh century, most likely by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, half-brother of William the Conqueror, the embroidery tells the story of the Norman invasion of 1066. Its imagery justified William’s claim to the English throne, cast Harold Godwinson as an oath-breaker, and celebrated Norman triumph.⁵ It was, in short, one of the most successful pieces of political art ever produced, weaving history and legitimacy into cloth.

Napoleon and the Shadow of Conquest
The tapestry’s political afterlife began in earnest in 1803, when Napoleon ordered it transferred to Paris. Preparing his army for a possible invasion of Britain, he stood before the panel depicting Halley’s Comet and asked how soon it had appeared before Harold’s fall—seeking in its stars an omen of his own success.⁶ For the French emperor, the embroidery was not antiquarian curiosity but inspiration, a reminder that England had been conquered before and could be conquered again.

Nazi Obsession
More than a century later, during the Second World War, the Nazis sought to appropriate the tapestry as evidence of Germanic destiny. The SS research organisation Ahnenerbe catalogued and photographed it, presenting a copy to Heinrich Himmler. Plans were even laid to remove the original to Berlin.⁷ Though this never materialised, the episode illustrates again how the tapestry was never a neutral relic: it was coveted for its ability to confer legitimacy and link modern projects with medieval conquest.

Macron’s Gesture
President Macron’s loan of the tapestry to Britain sits firmly in this tradition. Framed as an act of goodwill and reconciliation after years of Brexit rancour, it is also an assertion of cultural mastery: France dispensing its treasures to the world, dictating the terms of heritage diplomacy. The British Museum, for its part, has agreed to loan the Lewis Chessmen and parts of the Sutton Hoo treasure to Rouen and Caen in exchange, completing a symmetrical dance of soft power.⁸

Yet the question remains whether political symbolism justifies the risk to an artefact already scarred by time. The Bayeux Tapestry’s value lies not only in its imagery but in its material survival: linen and wool that have endured for almost a millennium. If mishandled now, what will remain for future generations will be not a symbol of friendship but a monument to hubris.

Conclusion
The Bayeux Tapestry has always been more than art. It is history stitched in thread, a tool of propaganda, a prize of emperors and dictators, and now a bargaining chip in diplomatic theatre. That it continues to wield such symbolic power testifies to the enduring resonance of conquest and legitimacy in the European imagination. But as conservationists warn, no amount of political capital can repair a torn embroidery. What began as a Norman banner must not end as a casualty of modern vanity. 🔝

1. The Guardian, “‘La tapisserie, c’est moi’: Macron accused of putting politics first in Bayeux tapestry loan,” 30 August 2025.
2. The Independent, “French petition to block Bayeux Tapestry loan to London surpasses 64,000 signatures,” 2 September 2025.
3. El País, “El polémico préstamo del tapiz medieval de Bayeux a Londres: ‘Es demasiado frágil para ser trasladado’,” 4 September 2025.
4. The Guardian, op. cit.
5. Country Life, “‘One of the most effective pieces of propaganda ever made’: the Bayeux Tapestry heads to Britain for the first time in almost a millennium,” 2025.
6. The New Yorker, “What Macron’s Loan of the Bayeux Tapestry Really Means,” 2018.
7. Ibid.
8. Financial Times, “How the Bayeux Tapestry became a tool of soft power,” 2025.

---

---

COMMENT

---

Losing the Deposit of Faith? Fr James Martin, Fulda, and the Perennial Catholic Witness

In recent weeks, three narratives have intersected to reveal the deeply contested terrain cutting through the Catholic Church. In Fulda, Father Winfried Abel—a priest of more than sixty years—is forbidden from celebrating Sunday Masses after condemning his diocese’s embrace of LGBT activism.¹ In Rome, Pope Leo XIV has privately received both Fr James Martin SJ—widely critiqued for promoting same-sex relationships as “loving and holy”²—and Sister Lucía Caram, a Dominican whose theological interventions frequently provoke controversy.³

Taken together, these episodes illustrate a troubling dissonance: faithful clergy are silenced for defending chastity, while figures celebrated for questioning doctrine are honoured with papal access. The question is not simply about pastoral style; it is whether the Church will preserve the deposit of faith or surrender it to the spirit of the age.

Identity versus chastity
For Martin, ministry begins by affirming self-identity. At Fordham University in 2017, he described same-sex unions as “a loving act” and insisted Catholics must “reverence” them.⁴ By contrast, the Archbishop of Selsey, in his pastoral epistle Omnium hominum, insists that “Holy matrimony is the proper place for sexual expression” and that chastity is “a gift from God… an expression of our love and devotion to Him.”⁵ What Martin calls reverence for relationships, the Archbishop insists must be transformed into reverence for chastity as the divine path to holiness.

Reception versus revelation
Martin has also argued that the demand for chastity “has not been received” by LGBT Catholics, and so cannot be binding.⁶ This makes the authority of truth dependent on democratic assent. The Archbishop counters with the apostolic command: “as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct.”⁷ Revelation commands obedience, not negotiation. Fr Abel in Fulda understood this, which is why his clear defence of perennial teaching was punished by his diocese—proof that in parts of the Church fidelity itself is now treated as rebellion.

Blessing sin or blessing God
The same distortion appears in Martin’s response to Fiducia supplicans. He called it “a huge step forward” for same-sex couples,⁸ interpreting it as ecclesial validation. Yet the Archbishop insists that “the sexually immoral person sins against his own body… You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”⁹ The contrast is stark: one uses blessings to ratify disordered unions, the other to call souls back to sanctity.

The body as temple or as playground
Martin has gone further still, telling a homosexual at Villanova University: “I do hope in ten years you’ll be able to kiss your partner [at Mass]. Why not?”¹⁰ Sister Lucía Caram has spoken with similar levity about issues that cut against Catholic orthodoxy, often framing dissent as openness. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Selsey warns that “the misuse of human sexuality gives into lust, selfishness, wantonness, and ultimately evil; a complete rejection of God and His Will.”¹¹ For him, the body is not a prop for public recognition but a temple of the Holy Ghost.

Charity in truth or false mercy
Martin portrays Christ as if He simply embraced sinners without demanding change, saying in Building a Bridge that “for Jesus there was no us and them; there is only us.”¹² But in John’s Gospel Christ’s mercy includes a command: “Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.”¹³ The Archbishop echoes this balance: “The embrace of chastity must be voluntary and motivated by a genuine desire… The aspiration toward chastity is not easy for anyone… but overcoming oneself is the only way to real and lasting fulfilment.”¹⁴ True charity does not confirm sin; it calls sinners to holiness.

The deeper tradition
This is the perennial witness of the Fathers. Augustine admitted that continence was possible only by grace: “I was bound not by another’s irons, but by my own iron will.”¹⁵ Chrysostom taught that “he who is chaste is like an angel; he who is unchaste is like a demon.”¹⁶ Aquinas explained that chastity “removes obstacles to charity.”¹⁷ These are not optional ideals. They are the essence of the Christian path. As the Archbishop insists: “Chastity enables us to live out God’s law of charity; love of Him and love of neighbour.”¹⁸

A prophetic warning
The juxtaposition of these recent events—Fr Abel’s silencing, Fr Martin’s papal audience, Sr Lucía Caram’s prominence—makes clear that the modern Catholic trajectory is toward recognition without repentance. Yet St Pius X warned in Pascendi dominici gregis that modernism is “the synthesis of all heresies,” striking at the foundations of faith.¹⁹ If the Church continues to elevate Martin’s vision, she risks ceasing to be the Bride of Christ and becoming instead the chaplain of the world.

For Christ never said, “Go, and stay as you are.” He said, “Go, and sin no more.”¹³ To preach otherwise is to betray Him. If the modern Church persists in this false mercy, her candlestick will be removed from its place.²⁰ But there is still a way—the way of the Cross, the way of chastity, the way of charity inseparable from truth. It is narrow and hard, but it leads to life. It is not the way of the world, but the way of Christ. And those who walk in it will know: Haec est Via. 🔝

1. Katholisch.de, report on disciplinary measures against Fr Winfried Abel, August 2025.
2. James Martin SJ, Fordham University Symposium, 5 Sept 2017; Podcast interview with Pete Buttigieg, 24 June 2025.
3. Vatican Press Office, Bollettino, audience list (Sept 2025).
4. James Martin SJ, Fordham University Symposium, 5 Sept 2017.
5. Titular Archbishop of Selsey, Omnium hominum (2023), Chastity.
6. James Martin SJ, Interview with Brandon Ambrosino, 29 Aug 2017.
7. Omnium hominum, Carissimi, citing 1 Pet 1:13–15.
8. James Martin SJ, Outreach, “A huge step forward” (2023).
9. Omnium hominum, Chastity, citing 1 Cor 6:18–20.
10. James Martin SJ, Villanova University Interview, 29 Aug 2017.
11. Omnium hominum, Sexuality.
12. James Martin SJ, Building a Bridge video, 2017.
13. Jn 8:11.
14. Omnium hominum, Conclusion.
15. Augustine, Confessions VIII.5.10.
16. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62.
17. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II–II, q.151, a.4 ad 3.
18. Omnium hominum, Chastity.
19. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (1907), §39.
20. Rev 2:5.

---

Argumentum ex Concessis: Barthe and Viganò on Leo XIV’s “Transitional” Papacy

Abbé Claude Barthe, a French traditionalist priest and liturgical scholar, and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States turned outspoken critic of the post-conciliar Church, have offered two complementary but divergent readings of the early pontificate of Leo XIV. Barthe portrays it as a deliberately engineered transitional stage, intended to pacify tensions while preserving the conciliar framework. Viganò, in turn, warns that any such tolerance, if sought by invoking synodality, risks conceding the very principles that undermine Tradition.

A Papacy of Pacification
Barthe situates Cardinal Robert Prevost’s election as Pope Leo XIV within a Bergoglian design: continuity with his predecessor but with a calmer style, chosen to “ease tensions” rather than intensify them. Prevost’s ascent was marked by Latin American influence and orchestrated by the Bergoglian circle. His task is to consolidate Francis’ legacy—synodality, ecological commitment, and the moral framework of Amoris laetitia—while stabilizing a fractured Church.¹

The key, Barthe argues, is that Leo XIV was elevated to harmonize multiplicity. His election homily spoke of “peace” repeatedly, and his style is defined by simplicity and dialogue. Yet the unity he promotes is that of managed diversity rather than doctrinal clarity.²

The Traditional Liturgy: Breathing Space or Trap?
A striking element of Barthe’s analysis is the possibility that Leo XIV may grant greater freedom to the traditional liturgy, as a means of appeasing tensions without addressing the substance of the matter. Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna, President of the Italian Episcopal Conference, and a prominent member of the Sant’Egidio Community, has already displayed openness by celebrating in the ancient rite; Barthe contrasts this with French bishops who resist traditional clergy as rivals.³

But Barthe warns: such tolerance risks leaving Traditionis custodes intact, which declared that the books of Paul VI and John Paul II are the “unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”⁴ If this is false, it must be condemned; otherwise, the Church officially teaches that the inherited Roman liturgy is no longer an expression of its faith. Any concession without doctrinal correction remains “radically unsatisfactory.”

Marriage as Test Case
For Barthe, the more decisive issue is not liturgy but doctrine on marriage. Fiducia supplicans’ allowance for blessing “irregular” couples reinforces Amoris laetitia §301, which permits the view that adulterous unions may persist without mortal sin despite knowledge of the norm.⁵ If Leo XIV maintains this, he perpetuates doctrinal corruption. Only a papal act of teaching and condemnation—affirming the sanctity of marriage and rejecting contrary claims—can restore unity.

Viganò’s Intervention: The Paradox of Ex Concessis
Archbishop Viganò, who has become a rallying voice for Catholics resisting modernist compromise, presses Barthe’s warning further. He identifies a fundamental error in conservatives who seek protection for the Vetus Ordo by appealing to synodality. This is to employ an argumentum ex concessis—accepting the opponent’s framework in order to secure concessions. The price, he says, is to sever liturgy from doctrine, aestheticizing Tradition while denying its binding truth.⁶

Such an arrangement is precisely what Rome desires: conservatives reduced to one tolerated “charism” alongside Amazonian idolaters. The “Zip it” strategy of keeping silent in hopes of leniency under Leo XIV betrays not prudence but lukewarmness. Better persecution, Viganò insists, than complicity in a false peace.

Doctrinal Authority as the Only Cure
Both Barthe and Viganò converge on the point that ceremonial toleration is not enough. The deeper need is for Leo XIV to exercise the munus confirmandi—to teach with authority, to condemn errors, and to restore the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Barthe describes any liberalization of the old rite as interim medicine; the true cure is the authoritative re-definition of doctrine. Viganò frames it as fidelity to St Vincent of Lérins’ rule: what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all must be held fast, regardless of compromised authority.

Conclusion
Leo XIV’s pontificate is presented by its architects as a moment of pacification. Yet to Barthe it remains a transitional stage at best, and to Viganò a trap at worst. Both warn that tolerance without truth cannot heal the Church. Only a return to doctrinal clarity—teaching the true and condemning the false—can restore unity. Anything less risks a long and comfortable defeat.

Pastoral Reflection
For the faithful attached to the Old Roman Apostolate and others striving to remain steadfast, these debates are not abstract. They touch the very heart of our worship and our salvation. The temptation is always to compromise for a quieter life, but as St Cyprian of Carthage reminded the persecuted Church of his own day: “The Lord has willed that His people should be tried and proved; and because He willed that His people should be strong, He has allowed them to be tested.” (Ep. 55).

We cannot separate doctrine from worship, nor truth from charity. To accept half-measures is to accept a counterfeit peace. Instead, the way of Christ is fidelity under trial, confident that persecution refines faith and silence betrays it. The faithful who persevere in the unbroken Tradition walk in the way of the Cross, which alone leads to the Resurrection. This is the way marked out for us; to walk it is to walk in truth, courage, and hope. 🔝

1. Abbé Claude Barthe, Le pontificat de Léon XIV: une étape de transition?, 9 August 2025; Italian ed. in Duc in altum; English trans. in Res Novae.
2. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., article in La Repubblica, 4 May 2025; cited by Barthe.
3. Barthe, ibid., noting Cardinal Zuppi’s openness versus French episcopal resistance.
4. Traditionis custodes (2021), Art. 1.
5. Fiducia supplicans (2023), §31; Amoris laetitia (2016), §301.
6. Carlo Maria Viganò, Argumentum ex concessis. Notes in the Margin of an Article by Abbé Claude Barthe, 3 September 2025.
7. St Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, II: “In the Catholic Church itself we must take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”

---

Unreal Teens and Real Damage: The Corrupting Influence of American Teen Soaps

For decades, a peculiar deceit has shaped the adolescent imagination: grown adults in their twenties and thirties cast as high school students in American television dramas. From Beverly Hills 90210 to Riverdale, these shows do not merely offer escapism—they present an unattainable ideal disguised as adolescence.

What they sell is not drama, but distortion. Already past the awkwardness and emotional volatility of their teenage years, the actors present flawless skin, sculpted physiques, and confidence beyond credibility. They dress like adults, speak in therapist-calibrated self-awareness, and navigate relationships with a sexual boldness alien to most fifteen-year-olds. Real teenagers, by contrast, look in the mirror and wonder what went wrong.

This is not benign entertainment. It is a sustained psychological assault on the vulnerable. Numerous studies confirm that adolescent exposure to idealised media imagery contributes directly to body dissatisfaction, anxiety, depression, and disordered eating—particularly among girls¹. Boys, too, increasingly suffer under unrealistic expectations of muscle tone, emotional aloofness, and sexual conquest². What once may have been dismissed as adolescent angst is now compounded by neurotic self-comparison to digitally enhanced, biologically impossible archetypes.

Worse still is the behavioural distortion. These shows rarely portray real teenage life: authority is mocked or absent, virtue is irrelevant, and conflict resolution comes not through repentance or maturity but through seduction, revenge, or manipulation. Teenagers are shown as emotionally sophisticated mini-adults, when in reality they are still developing neurologically and morally³. The result is not inspiration, but despair. Teenagers imitate what they see, and when imitation fails—as it inevitably does—they spiral inward.

Social comparison theory explains this spiral: people tend to compare themselves to others, and adolescents, whose identities are not yet formed, are especially vulnerable to “upward comparisons” that produce feelings of inferiority⁴. In media terms, the comparison is not with peers, but with a fantasy: the ideal body, the perfect romance, the glamorous rebellion. Cultivation theory adds that prolonged exposure to such portrayals leads individuals to internalise them as normative—distorting their sense of what is real⁵.

It is worth noting that many of these young viewers are also forming parasocial relationships—one-sided emotional bonds—with these characters. When those characters model dysfunction, moral ambiguity, or unachievable standards, the influence on the viewer is deeper than casual entertainment⁶. Instead of being mentored by real adults or grounded by lived experience, teens are catechised by Netflix.

But beyond appearance and behaviour, today’s adolescent programming is also ideological. Under the guise of diversity or inclusion, many shows deliberately indoctrinate viewers into skewed visions of identity, sexuality, morality, and meaning. Core concepts such as family, faith, and truth are either subverted or replaced with ambiguous slogans and lifestyle branding. Belief in objective reality or traditional moral structures is often ridiculed as oppressive or outdated, while radical autonomy and emotivism are celebrated. These are not incidental choices—they are scripts of formation. And they are being broadcast not to adults, but to children in their most formative years.

This is not accidental. It is commercial strategy with existential consequences. Teen soaps create insecurities, then monetise them. The message is consistent: you are not enough. But with the right product, the right phone, the right body, the right attitude—you could be. It is a catechesis of consumption, with spiritual and social fallout.

In a saner age, rites of passage were guarded by parents, mentors, and priests. Now, those rites have been replaced with sexualised scripts and branded rebellion. The threshold to adulthood is no longer crossed—it is counterfeited. The teenager is suspended between childhood and hyper-adulthood, with neither the innocence of the one nor the integrity of the other.

What Can Be Done? Restoring the Path: Haec est Via
The damage is real—but not inevitable. Parents, teachers, and clergy must reclaim their role as primary formators of the young. The solution is not retreat into nostalgia, nor blind censorship, but a deliberate and faithful return to the Way—the ancient Christian path of discipleship, discernment, and formation.

Let Catholic families be homes of truth and beauty, where the good is celebrated, where time is given to real conversation, to unfiltered relationships, to liturgical life. Let screens be secondary. Let parents watch with their children, comment, question, and challenge what they see—not in fear, but in wisdom. Teach young people not only what to reject, but what to love.

Let parishes become communities of formation, not mere sacramental service stations. Youth must be discipled, not entertained. Teach them how to recognise manipulation, to discern cultural messaging, to question what is presented to them as inevitable. This means catechesis—but also culture: music, literature, cinema, and lives of the saints as compelling alternatives to the false idols of the screen.

Let the faithful commit themselves to the rhythm of the liturgical year. In the Church’s feasts and fasts, her hierarchy of truth, and her ancient devotions, the young can find what the world cannot offer: coherence, meaning, and peace. The adolescent soul needs formation, not performance; belonging, not branding.

Above all, show them Christ—not merely as doctrine, but as the Way. Let them see in their parents, their priests, and their peers a life distinct from the world, yet fully alive. A life that does not conform to the scripted expectations of television, but which radiates the quiet splendour of holiness.

This is not about isolation—but integration. Haec est Via—this is the Way. Let it be walked, not merely talked. Let it be lived, and it will be seen. 🔝

1. Grabe, Shelly, Ward, L. Monique, & Hyde, Janet Shibley. The Role of the Media in Body Image Concerns Among Women: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental and Correlational Studies. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134, No. 3 (2008), pp. 460–476.
2. Barlett, Christopher P., Vowels, Chad L., & Saucier, Donald A. Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Media Images on Men’s Body Image Concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 27, No. 3 (2008), pp. 279–310.
3. Steinberg, Laurence. Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014.
4. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1954), pp. 117–140.
5. Gerbner, George, et al. Growing up with Television: Cultivation Processes. In: Bryant, Jennings & Zillmann, Dolf (eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.
6. Horton, Donald & Wohl, R. Richard. Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, Vol. 19 (1956), pp. 215–229.

---

From Common Faith to the Cult of the Self: The Descent into Individualism

The dissolution of Western communal order began not in the Enlightenment salons of Europe, but in the pulpits of the sixteenth century. For over a thousand years, Christendom understood truth and identity as realities received, not constructed. Scripture was read in the life of the Church, interpreted through the consensus of the Fathers, defined by Councils, and safeguarded by the Magisterium. Man’s dignity was recognised, yet never in isolation: he was created to flourish within family, parish, and polity, all ordered to the common good under God.

The Protestant Fracture
The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century shattered this organic unity. By declaring sola scriptura, the Reformers elevated the right and ability of each Christian to interpret Scripture independently. St Augustine had long insisted that the testimony of the whole Church was the ground of his faith: *“I would not believe the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me.”*¹ But Luther and his heirs transferred that authority to private judgment.

The result was inevitable fragmentation. Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists, and countless sects disputed not on minor details but on the very essence of the Gospel. St Irenaeus had foreseen such chaos: heresies arise, he taught, when Scripture is detached from Apostolic Tradition, for without the Church’s living witness one makes the text “a ship without rudder, carried wherever the wind blows.”² What began as an appeal to Scripture thus produced anarchy of doctrine. This upheaval of the sixteenth century set in motion the long decline of communal Christian order into competing confessions of private judgment.

The Printing Press and the Bible
A common myth holds that the Catholic Church “forbade” the Bible, jealously keeping it from the people. The truth is far more nuanced. The Church had long encouraged translations—the Gothic version of Ulfilas in the 4th century, St Bede’s Old English Gospel of John, the German and French versions produced with episcopal approval in the Middle Ages. What the Church resisted were unauthorised or inaccurate translations, which risked distorting the faith.

The arrival of the printing press in the fifteenth century amplified the danger. Luther’s German Bible was not a neutral translation: he inserted the word allein (“alone”) into Romans 3:28 to suit his doctrine of justification, even acknowledging he had done so deliberately. The Church’s caution was thus pastoral, not oppressive: ensuring that the faithful received Scripture faithfully, not in a form corrupted by private ideology. Far from opposing Scripture, the Church safeguarded it.

From Ecclesial Unity to Doctrinal Pluralism
This religious individualism reshaped society. The parish ceased to be the locus of one faith and became denominational. The principle of cuius regio, eius religio fractured Christendom along political lines, subordinating faith to the ruler’s will. What had been a universal communion became an arena of competing sects, each justified by private interpretation.

The seventeenth century bore its bitter fruit in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). What began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states became a continental bloodbath, devastating whole regions of Europe. It was the political fruit of theological individualism: a Christendom divided by conscience, but unable to find unity in truth.

The Enlightenment and the Sovereignty of Reason
The Enlightenment of the eighteenth century secularised Protestant logic. Where the Reformers enthroned the individual interpreter of Scripture, the philosophes enthroned autonomous reason as the measure of truth. Locke’s natural rights, Rousseau’s “general will,” Kant’s autonomy—all replaced received order with constructs of self-determining individuals.

The French Revolution (1789) embodied this logic in blood and fire: the king guillotined, the Church suppressed, the calendar remade, and “Reason” enthroned in Notre-Dame. Here private judgment blossomed into collective apostasy. Pius IX, in his Syllabus of Errors, condemned the illusion that truth and society could rest upon autonomy without authority³. It was in the eighteenth century that this Enlightenment project reached its zenith, with reason enthroned and the ancien régime of faith and throne cast down in revolution.

The Catholic Synthesis vs. the Modern Errors
Catholic tradition holds a middle course. Man is not an atomised self, nor is he a faceless unit of the collective. He is a person—endowed with dignity, made for communion. St John Chrysostom described the family as a “little Church,” ordered toward love and sacrifice⁴. Aquinas taught that man is by nature political, fulfilled not in solitary existence but in pursuit of the common good⁵.

Liberal individualism errs by severing man from these bonds, enthroning autonomy over duty. But socialism and communism err in the opposite direction: suppressing the person into the mass, subordinating freedom to the state. Pope Pius XI condemned both as twin perversions: communism “robs human personality of all its dignity”⁶, while liberalism dissolves community into self-interest. Only the Catholic synthesis preserves both freedom and communion.

The Social Consequences of Individualism
Once authority shifted to the self, institutions were redefined. Marriage became a contract dissoluble at will. Family shrank to a nuclear unit, and now often to transient arrangements. Nations, once consecrated under God, were reduced to voluntary associations of mutual interest. Pope Leo XIII foresaw that such unchecked autonomy would corrode social bonds, leaving the weak unprotected⁷.

The twentieth century radicalised autonomy. Existentialism claimed man must invent himself. Consumerism reduced identity to lifestyle. The sexual revolution exalted desire over nature, unleashing divorce, contraception, abortion—all self over life and communion. The 1968 revolts proclaimed, “It is forbidden to forbid,” the very slogan of unbounded autonomy.

Feminism in its radical forms cast maternity as oppression, vocation as constraint. Transgender ideology now stands as the epitome of this descent. It asserts that even biological sex, the most fundamental and received aspect of human nature, must yield to the self’s assertion. Where Luther claimed the right to interpret Scripture for oneself, today’s culture claims the right to reinterpret one’s own body, demanding that reality conform to will rather than will to reality. Here the revolt turns upon creation itself, denying that male and female are given by the Creator. Benedict XVI warned that when freedom is cut loose from truth, it becomes its own destruction⁸.

Mirror Errors: Liberal Individualism and Communism
Though liberalism and communism appear opposed, they are in truth mirror distortions, springing from the same Enlightenment rupture. Both reject the Church as the mediator of authority and the guardian of truth.

Liberal individualism severs the person from communion, enthroning autonomy over the common good. It exalts rights without duties, freedom without truth, choice without nature. The result is alienation: broken families, declining birth rates, and a culture of isolation where the self is sovereign but insecure.

Communism and socialism, by contrast, attempt to heal fragmentation by erasing the person into the collective. In the name of equality, they suppress individuality, subjecting the human spirit to the will of the state. Pius XI warned that communism “robs human personality of all its dignity,” reducing men to “mere cogwheels in a machine”⁹.

Both extremes flow from the same rejection of the Catholic synthesis. When the Church’s authority is denied, either the self becomes god or the state does. Either man is exalted as sovereign against creation, or he is crushed as a number within the mass. Both liberal individualism and communism crystallised in the nineteenth century, rival heirs of the Enlightenment rupture, each claiming to solve the human problem while deepening man’s alienation from the order of truth and grace.

The Catholic truth alone safeguards the balance: man is a person, not an atom; a member of a body, not a faceless unit. His dignity is inviolable, yet his fulfilment is found only in communion—with family, society, and ultimately with God.

Conclusion
Christendom once harmonised personal dignity with communal belonging. The Fathers testified that Scripture, tradition, family, and polity all ordered the believer to communion in Christ. The Reformation began the descent into private judgment, the Enlightenment entrenched it, and the modern West radicalised it into self-creation.

Communism and socialism show the opposite distortion: in seeking to recover communal order, they annihilate the person into the collective, denying his God-given dignity. Both extremes—liberal autonomy and collectivist suppression—are deviations from the Catholic truth: that freedom and fulfilment are found in communion with God, family, and society ordered by His law.

The path forward is not nostalgic retreat nor ideological experiment, but a return to the perennial wisdom: that man is created for truth, for love, for communion. In rediscovering this order, the West may yet rediscover the Way. 🔝

1. Augustine, Contra Epistolam Manichaei 5.6.
2. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III.2.1.
3. Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum (1864), Prop. 80.
4. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 20.
5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q.90, a.2.
6. Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (1937), §29.
7. Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891), §§14–15.
8. Benedict XVI, Address to the Bundestag, 22 September 2011.
9. Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (1937), §29.

---

The Pope, the Friars, and the Forgotten Lesson of Christian Unity

Rome, September 4, 2025 — The Order of St. Augustine convened its 188th General Chapter this week at the Augustinianum in Rome, with eighty-three delegates from fifty nations gathered to elect a new Prior General and set the Order’s priorities for the next six years. Pope Leo XIV, himself an Augustinian, opened the Chapter personally at the Basilica of St. Augustine, urging his brethren to embrace listening, humility, and unity as guiding virtues for their deliberations¹. In his homily, the Pope reminded the friars that true listening is not a matter of words but of the Spirit: “To listen is not merely to hear voices or accumulate information but to enter into the silence where God speaks.” He warned against the pride that seeks to dominate rather than serve, and he insisted that unity must be more than an aspiration — it must become the standard by which their work is measured.

The Pope’s experiment in community was signalled in reports that he plans to establish a small Augustinian community within the Apostolic Palace itself, inviting three or four friars — drawn from Italy, Africa, and Asia — to share meals, prayer, and fraternity with him daily². The idea is striking, yet it is not without precedent. Pope Benedict XVI, in his retirement, chose to reside at the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in the Vatican Gardens with the Memores Domini sisters and his secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein³. Even in frailty, Benedict recognised that the Christian life cannot be lived alone.

Pope Leo now proposes to go further, embodying the Augustinian charism of common life not in retirement but from the Chair of Peter. This gesture echoes St Augustine’s own Rule: “Let all of you then live together in oneness of mind and heart, mutually honouring God in one another, whose temples you have become.”⁴ In his sermons Augustine often stressed that love of God cannot be separated from love of neighbour: “You love your brother, you love your Head; you love the members, you love the Body.”⁵ By placing himself in community, the Pope points not to novelty but to tradition, recalling the ancient conviction that the Church flourishes when her shepherds live in fraternity, bound by prayer and humility.

A lesson for the whole Church emerges from these gestures. The crisis of the modern Church is not merely institutional but spiritual. In an age of noisy dialogue without depth, of activism without humility, and of faction without fraternity, the Church risks losing sight of her essence. Pope Pius XII warned in Mystici Corporis that the Church is “a Body not formed by the will of man but divinely constituted,” in which “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it”⁶. The reality of communion is not bureaucratic but mystical, rooted in the unity of Christ Himself. Augustine likewise wrote to the clergy of Hippo: “Let us be mindful of our unity, for in it lies the peace of the Church; let us love it, guard it, seek nothing outside it.”⁷ Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas reminded the faithful that the Kingship of Christ must extend to all spheres of life: family, parish, nation, and Church⁸. Where that kingship is denied or fragmented, unity disintegrates. The Christian life, therefore, is never private; it is ecclesial, ordered toward communion under Christ the Head. Families scattered by distraction, parishes weakened by faction, priests isolated in their burdens — all are called back to Augustine’s vision: that in bearing one another’s burdens we fulfil the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). Only in humility, shared prayer, and charity does the Church discover again her strength.

The way forward is therefore not complicated in principle, though difficult in practice. Pope Leo’s decision to live with friars will not by itself end heresy or heal modernism’s wounds. But it embodies a principle as old as the Apostles: renewal begins not in strategies but in fidelity to grace lived together. Benedict XVI quietly showed in his retirement that no Christian vocation is solitary. Pope Leo amplifies this witness by proposing to live as a friar among friars even while governing the Church. His choice reminds us all — lay and clergy alike — that the way of Christ is not power, but humility; not isolation, but unity; not pride, but communion in love.

A hope for the Church shines through this experiment. If it succeeds, it may breathe fresh life into the papal office, showing that authority and fraternity are not opposites but companions. It may renew confidence that the Church’s shepherds are not removed monarchs but fellow disciples bound to their brethren in prayer. And it may inspire parishes, families, and religious houses to rediscover the joy of life shared in Christ. Augustine confessed with longing: “When I am wholly united to You, there will be no more grief and toil for me. My life will be alive indeed, all filled with You.”⁹ This hope is not distant. It begins in community, in humility, in unity. It begins with Christ at the centre.

This is the way: the way of humility, unity, and life together in Christ. 🔝

¹ Vatican News, Pope Leo XIV opens Augustinian General Chapter with call to listening, humility, unity, September 1, 2025.
² National Catholic Reporter, Pope to include Augustinian housemates in Apostolic Palace, August 21, 2025.
³ Georg Gänswein, Nothing but the Truth: My Life Beside Benedict XVI, trans. M. O’Connell (New York: HarperCollins, 2023), 221–223.
⁴ Augustine, Rule, I.2.
⁵ Augustine, Sermon 267, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part III, Vol. 7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), 303.
⁶ Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (Encyclical), June 29, 1943, §§13–14.
⁷ Augustine, Letter 243.2, in The Letters of St. Augustine, trans. Sister Wilfrid Parsons (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1951), 287.
⁸ Pius XI, Quas Primas (Encyclical), December 11, 1925, §33.
⁹ Augustine, Confessions, X.28.

---

🔝

Archbishop Mathew’s Prayer for Catholic Unity
Almighty and everlasting God, Whose only begotten Son, Jesus Christ the Good Shepherd, has said, “Other sheep I have that are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd”; let Thy rich and abundant blessing rest upon the Old Roman Apostolate, to the end that it may serve Thy purpose by gathering in the lost and straying sheep. Enlighten, sanctify, and quicken it by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, that suspicions and prejudices may be disarmed, and the other sheep being brought to hear and to know the voice of their true Shepherd thereby, all may be brought into full and perfect unity in the one fold of Thy Holy Catholic Church, under the wise and loving keeping of Thy Vicar, through the same Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who with Thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth God, world without end. Amen.

🔝

---

Old Roman TV

OLD ROMAN TV Daily Schedule Lent 2025: GMT 0600 Angelus 0605 Morning Prayers 0800 Daily Mass 1200 Angelus 1205 Bishop Challoner’s Daily Meditation 1700 Latin Rosary (live, 15 decades) 1800 Angelus 2100 Evening Prayers & Examen 🔝

🔝

---

Litany of St Joseph

Lord, have mercy on us.	Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, have mercy on us.	Christ, have mercy on us.
Lord, have mercy on us.	Lord, have mercy on us.
Christ, hear us.	Christ, graciously hear us.
God the Father of heaven,	have mercy on us.
God the Son, Redeemer of the World,	have mercy on us.
God the Holy Spirit,	have mercy on us.
Holy Trinity, one God,	have mercy on us.
Holy Mary,	pray for us.
St. Joseph,	pray for us.
Renowned offspring of David,	pray for us.
Light of Patriarchs,	pray for us.
Spouse of the Mother of God,	pray for us.
Guardian of the Redeemer	pray for us.
Chaste guardian of the Virgin,	pray for us.
Foster father of the Son of God,	pray for us.
Diligent protector of Christ,	pray for us.
Servant of Christ	pray for us.
Minister of salvation	pray for us.
Head of the Holy Family,	pray for us.
Joseph most just,	pray for us.
Joseph most chaste,	pray for us.
Joseph most prudent,	pray for us.
Joseph most strong,	pray for us.
Joseph most obedient,	pray for us.
Joseph most faithful,	pray for us.
Mirror of patience,	pray for us.
Lover of poverty,	pray for us.
Model of workers,	pray for us.
Glory of family life,	pray for us.
Guardian of virgins,	pray for us.
Pillar of families,	pray for us.
Support in difficulties,	pray for us.
Solace of the wretched,	pray for us.
Hope of the sick,	pray for us.
Patron of exiles,	pray for us.
Patron of the afflicted,	pray for us.
Patron of the poor,	pray for us.
Patron of the dying,	pray for us.
Terror of demons,	pray for us.
Protector of Holy Church,	pray for us.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	spare us, O Jesus.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	graciously hear us, O Jesus.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,	have mercy on us, O Jesus.
He made him the lord of his household	And prince over all his possessions.

Let us pray:
O God, in your ineffable providence you were pleased to choose Blessed Joseph to be the spouse of your most holy Mother; grant, we beg you, that we may be worthy to have him for our intercessor in heaven whom on earth we venerate as our Protector: You who live and reign forever and ever.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Note: Pope Francis added these titles to the Litany of St. Joseph in his “Lettera della Congregazione per il Culto Divino e la Disciplina dei Sacramenti ai Presidenti delle Conferenze dei Vescovi circa nuove invocazioni nelle Litanie in onore di San Giuseppe,” written on May 1, 2021:

Custos Redemptoris (Guardian of the Redeemer)Serve Christi (Servant of Christ)Minister salutis (Minister of salvation)Fulcimen in difficultatibus (Support in difficulties)Patrone exsulum (Patron of refugees)Patrone afflictorum (Patron of the suffering)
Patrone pauperum (Patron of the poor)

---

🔝