Tag: traditional practices

w/c 16/02/25

ORDO

Dies	16 SUN	17 MON	18 TUE	19 WED	20 THU	21 FRI	22 SAT	23 SUN
Officium	Dominica in Septuagesima	Feria II infra Hebd Septuagesimæ	S. Simeonis Episcopi et Martyris	Feria IV infra Hebdomadam Septuagesimæ	Feria V infra Hebdomadam Septuagesimæ	Feria VI infra Hebdomadam Septuagesimæ	In Cathedra S. Petri Apostoli Antiochiæ	Dominica in Sexagesima
CLASSIS	Semiduplex	Feria	Simplex	Feria	Feria	Feria	Duplex majus	Semiduplex
Color	Purpura	Purpura	Rubeum	Purpura	Purpura	Purpura	Albus	Purpura
MISSA	Circumdedérunt	Circumdedérunt	Státuit ei	Circumdedérunt	Circumdedérunt	Circumdedérunt	Státuit ei	Exsúrge
Orationes	2a. de S. Maria 3a. A cunctis	2a. de S. Maria 3a. A cunctis	2a. de S. Maria 3a. A cunctis	2a. de S. Maria 3a. A cunctis	2a. de S. Maria 3a. ad libitum	2a. de S. Maria 3a. ad libitum	2a. In Vigilia S. Matthiæ Ap.	2a. de S. Maria 3a. A cunctis
NOTAE	no Gl. Cr. Pref. Trinitate	no Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Pref. Communis	no Gl. Pref. Communis	no Gl. Pref. Communis	no Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. Communis	no Gl. Cr. Pref. Trinitate
Nota Bene		vel Requiem/Votiva	vel Requiem/Votiva	vel Requiem/Votiva	vel Requiem/Votiva	vel Requiem/Votiva	In Vigilia S. Matthiæ Ap.

Nunc labor, postea corona!

“Nunc labor, postea corona!” (Now labor, later the crown) as a motto for Septuagesima, echoes both the parable of the laborers in the vineyard and St. Paul’s imagery of the Christian life as a race. The contrast between now (our present toil) and later (the heavenly reward) makes it particularly memorable, perfectly aligning with the Church’s call to labor in this life for the sake of eternity.

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

“Why stand ye here all the day idle?” (Matthew 20:6)
As we enter the sacred time of Septuagesima, the Church calls us to awaken from spiritual slumber and begin our journey toward the great mysteries of our redemption. This pre-Lenten season is a divine gift, offering us the grace to prepare our hearts for the discipline of penance and the renewal of our souls in Christ. Too often, the penitential season of Lent catches us unready, and we struggle to embrace the fast with the seriousness it demands. But Holy Mother Church, ever solicitous for our sanctification, gives us this time to ready our minds, strengthen our wills, and resolve firmly to set out upon the path of conversion.

The Call to Labour in the Vineyard
In today’s Gospel, Our Lord speaks the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, reminding us that the work of salvation is urgent, and we must not delay in answering His call. The master of the vineyard goes out at various hours to find laborers, yet some remain idle, as though unaware of the opportunity before them. How many of us, in our spiritual lives, are likewise idle? How often do we postpone our conversion, imagining that there will be time enough later to set our house in order?

This parable speaks not only of the history of salvation but also of the disposition of our souls. Some are called early to serve Christ; others heed His voice only in later years. But whether we have long labored or have yet to begin, the Master calls us now. It is never too late to begin anew, but it is always too dangerous to delay. Let this be the moment when we resolve to labor with fresh zeal, knowing that the reward is not given according to the duration of our toil but according to the generosity of the Master.

The Race to Be Run
The Epistle today exhorts us in the language of discipline: “Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.” (1 Cor. 9:24)

The Christian life is not a mere passive reception of God’s grace; it is a battle, a contest, a race requiring effort, sacrifice, and perseverance. St. Paul reminds us that even he, after preaching to others, must guard himself against falling away. How much more must we take heed, lest through complacency we lose the eternal prize?

Now is the time to begin training the soul in earnest. The habits of prayer, fasting, and self-denial must be cultivated if we are to enter Lent prepared. We do not wait until the battle is upon us to sharpen our swords; we do not wait until the race is half-run to begin our training. So, too, we must not wait until Ash Wednesday to embrace the spirit of penance.

A Time of Holy Preparation
The Church, in her wisdom, marks this season by silencing the Alleluia, a reminder that our exile is not yet over. We are still pilgrims on the way, still working out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). This is not a time for spiritual idleness but for recollection and resolve.

Let each of us examine our hearts:

• Have we neglected prayer, allowing distractions to take priority over communion with God?
• Have we sought comfort rather than sacrifice, making excuses for avoiding the discipline of fasting and mortification?
• Have we wasted time, standing idle rather than laboring in the vineyard of the Lord?

If we find ourselves lacking, let us not despair, but rather take up the work of conversion with renewed zeal. God does not ask for impossible perfection, but for a willing heart, ready to strive for holiness.

An Urgent Call to Conversion
Dear brethren, the days are passing quickly. We do not know how many more seasons of Lent we shall be given; we do not know how many more opportunities for repentance shall be offered to us. But we know that we have this moment, this invitation to enter the vineyard, this summons to run the race with endurance.

Let us, then, take up our labors without delay. Let us enter into these seventy days before Easter with purpose, with gratitude, and with the firm resolve to turn away from sin and prepare our souls for the joys of the Resurrection. May we not be found standing idle when the Master calls, but working diligently, that we may receive from His hand the reward of eternal life.

Semper in Christo. 🔝

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

The Gesima Season: a liturgical overview

Introduction
Gesima is a preparatory season in the traditional Roman Rite, marking the transition from the joyful time of Epiphanytide to the penitential discipline of Lent. It begins on Dominica in Septuagesima (the Sunday approximately seventy days before Easter) and includes Sexagesima (sixty days before) and Quinquagesima (fifty days before) Sundays. Instituted in its present form by Pope St. Gregory the Great (†604), Septuagesima serves as a solemn call to spiritual vigilance, emphasizing themes of exile, toil, and the necessity of grace.

Liturgical Characteristics

1. Penitential Aspects – Although not yet a time of obligatory fasting, the liturgical tone shifts noticeably:
   • The Gloria in excelsis is omitted at Mass, except on feasts.
   • The Alleluia is solemnly suppressed after First Vespers of Septuagesima Sunday (on Saturday evening) and is replaced by the Tract in the Mass.
   • Violet vestments are used, signifying penance and preparation.
   • The Breviary follows the changes of a penitential season, omitting Alleluia in the Divine Office.
2. Scriptural Themes and Proper Texts – The Mass propers and readings reflect key moments of salvation history:
   • The Introit of Septuagesima Sunday (Circumdederunt me – Ps. 17:5-7) recalls man’s fallen state and dependence on God’s mercy.
   • The Epistles, primarily from St. Paul, stress the necessity of perseverance in grace and the Christian’s spiritual warfare (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:24-27, 2 Cor. 11:19-33).
   • The Gospels highlight divine justice and mercy, with parables such as the Laborers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16).
   • The Graduals are plaintive, and the use of the Tract foreshadows the coming Lenten austerity.
3. The Divine Office – The suppression of Alleluia extends beyond the Mass:
   • At the conclusion of First Vespers on Septuagesima Eve, a ceremonial farewell to Alleluia occurs. Traditionally, monks would chant Benedicamus Domino, alleluia, alleluia for the last time, replacing it thereafter with Laus tibi, Domine, Rex aeternae gloriae.
   • The hymns and psalmody continue in the usual order but take on a more somber character.
   • The responsories and versicles reflect themes of suffering, exile, and the longing for redemption.
4. Burying the Alleluia – the custom in some places, a banner or board was created that said “Alleluia” in beautiful letters. A ceremony would be conducted after the liturgy where a hole was dug in the parish garden to bury the Alleluia, only to be uncovered again at Easter.

Historical Development
The institution of Septuagesima is attributed to Pope St. Gregory the Great, who formalized its observance to prepare the faithful for Lent. The practice developed in response to earlier Eastern and Western customs of extending Lenten preparation beyond the traditional forty days. Throughout the Middle Ages, it was universally observed in the Roman Church and remained part of the liturgical calendar until the post-Conciliar reforms of 1969, which suppressed it in the Novus Ordo Missae. However, it remains an integral part of the Usus Antiquior, the Dominican Rite, and other Western liturgical traditions, including certain usages of the Anglican Ordinariate.

Spiritual Significance
Septuagesima serves as a time of interior recollection and preparation, calling the faithful to:

• Recognize the effects of original sin and the necessity of grace.
• Begin a gradual ascetic discipline in anticipation of Lent.
• Meditate on the justice and mercy of God, recalling the exile of Adam, the sufferings of Israel, and the labor required for salvation.

Conclusion
Septuagesima is a vital season of transition, bridging the festal joy of Christmastide with the penitential rigor of Lent. By fostering a spirit of detachment from the world and an increased reliance on divine grace, it invites the faithful to enter into the mystery of Christ’s Passion with greater fervor and understanding. 🔝

---

The Tradition of depositio Alleluia

The tradition of depositio Alleluia (the “burial of the Alleluia”) is an ancient liturgical practice that marks the transition from the festive celebrations of the liturgical year to the penitential season of Lent. This custom involves a solemn farewell to the word Alleluia, which is omitted from the liturgy during Lent and triumphantly reinstated at Easter.

Origins and Historical Development
The term Alleluia is derived from the Hebrew Hallelujah, meaning “Praise the Lord.” In the Western Christian tradition, Alleluia is closely associated with the joy of the Resurrection and the celebration of Easter. To emphasize the solemnity and penitential nature of Lent, the Church temporarily suspends the use of this exclamation.

The suppression of Alleluia during Lent can be traced to at least the early medieval period. Pope Alexander II (†1073) affirmed the custom in a response to an inquiry about its origins: “We desist from saying the Alleluia at Septuagesima, not as a matter of sorrow, but as a sign of respect and reverence for the time of penance.”¹

This practice was further confirmed in Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis Observantiis (c. 1085) by Bernold of Constance (†1100), who noted that the omission of Alleluia was a universal discipline of the Roman Church from Septuagesima Sunday until Easter.²

Liturgical Expressions in the Middle Ages
During the Middle Ages, the farewell to the Alleluia became more solemn, often including elaborate processions. The Statutes of the Church of Toul (15th century) describe a striking ritual:

“On the eve of Septuagesima, the Alleluia is carried in procession with crosses, candles, holy water, and incense, and it is solemnly buried in the cloister. The choir boys carry a coffin bearing the inscription ‘Alleluia’ and place it in a grave, which is then sprinkled with holy water and censed before all depart in silence.”³

The farewell to Alleluia was often accompanied by liturgical hymns. One of the most famous is the tenth-century Alleluia, dulce carmen, which conveys both the joy of Alleluia and the sorrow of its temporary loss:

Alleluia, song of gladness,
Voice of joy that cannot die;
Alleluia is the anthem
Ever dear to choirs on high;
In the house of God abiding
Thus they sing eternally.⁴

A particularly poignant reflection on this liturgical farewell comes from the 13th-century Bishop William Duranti (†1296), who described the Church’s departure from the Alleluia with deep affection: “We part from the Alleluia as from a beloved friend, whom we embrace many times and kiss on the mouth, head and hand, before we leave him.”⁵

This poetic description illustrates the emotional weight given to the omission of Alleluia—not merely as a loss, but as an act of reverence and longing for its return at Easter.

Modern Revivals of the Custom
Although the physical burial of Alleluia declined with later liturgical reforms, some communities have revived the practice. At St. John Cantius Parish in Chicago, the tradition is reenacted with solemnity: “A placard with the word ‘Alleluia’ written in ornate gold letters is taken from the sanctuary and processed through the church. It is then placed under the altar cloth at Mary’s Altar, where it remains until the Easter Vigil, symbolizing its resurrection alongside the celebration of Christ’s Resurrection.”⁶ This revival preserves the medieval spirit of the ritual while adapting it to contemporary liturgical practice.

Liturgical and Theological Significance
The depositio Alleluia serves as a powerful reminder of the Church’s liturgical rhythm. By temporarily setting aside Alleluia, the faithful are invited into a period of reflection and penance, deepening their anticipation for its return at the Easter Vigil.

The Ordo Romanus Primus (8th century), one of the earliest Roman liturgical manuals, describes the return of Alleluia at Easter as “the voice of the Bride resounding once more with the joy of the Resurrection, calling to her Spouse in triumph.”⁷

Conclusion
The tradition of burying the Alleluia—whether in medieval France, early Rome, or modern Chicago—serves as a rich liturgical and catechetical practice. Whether enacted through solemn processions, hymns, or symbolic gestures, it reinforces the journey from Lenten penance to Easter joy. 🔝

1. Pope Alexander II, Letter to the Bishop of Bourges, 11th century (cited in New Liturgical Movement, 2016).
2. Bernold of Constance, Micrologus de Ecclesiasticis Observantiis, c. 1085.
3. Statuta Ecclesiae Tullensis (Statutes of the Church of Toul), 15th century.
4. Alleluia, dulce carmen, 10th-century hymn (cited in Analecta Hymnica Vol. 51).
5. William Duranti, Rationale Divinorum Officiorum, c. 1296.
6. New Liturgical Movement, “The Burial of the Alleluia at St. John Cantius”, 2016.
7. Ordo Romanus Primus, 8th century (cited in Les Ordines Romani du Haut Moyen Âge, Michel Andrieu).

---

Septuagesima Sunday: A Liturgical and Theological Reflection

The Church, like a wise mother, gently but firmly draws her children into the great ascetic movement that culminates in the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. With the arrival of Septuagesima Sunday, the joyful echoes of Christmastide are set aside as we enter a time of preparation for Lent, a kind of liturgical “desert” in which we hear the distant yet urgent call to repentance and conversion.

This pre-Lenten season—marked by the suppression of the Alleluia and the gradual deepening of penitential themes—has often been misunderstood in the modern age, its elimination in the postconciliar reforms a tragic loss of the Church’s deep pedagogical wisdom. The traditional liturgical commentators, from Dom Prosper Guéranger to Fr. Pius Parsch, recognized that Septuagesima serves as a necessary transition, acclimating the soul to the rigors of Lent so that we do not enter it unprepared.

The Fall of Man and the Exile of Humanity
The Introit of today’s Mass sets the tone for this period of exile: “The sorrows of death surrounded me, the sorrows of hell encompassed me…” (Ps. 17:5-6).

We begin the season with a stark acknowledgment of our fallen condition. Adam’s sin, and with it the condemnation of all mankind to toil and suffering, is at the heart of today’s texts. The Church, in her infinite wisdom, desires that we see clearly the effects of sin—not only as an abstract theological concept but as a concrete reality shaping our lives and destinies.

The Collect implores God to hear the prayers of His people who are justly afflicted for their sins. This is the cry of a world cast out of Eden, a world that knows it has squandered its original innocence. The Alleluia is now silenced, for it belongs properly to the redeemed in heaven, while we, like the Jews in exile, must first pass through the valley of tears before we can sing the songs of Zion once more.

Laboring in the Vineyard: The Christian’s Call to Perseverance
The Gospel (Matthew 20:1-16) presents the parable of the laborers in the vineyard—a striking contrast to the Epistle (1 Corinthians 9:24-27), in which St. Paul exhorts us to run the race with endurance. The tension between these texts, far from being accidental, reveals the paradox at the heart of the spiritual life.

On the one hand, we see that salvation is not a mere question of human effort, as the vineyard workers who arrived at the last hour received the same wage as those who had toiled all day. The master’s generosity reminds us that eternal life is not earned in the strict sense but is bestowed as an unmerited gift of divine grace. Yet, on the other hand, St. Paul warns that even he, after preaching to others, could be cast away if he fails to discipline his body and keep it in subjection. The race must still be run; the fight must still be fought.

This is the great Catholic both/and: salvation is freely given, but we must labor in the vineyard to receive it. There is no contradiction between divine generosity and human responsibility. The Protestant caricature that pits grace against works is foreign to the mind of the Church, which has always understood that we are called to cooperate with grace through ascetic effort.

The Liturgy as Sacred Economy
Dom Guéranger, in his Liturgical Year, draws attention to the relationship between today’s Gospel and the history of salvation itself. The laborers called at different hours symbolize the various epochs of divine election:

• Adam, called at the first hour,
• Noah, at the third,
• Abraham, at the sixth,
• Moses and the prophets, at the ninth,
• The Gentiles, at the eleventh.

The invitation to the vineyard is extended throughout history, just as the call to conversion is made anew to each of us. The sacred economy of salvation unfolds not only in the great epochs of revelation but also in the microcosm of our own lives. Some are called to lifelong fidelity, others find conversion late, yet all are bound by the same requirement of faithfulness.

Septuagesima as the Death of Spiritual Sloth
If Advent is a preparation for the first coming of Christ, Septuagesima is a preparation for His Passion. It is the spiritual antidote to the tepidity that so often afflicts our souls. Just as the commercialized world resists the fasting and penance of Lent by indulging in distractions, so too do we resist interior conversion by delaying our commitment.

The Gradual and Tract reinforce this urgency: “A helper in due time in tribulation: let them trust in Thee who know Thee…” (Ps. 9:10-11).
“Out of the depths I have cried to Thee, O Lord: Lord, hear my voice…” (Ps. 129:1-4).

The Church calls us to a holy urgency, a recognition that time is fleeting and that the moment for repentance is now. The mistake of the grumbling laborers in the vineyard was not in their work but in their presumption. Their resentment toward the latecomers reveals a heart still attached to worldly rewards rather than divine justice. Are we not guilty of the same presumption when we delay our conversion, assuming that the Lord will wait for us?

Conclusion: A Sacred Cycle, Not a Mere Custom
To ignore Septuagesima is to lose a vital element of the Church’s wisdom. The modern mind, obsessed with novelty and convenience, struggles to see the need for gradual preparation. But just as the body cannot endure extreme fasting without training, neither can the soul embrace the full demands of Lent without spiritual conditioning.

The great figures of Catholic liturgical tradition—Guéranger, Parsch, and Schuster—understood that the Church’s calendar is not an arbitrary series of customs but a profound cycle of divine pedagogy. Septuagesima is the necessary threshold, the transition from festivity to penance, from feasting to fasting, from complacency to vigilance.

The vineyard awaits. The time for idleness has passed. Let us enter into this sacred time with the zeal of those who recognize that the Master’s call may come at any hour. And when we receive our wages at the day’s end, may we rejoice—not in what we have earned, but in what we have been given.

“The last shall be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:16) 🔝

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Septuagesima

Graciously hear, we beseech thee, O Lord, the prayers of thy people, that we who are justly afflicted for our sins, may be mercifully delivered by thy goodness, for the glory of thy name.

Today is Septuagesima Sunday, meaning that it is now seventy days before Easter, the greatest feast of the Christian year. It also marks the approach of the season of Lent in which we seek to deepen our Christian discipleship through prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Since Lent is the most solemn time of the Christian year it is important that we allow time to prepare ourselves for it, and this is the purpose of the three Sundays before Lent, Septuagesima, Sexagesima and Quinquagesima. They enable us to move from the season of Christmas and Epiphany to the penitential season of Lent.

It is therefore appropriate that today’s Collect asks God to hear the prayers of his people, that they, who are justly afflicted for their sins, may be mercifully delivered by his goodness. The Collects of the ancient Roman rite are the jewels of the liturgy. They express clearly, briefly and without equivocation the fundamental themes of the Christian faith. They retain something of the dignity, order and discipline that was the hallmark of pagan Rome, but the sentiments expressed are now Christian rather than pagan. Hence, the faithful are constantly exhorted to put no trust in their own works, but rather rely on the divine grace, which alone can save us from our sins and shortcomings. Most probably this Collect was composed in the sixth century and it was certainly in use in Rome by the time of St. Gregory the Great. It may even be St. Gregory’s own composition. It conveys many of the themes of Gregory’s own preaching, which we so often hear in the Breviary (indeed it is a homily from St. Gregory that we hear in the Breviary for this Sunday).

Rome and Italy in the time of St. Gregory the Great were in the midst of a seemingly interminable series of crises. Rome had once seen itself as the capital of a great empire and the centre of the civilised world. But by the end of the sixth century it had degenerated into a plague infested provincial town. The Western Roman Empire had fallen in the fifth century and in Italy Ostrogoths had replaced Roman emperors as rulers. In the sixth century, under the Emperor Justinian, the Roman Empire in the East had attempted to reconquer what had been lost in the West in the previous century. The reconquest of Italy had some success and the Empire had re-asserted control from the Ostrogoths, though there were now problems with the Lombards. But the conflicts and violence of these continuing wars for supremacy had led Rome and Italy into a state of exhaustion. There were terrible plagues. It was one such pestilence that had led to the death of St. Gregory’s predecessor as Bishop of Rome. There was a power vacuum in the city, and, since the Empire was now centered in Constantinople in the East and the imperial exarchate was in Ravenna in north Italy rather than in Rome, it fell to St. Gregory to take on the responsibility for the maintaining what remained of civil society in Rome, as well as the spiritual welfare of his flock. To St. Gregory himself, as a child of the ancient Roman senatorial aristocracy, it seemed like the world itself was coming to an end. The people had brought terrible calamities on themselves. Hence, the reference in today’s Collect to the people being justly afflicted for their sins. The only hope for redemption lay in relying on divine grace and trust in the merciful deliverance of the goodness of God.

But, we might say, that was then and now, since the European Enlightenment in the eighteenth century, the human race has finally progressed and we no longer need to pray for divine grace, but instead can rely on our own reason. The need to rely on divine grace might have applied in the time of St. Gregory in the collapsing Italy of the late sixth century, but it is no longer necessary now. We now have science and technology that can address the problems that people in the time of St. Gregory struggled to deal with. We no longer need salvation from our sins, but progress and enlightenment to resolve our problems.

A moment’s reflection should give us pause. We might think we have risen above the seeming barbarism of sixth century Italy, but the events of the past few years have shown that pestilence and disease is still very much with us, there are still wars and rumours of wars and the climate is still changing. We are not as much in control as our governments would like us to think. Indeed, it may be argued that our situation is worse rather than better than the age of St. Gregory. At that time people were more conscious than they are now of their own limitations and more willing to recognise that they could not solve all their problems by their own efforts. They recognised that they had no power of themselves to help themselves and needed to rely on divine grace to think, will and do that which is good. Hence, pestilence, climate change and war and conflict came as no surprise to them. It was part of the nature of this fallen world. While every attempt was made (most notably by St. Gregory himself) to provide for the temporal needs of the people, it was recognised that the problems faced could never be fully eradicated in a fallen world. When confronted by a great crisis, such as a war, or plague, or change in the climate, people prayed, they confessed their sins and asked for the mercy of God to deliver them.

By contrast, in our own age, we are so deluded by the belief in our own moral superiority to previous ages, that we are no longer able to cope with things such as wars and pestilences and climate change. Instead of seeking to adapt to them and take responsibility ourselves we now expect our governments to do everything for us. We claim to be free and emancipated from the moral constraints of the past, but have in practice handed over responsibility for our actions to our own governments. We expect them to resolve our problems for us and behave as though disease and climate change are somehow a radically new phenomenon that require our governments to assume more and more power over every aspect of our lives. We have transferred morality from God to the market place and replaced taking responsibility for our own actions with the belief that it is now a matter for our governments, rather than ourselves. The Chinese state is the most extreme example of this tendency, but twenty first century western societies are increasingly experiencing governments assume powers that used to be called totalitarian to combat disease and climate change.

We are not as wise and enlightened as we like to think. We still need, just as much as in the age of St. Gregory to pray, to confess our sins and shortcomings, that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves and need to rely on divine grace to enable us to think, will and do that which is good. Perhaps if we started to do this, we would see our contemporary problems in a more balanced perspective and might even be in a better position to address some of them. After all, as G. K. Chesterton once put it, it is not the case that the Church will drag us back to the Dark Ages. The Church is the only thing that got us out of them.

Let us make today’s Collect our own prayer, as we seek God’s merciful deliverance from our sins amidst the trials and tribulations of our own time and place. 🔝

---

Feasts this week

February 16 – Commemoration of St. Onesimus, Bishop and Martyr: the Roman Martyrology commemorates the converted slave mentioned in St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. Onesimus had fled from his master, Philemon, but after encountering St. Paul, he converted to Christianity. Paul sent him back to Philemon with a plea to receive him “no longer as a slave, but as a beloved brother in Christ” (Philemon 16). According to tradition, Onesimus later became the Bishop of Ephesus and ultimately suffered martyrdom under Emperor Domitian. His story serves as a powerful testimony to the transformative grace of Christ, breaking the barriers of social distinction through the unity of faith.

February 17 – The Flight of Our Lord into Egypt (Commemoration) recalls the Gospel account in St. Matthew 2:13-15, where St. Joseph, warned in a dream, takes the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Christ Child to Egypt to escape King Herod’s murderous intent. This event fulfills the prophecy: “Out of Egypt I have called my son” (Hosea 11:1). The Holy Family’s exile signifies Christ’s early rejection by His own people, and His solidarity with the poor and the persecuted. Their stay in Egypt, according to tradition, lasted several years until the angel instructed Joseph to return to Nazareth. This feast reminds the faithful of God’s providential care and serves as a model for trust in divine guidance during trials.

February 18 – St. Simeon, Bishop and Martyr: (†107) was a kinsman of Our Lord, often identified as the son of Cleophas and thus a relative of St. James the Less. He became the second Bishop of Jerusalem, succeeding St. James the Just after his martyrdom. During the reign of Emperor Trajan, the Roman authorities sought to exterminate the remaining relatives of Christ, fearing they could claim a dynastic rule over Israel. Simeon, despite being over one hundred years old, was arrested, tortured, and crucified, mirroring the suffering of his Divine Master. His steadfastness in the face of brutal persecution has made him an enduring model of faithful endurance and episcopal courage.

February 19 – A ferial day is observed when no specific feast is assigned in the universal calendar. During this season, the Mass of the previous Sunday is often repeated, allowing the faithful to continue meditating on the liturgical themes of the Time after Epiphany. Ferias provide an opportunity for private devotion, the recitation of the Divine Office, and preparation for the coming season of Lent. The Church encourages acts of penance, fasting, and prayer on these days, especially as preparation for the penitential season.

February 20 – Another ferial day, during which priests may celebrate either the Mass of the preceding Sunday, a Votive Mass, or a Requiem Mass for the deceased. The faithful are encouraged to use such days for deepening their spiritual lives through meditation on Sacred Scripture, frequenting the Sacraments, and performing works of mercy.

February 21 – St. Peter Damian, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church: (†1072) was an Italian monk, cardinal, and reformer who fought tirelessly against clerical corruption, particularly simony and laxity in monastic discipline. Born into a noble but impoverished family, he entered the hermitic life and became one of the most influential figures in the Gregorian Reform movement. As a theologian, his writings on penance, moral theology, and ecclesiastical discipline were instrumental in strengthening the Church. He was a staunch advocate of asceticism and clerical celibacy, calling for a return to stricter monastic observance. His bold denunciation of immorality within the clergy and his theological insights earned him the title of Doctor of the Church. His feast is a reminder of the importance of holiness in the priesthood, Church reform, and fidelity to Christ’s teachings.

February 22 – The Chair of St. Peter at Antioch: This feast honors the primacy of St. Peter and his apostolic authority as the first Bishop of Antioch, a city where Christians were first called by that name (Acts 11:26). Before his final journey to Rome, St. Peter governed the Church in Antioch for seven years, strengthening the faithful and combating early heresies. The feast emphasizes the unity of the Church under the successor of St. Peter, the Pope, and the importance of apostolic tradition in safeguarding the true doctrine. In earlier centuries, this feast was kept separately from the Chair of St. Peter in Rome (January 18), though later reforms merged the two into one celebration on February 22.

Commemoration: In Vigilia S. Matthiae Apostoli: This day also marks the Vigil of St. Matthias the Apostle, usually observed as a day of penitential preparation for his feast on February 24 and thus transferred from this Sunday. In the traditional liturgical calendar, vigils were kept as solemn days of prayer, fasting, and spiritual reflection before major feasts.

February 23 – Sexagesima Sunday the second Sunday before Lent, falling approximately sixty days before Easter. It continues the preparatory period known as the Septuagesima Season, a time of penance, reflection, and anticipation of the upcoming Lenten fast. The liturgy of this Sunday emphasizes the necessity of divine grace and perseverance in the Christian life.

These feasts and commemorations in the 1910 Tridentine Calendar highlight key themes of episcopal leadership, doctrinal defense, divine providence, and preparation for the trials of Christian life. February in the traditional liturgical calendar remains a month of perseverance, reinforcing the necessity of holiness, penance, and trust in God’s plan.

✠ Deus vult! 🔝

---

The Seven Sundays Devotion to St. Joseph

The Seven Sundays Devotion to St. Joseph is a traditional Catholic devotion honouring the foster father of Jesus and the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is observed on the seven Sundays leading up to the Solemnity of St. Joseph on March 19. Each Sunday is dedicated to meditating on one of the Seven Sorrows and Joys of St. Joseph, reflecting on key moments of his life as recorded in the Gospels.

Origins of the Devotion

This devotion is believed to have originated in the 16th century but became especially popular in the 19th century through the efforts of the Servites and various religious congregations promoting devotion to St. Joseph. Tradition holds that two Franciscan fathers were saved from a shipwreck after praying to St. Joseph, who appeared to them and encouraged them to spread this devotion in gratitude.

How to Practice the Devotion

The devotion consists of:

1. Reciting special prayers reflecting on each sorrow and joy.
2. Reading and meditating on the corresponding Gospel passage.
3. Praying to St. Joseph for particular graces, especially for a holy death, protection of families, and purity of heart.
4. Receiving Holy Communion on these Sundays, if possible.

The Seven Sorrows and Joys of St. Joseph

Each Sunday, the faithful meditate on one sorrow and one joy from St. Joseph’s life:

1. First Sunday
   • Sorrow: The doubt of St. Joseph regarding Mary’s pregnancy (Matt. 1:19)
   • Joy: The angel’s revelation of the divine nature of Christ (Matt. 1:20)
2. Second Sunday
   • Sorrow: The poverty of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:7)
   • Joy: The adoration of the shepherds and Magi (Luke 2:10-11)
3. Third Sunday
   • Sorrow: The prophecy of Simeon about the suffering of Jesus and Mary (Luke 2:25-35)
   • Joy: The privilege of raising the Messiah (Luke 2:39-40)
4. Fourth Sunday
   • Sorrow: The flight into Egypt to escape Herod’s persecution (Matt. 2:14)
   • Joy: The safety of the Holy Family in Egypt (Matt. 2:15)
5. Fifth Sunday
   • Sorrow: The loss of the Child Jesus in Jerusalem (Luke 2:45)
   • Joy: Finding Him in the Temple teaching the doctors of the Law (Luke 2:46)
6. Sixth Sunday
   • Sorrow: The daily hardships of providing for the Holy Family (Matt. 2:23)
   • Joy: The holiness and obedience of Jesus (Luke 2:51)
7. Seventh Sunday
   • Sorrow: The death of St. Joseph (Tradition)
   • Joy: Dying in the arms of Jesus and Mary and entering eternal rest (Tradition)

Spiritual Benefits of the Devotion

The Seven Sundays Devotion is particularly recommended for:

• Families seeking St. Joseph’s protection.
• Workers looking to model their labor after St. Joseph’s diligence.
• Fathers and husbands who desire to emulate St. Joseph’s virtues.
• Those preparing for death, as St. Joseph is the patron of a happy death.

This devotion is a powerful way to foster greater love for St. Joseph, deepen one’s understanding of his role in salvation history, and seek his intercession for temporal and spiritual needs. 🔝

---

The Sacrament of Confession: Admonitions from the Saints and Theologians

The Sacrament of Penance, commonly known as Confession, is a cornerstone of Christian life, offering the faithful the opportunity to receive God’s mercy and restore their relationship with Him. The saints and theologians of the Church have ceaselessly exhorted the faithful to make frequent use of this sacrament, recognizing it as an essential means of spiritual renewal and salvation. Below is a compilation of their admonitions, emphasizing the urgency, necessity, and efficacy of Confession.

The Necessity of Confession

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) warns:
“Let no one say: ‘I do penance before God in private; I do it secretly.’ Is it then in vain that Christ has said: ‘What you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven?’ Are the keys then given to the Church in vain?” (Sermon 392)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) affirms:
“Since Baptism is a spiritual regeneration, a man must be spiritually nourished and healed after his rebirth. This is why the Sacrament of Penance is necessary after Baptism.” (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 84, a. 5)

The Danger of Neglecting Confession

St. John Chrysostom (347–407) cautions:
“If you are ashamed to confess your sins, look at the flames of hell that confession alone can extinguish. The more you delay, the more your sins increase, and the harder your conversion becomes.” (Homily on Matthew 3:1-2)

St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787) states:
“If a tree that is not watered will wither and die, how much more will a soul that neglects confession be choked by sin and perish eternally?” (Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent)

The Frequency of Confession

Pope St. Pius X (1835–1914) decrees:
“Frequent confession is of great utility: it increases true self-knowledge, Christian humility grows, bad habits are corrected, spiritual negligence and tepidity are resisted, the conscience is purified, the will is strengthened, and self-control is attained.” (Acerbo Nimis, 1905)

St. Francis de Sales (1567–1622) advises:
“At least once a month, go to Confession with humility and devotion. Even though your conscience is not burdened with mortal sin, this practice keeps you from venial sins and strengthens you in virtue.” (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part II, Ch. 19)

The Peace and Grace of Confession

St. John Vianney (1786–1859), the Curé of Ars, states:
“When we go to Confession, we should understand what we are about to do: we are about to unfasten the chains that bind us to hell!”

St. Teresa of Ávila (1515–1582) testifies:
“Oh, what a great blessing it is to have a friend—a priest of God—who by his absolution can restore to us the grace we have lost!” (The Way of Perfection, Ch. 34)

St. Josemaría Escrivá (1902–1975) encourages:
“Have a sincere desire to cleanse your soul. Go to the Sacrament of Penance with the same straightforwardness that you would if you had to rid your body of a disease.” (The Way, 232)

The Power of Absolution

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258) explains:
“Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the remission of sins given by the priests are still pleasing to the Lord.” (The Lapsed, 29)

St. Bonaventure (1221–1274) teaches:
“The priest, in giving absolution, acts as the instrument of the Holy Spirit, and the words of absolution are nothing less than the voice of God Himself.” (Breviloquium, Part VI, Ch. 9)

Final Admonition
The saints and theologians consistently affirm that Confession is a divine remedy for the soul, a means of grace, and a safeguard against damnation. To neglect it is to endanger one’s soul; to embrace it is to be continually renewed in God’s mercy. The words of St. Ambrose (c. 340–397) summarize this best:
“The Lord who granted you the first pardon through Baptism has granted you a second remedy through Penance. He has placed in the Church an open gate for all those who return from their errors.” (De Paenitentia, II, 2, 12)

Let the faithful, then, heed these exhortations and make frequent and sincere use of this sacrament, so that they may remain in the grace of God and attain eternal life. 🔝

---

The Healing Power of Confession: A Remedy for the Soul, Mind, and Heart

The Sacrament of Confession is one of the greatest gifts given by Christ to His Church, offering the faithful the grace of divine mercy and the opportunity for spiritual renewal. However, beyond its spiritual benefits, Confession also has profound effects on the mind and heart, contributing to emotional and psychological well-being. The wisdom of the Church, supported by magisterial teaching, the saints, and even modern psychology, affirms that Confession is not only a necessity for the Christian life but also a powerful means of healing and renewal.

Confession as a Divine Mandate
The necessity of Confession is rooted in Christ’s institution of the sacrament when He granted the apostles the power to forgive sins: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20:23). This authority, entrusted to the Church, ensures that the faithful have access to God’s mercy through the ordained priesthood. The Catechism of the Catholic Church confirms: “Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary means by which the faithful reconcile themselves with God and the Church, unless physical or moral impossibility excuses from this kind of confession” (CCC 1484)[1].

From the earliest centuries, the Church Fathers and saints have emphasized the necessity of this sacrament. St. Augustine taught, “The confession of evil works is the beginning of good works”[2], illustrating how admitting sin is the first step toward genuine conversion. St. John Chrysostom similarly warned against the dangers of neglecting Confession, saying, “If you are ashamed to confess your sins, remember hell. Confession is a work much lighter than eternal fire.”[3] The Church does not impose Confession as a mere obligation but as a spiritual medicine essential for restoring the soul.

The Healing of the Soul
Sin damages the soul by weakening the will, clouding the intellect, and distancing the sinner from God. The Sacrament of Penance repairs this damage by restoring sanctifying grace and strengthening the soul against future temptation. St. Thomas Aquinas explained that “Confession is the medicine which expels sin and restores health to the soul. Without it, the sickness of sin only worsens.” (Summa Theologiae, III, q. 84, a. 5)[4]. Just as the body needs nourishment and healing, so too does the soul require divine assistance to overcome the wounds inflicted by sin.

Pope John Paul II, deeply aware of the necessity of this sacrament, made an urgent appeal: “To those who have been far away from the Sacrament of Reconciliation and forgiving love, I make this urgent appeal: Come back to this source of grace; do not be afraid! Christ is waiting for you.”[5] The return to Confession is not merely a return to Church practice but a return to God Himself, who eagerly desires to pour out His mercy upon the penitent soul.

The Psychological Benefits of Confession
While the Church has long recognized the transformative power of Confession, modern psychology has also acknowledged the importance of admitting faults, receiving forgiveness, and reconciling with others. Research in psychology and neuroscience confirms that the act of confession—whether sacramental or psychological—has measurable benefits for emotional health, stress relief, and overall psychological resilience.

One of the fundamental aspects of human psychology is the need for self-reflection and accountability. Dr. Carl Jung, a founder of analytical psychology, emphasized the importance of addressing one’s inner conflicts, writing, “Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering.”[6] He suggested that many psychological disturbances stem from unresolved guilt and moral conflict, which, when ignored, manifest in anxiety, depression, or self-destructive behaviors. Confession provides a structured way to acknowledge these moral conflicts and process them in a healthy manner, preventing deeper psychological distress.

Unresolved guilt has been linked to stress-related disorders, depression, and even physical health problems. Studies on cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), one of the most widely used treatments for anxiety and depression, show that guilt and shame contribute to conditions such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and major depressive disorder (MDD). Dr. Aaron Beck, the father of CBT, found that “negative self-perceptions and unchallenged guilt contribute to the cognitive distortions that lead to depression.”[7] Confession offers a tangible way to challenge these distortions by providing an external source of absolution, allowing individuals to reframe their guilt in light of divine mercy.

Another key area of psychological research concerns the stress-reducing effects of verbalizing guilt. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology (2014) found that individuals who verbalized their wrongdoings in a structured setting—whether to a therapist, priest, or trusted confidant—experienced significantly lower levels of stress hormones such as cortisol[8]. The researchers concluded that “structured confession and forgiveness-seeking behaviors contribute to measurable reductions in stress and anxiety.” This supports the long-standing teaching of the Church that confession brings “peace of soul”, as described by saints like St. John Vianney and St. Francis de Sales.

Confession and Inner Peace
Regular Confession does more than remove past sins; it cultivates interior peace and resilience. Those who confess regularly often experience greater self-awareness, humility, and a deeper trust in God’s providence. St. John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, described the soul’s transformation through Confession: “When we go to Confession, we should understand what we are about to do: we are about to unfasten the chains that bind us to hell.”[9]

Moreover, Confession strengthens relationships with others. Many struggle with resentment and grudges, but those who receive God’s mercy in Confession are more disposed to extend mercy to others. St. Benedict instructed his monks, “Let no one in the monastery hide his wounds. Let him go to the elder and reveal them, that he may be healed.”[10] His wisdom applies beyond monastic life; honesty and openness about our faults lead to stronger and more authentic relationships.

The Grace of a New Beginning
One of the most profound gifts of Confession is the grace of a new beginning. St. John Vianney reassured penitents, “The good God sees our tears of repentance. He opens His arms and welcomes us back as a father welcomes his child.”[11] In Confession, past failures are left behind, and the soul is given the strength to start anew.

St. Padre Pio, who spent countless hours hearing confessions, urged the faithful, “Go to Confession regularly; it is there that you will receive the greatest treasures of divine grace.”[12] This timeless advice speaks to the heart of the Christian journey. Confession is not merely a remedy for the soul but a path to true healing, renewal, and lasting peace. 🔝

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1484
2. St. Augustine, Sermon 392
3. St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 3:1-2
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 84, a. 5
5. Pope John Paul II, Homily, 1981
6. Carl Jung, Modern Man in Search of a Soul
7. Aaron Beck, Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders
8. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2014 study on confession and stress
9. St. John Vianney, Sermons
10. St. Benedict, Rule of St. Benedict, Ch. 46
11. St. John Vianney, Sermons
12. St. Padre Pio, Letters

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

The Seal of Confession Under Threat in the United States: Legal, Historical, and Theological Analysis

Introduction
Recent legislative efforts in several U.S. states, including Montana, Washington, and Vermont, seek to override the seal of confession by requiring clergy to report instances of child abuse disclosed during sacramental confession. This raises significant constitutional, legal, and theological concerns. While the protection of children is a legitimate and pressing state interest, compelling priests to break the seal of confession poses serious challenges to religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment. This paper examines the current legislative threats, historical precedents, constitutional protections, and theological implications surrounding the seal of confession in the United States.

Current Legislative Threats
Montana and Washington have recently introduced bills aimed at eliminating the exemption that clergy currently have from mandatory reporting laws when information about child abuse is obtained through confession¹. Under existing law, most states recognize the privileged nature of clergy-penitent communications, affording it similar protections to attorney-client privilege². The proposed changes in these states would force priests to disclose information revealed in the confessional, under threat of legal penalties such as fines or imprisonment³.

Vermont has taken an even more aggressive approach by seeking to explicitly remove any legal exemption for clergy regarding mandatory reporting of abuse⁴. Vermont’s judiciary has historically prioritized child protection laws over religious exemptions, making it more likely that such a law, if passed, would be enforced. While Montana and Washington are likely to see stronger legal challenges to their proposals, Vermont’s legal climate suggests a greater willingness to challenge religious confidentiality in favour of state interests.

Constitutional and Legal Analysis
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, which has historically been interpreted to include the right to sacramental confidentiality⁵. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, the government must demonstrate a compelling interest and employ the least restrictive means when restricting religious practices⁶. While the prevention of child abuse is undeniably a compelling interest, forcing priests to break the seal of confession may fail the least restrictive means test. Alternatives, such as increased child abuse prevention education and encouraging penitents to self-report, may be less intrusive ways to achieve the same goal⁷.

In addition to First Amendment protections, clergy-penitent privilege has been recognized in U.S. law since the early nineteenth century. One of the earliest cases affirming this principle was People v. Phillips (1813) in New York, in which the court ruled that a priest could not be compelled to disclose information from confession⁸. Later legal cases, such as Mockaitis v. Harcleroad (1995), upheld the sanctity of religious confession, with courts ruling that even law enforcement’s secret recording of a confession was unconstitutional⁹. While the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on whether the government can override the seal of confession, it has consistently protected religious confidentiality through various rulings on clergy-penitent privilege¹⁰.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), both at the federal level and in states where it applies, provides additional legal defences against government overreach. Under RFRA, the state must prove that a law significantly burdens religious exercise and that no less restrictive alternatives exist¹¹. Since Vermont does not have a state RFRA, legal challenges there may be more difficult, whereas in states like Montana and Washington, RFRA-based lawsuits are more likely to succeed¹².

If these laws are enforced, priests could face criminal penalties, including jail time, for refusing to comply. The Catholic Church has already signalled its unwillingness to comply with such mandates, and legal battles will almost certainly ensue¹³. Should a priest be convicted under these laws, the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially leading to a landmark decision on the conflict between religious freedom and state-mandated reporting.

Historical Precedents for Government Attempts to Override the Seal
The sanctity of the seal of confession has been recognized for centuries. In the United States, the People v. Phillips (1813) ruling set an early precedent for the legal protection of confession, establishing that a priest could not be compelled to testify about a penitent’s admission of a crime¹⁴. Over the course of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, most U.S. states adopted laws that explicitly recognized clergy-penitent privilege, in line with protections afforded to attorney-client and doctor-patient relationships¹⁵.

Throughout history, totalitarian regimes have sought to undermine the seal of confession. In the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik government criminalized religious confessions, and clergy were executed or sent to labour camps for refusing to report on penitents¹⁶. Nazi Germany also attempted to use the confessional for intelligence gathering, and priests were imprisoned or killed for refusing to comply¹⁷. Even in democratic nations, periodic efforts have been made to limit the confidentiality of confession, particularly in cases of child abuse¹⁸.

Theological and Canonical Implications
Under Catholic doctrine, the seal of confession is absolute. Canon 983 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that the sacramental seal is inviolable and that any priest who violates it incurs automatic excommunication¹⁹. The Church teaches that confession is a sacred act of reconciliation between the penitent and God, and that priests are forbidden from disclosing anything revealed during the sacrament, regardless of legal consequences²⁰.

Throughout history, the Vatican has repeatedly reaffirmed the inviolability of the confessional seal. Pope John Paul II stated in 2002 that no civil law could compel a priest to violate confession²¹, while Pope Francis reaffirmed in 2019 that the sacramental seal is “non-negotiable,” even in cases of child abuse²². U.S. bishops have already declared that they will practice civil disobedience rather than comply with any law that mandates breaking the seal²³.

Conclusion
The current legislative efforts to compel clergy to report confessions of child abuse are the most serious challenge to the seal of confession in American history. While child protection is a compelling state interest, forcing priests to violate a core tenet of their faith is neither a necessary nor effective solution. The strong constitutional protections for religious freedom, along with the historical recognition of clergy-penitent privilege, suggest that these laws will face significant legal hurdles. If enforced, they could result in high-profile legal battles and Supreme Court intervention. As history has shown, governments that attempt to override the seal of confession inevitably face strong resistance from the Church. Whether these new laws will withstand legal scrutiny remains to be seen, but the implications for religious freedom in the United States are profound. 🔝

¹ Catholic News Agency, “Montana and Washington Consider Bills That Threaten the Seal of Confession,” 2025.
² National Catholic Register, “The Legal Status of Clergy-Penitent Privilege in the U.S.,” 2024.
³ Washington Post, “New State Laws Could Force Priests to Break Confession Seal,” 2025.
⁴ Vermont State Legislature, Bill Proposal 2025.
⁵ U.S. Constitution, First Amendment.
⁶ Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).
⁷ Catholic Legal Association, “Confession and the Law,” 2023.
⁸ People v. Phillips, NY (1813).
⁹ Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522 (1995).
¹⁰ Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
¹¹ Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).
¹² Montana Supreme Court, Case Review on RFRA Challenges, 2024.
¹³ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Statement on Confession, 2025.
¹⁴ People v. Phillips (1813).
¹⁵ Harvard Law Review, “Clergy Privilege in American Jurisprudence,” 2020.
¹⁶ Soviet Archives, Religious Persecution Records, 1920s.
¹⁷ Vatican Archives, Nazi Surveillance of the Confessional, 1940s.
¹⁸ Royal Commission Report on Institutional Responses to Child Abuse, Australia, 2018.
¹⁹ Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 983.
²⁰ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 1467.
²¹ Pope John Paul II, Address to the Roman Rota, 2002.
²² Pope Francis, Apostolic Letter on the Seal of Confession, 2019.
²³ USCCB, “Religious Liberty and the Sacrament of Confession,” 2025.

---

---

Survey on the Real Presence: Findings and Implications

In July 2024, the Real Presence Coalition (RPC)—a network of prominent Catholic voices committed to restoring belief in Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist—launched the most extensive survey of U.S. lay Catholics ever conducted. The survey was conducted in response to a 2019 Pew Research study which found that a majority of U.S. Catholics no longer affirmed the doctrine of the Real Presence[1]. The results of this survey, released in early 2025, offer insights into the primary reasons for this decline in belief and propose solutions for restoring faith in the Eucharist.

The RPC’s membership includes many of the most well-known figures in traditional Catholic media and apologetics, such as Terry Barber (Virgin Most Powerful Radio), Doug Barry (U.S. Grace Force), Mike Church (Crusade Channel), Fr. Donald Calloway, MIC, Beverly DeSoto (Regina Magazine), Tim Flanders (One Peter Five), Deacon Keith Fournier, Fr. Richard Heilman, Michael Hichborn (Lepanto Institute), Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Mother Miriam, Fr. Chad Ripperger, Jesse Romero (Virgin Most Powerful Radio), Eric Sammons (Crisis Magazine), Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Bishop Joseph Strickland, John Henry Westen (LifeSite News), Vicki Yamasaki (Corpus Christi for Unity and Peace), John Yep (Catholics for Catholics), and Liz Yore (Yore Children)[2].

Purpose and Methodology
The RPC survey aimed to determine why many Catholics no longer believe in the Real Presence and to propose solutions. Conducted in collaboration with Public Opinion Strategies, a respected polling firm, the survey gathered responses from U.S. lay Catholics using an online questionnaire hosted by Survey Monkey. The survey was open to all U.S. lay Catholics, with responses solicited via email, social media, and online advertising targeting attendees of the National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis. To ensure data integrity, only one response per IP address was allowed, and response options were randomized to prevent bias[3].

A total of 15,843 responses were collected, with 14,725 from U.S. lay Catholics. The survey had an 80% completion rate, resulting in 12,680 fully completed responses, making it the largest survey of lay Catholics ever conducted in the United States[4]. Respondents represented 194 U.S. dioceses and eparchies. The gender distribution was 63% women and 37% men. Age distribution was diverse, with 6% under 25, 20% aged 25-44, 12% aged 45-54, 23% aged 55-64, 24% aged 65-74, and 16% aged 75 and older. Racially, 85% identified as white and 15% as minorities. Regarding Mass attendance, 21% exclusively attended the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), 43% primarily attended the Novus Ordo Mass with occasional TLM attendance, and 36% exclusively attended the Novus Ordo[5].

Issues Contributing to the Decline in Belief
Respondents evaluated 28 potential issues affecting belief in the Real Presence using a 5-point scale ranging from “NO IMPACT” to “GREATEST IMPACT.” Additionally, 42% provided open-ended feedback, resulting in 5,313 responses totaling over 220,000 words[6]. The top five issues identified were:

Receiving the Eucharist in the hand while standing
Many respondents advocated for receiving the Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue, considering it a more reverent practice. Concerns were raised that Communion in the hand leads to a loss of reverence and increases the risk of profaning the Eucharist. There was also widespread discomfort with the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, with many suggesting that only priests and deacons should distribute the Eucharist[7].

Scandal from offering the Holy Eucharist to public sinners who obstinately reject Catholic teaching
A significant source of frustration among respondents was the failure of Church authorities to enforce Canon 915, particularly concerning Catholic politicians who publicly support positions contrary to Church teachings. Many viewed this as hypocrisy and a sign of weak leadership, which they felt undermines the Church’s moral authority and causes scandal among the faithful[8].

Lack of humility and reverence in the presence of the Eucharist
Concerns were raised over a general decline in reverence during Mass, including casual dress, loud talking, and treating the Mass as a social event. Clergy were also criticized for their lack of reverence, with reports of priests rushing through liturgical prayers and failing to handle the Eucharist with due care[9].

Clergy’s casual attitude towards the Eucharist
Many respondents perceived that some clergy do not genuinely believe in the Real Presence, leading to a casual or even irreverent approach to the Eucharist. There were concerns about the informal conduct of priests during Mass, which was seen as undermining the sanctity of the Eucharist[10].

Failure to catechize the faithful on transubstantiation
Decades of inadequate catechesis have left many Catholics uninformed about the doctrine of transubstantiation. There was a strong call for better religious education in Catholic schools, CCD programs, and adult catechesis[11].

Recommendations to the Bishops

When asked for their top recommendation to U.S. bishops on restoring belief in the Real Presence, respondents prioritized:

1. Encouraging the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling (29%)
2. Improving catechesis on the Eucharist (24%)
3. Promoting greater reverence in worship (10%)
4. Eliminating Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (10%)
5. Withholding the Eucharist from public officials who reject Catholic teaching (9%)
6. Increasing Eucharistic events and devotions (4%)
7. Other suggestions (15%)

Notably, many respondents who selected “OTHER” emphasized implementing all or most of the listed recommendations[12].

Additional Observations
Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees reported a higher frequency of weekly Mass attendance and confession compared to Novus Ordo attendees, suggesting a stronger commitment to traditional sacramental practices. TLM respondents also demonstrated a greater belief in the Real Presence, reinforcing the link between traditional liturgical practices and doctrinal fidelity. Additionally, TLM attendees tended to be younger than those who primarily attend the Novus Ordo, reflecting a growing youth-driven interest in traditional Catholicism. Among Novus Ordo attendees, the majority preferred receiving the Eucharist from a priest or deacon rather than from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, further highlighting a desire for a return to more traditional liturgical norms[13].

Conclusion
The results of this survey confirm what many in traditional Catholic circles have long observed: the erosion of faith in the Real Presence is directly tied to widespread liturgical abuse, poor catechesis, and the failure of Church leaders to uphold doctrine through both teaching and discipline. If the bishops truly wish to restore belief in the Eucharist, they must heed these findings and take concrete action to reform current practices.

Yet, it is evident that the responsibility for restoring Eucharistic faith cannot rest solely on the hierarchy. Traditional Catholic apostolates, clergy, and lay movements must take up the mission of re-catechizing the faithful, fostering reverence in worship, and ensuring the next generation receives the formation it has been denied for decades. The results show that where the Traditional Latin Mass is thriving, belief in the Real Presence remains strong. The duty now falls upon traditional Catholic apostolates to continue their efforts with renewed vigor, ensuring that the faith is preserved and passed on intact.

With the Synod on Synodality in its final phase, purportedly centered on “listening,” a pressing question remains: will Church leaders heed the voices of nearly 16,000 lay Catholics, or will these concerns continue to be ignored? 🔝

[1] Pew Research Center, “What Americans Know About Religion,” 2019
[2] Real Presence Coalition, Member List, 2024
[3] Real Presence Coalition, Survey Methodology, 2024
[4] Public Opinion Strategies, “Catholic Eucharistic Belief Survey,” 2024
[5] RPC Survey Executive Summary, 2024
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.

---

Silent Prayer and ‘Two-Tier Policing’: Vaughn-Spruce rearrested

The recent arrest of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce—for the third time—has reignited concerns over “two-tier policing” in the UK. Vaughan-Spruce, a pro-life activist, was detained once again for silently praying near an abortion facility, despite having previously been acquitted in court and receiving an apology from West Midlands Police¹.

Her arrest comes amid increasing criticism of the Home Office’s counter-extremism strategy, which dismisses concerns about “two-tier policing” as a “right-wing extremist narrative”². This stance, outlined in a recent government dossier and reported by The Telegraph, has sparked backlash from legal experts, civil rights advocates, and religious groups.

What is “Two-Tier Policing”?
Critics argue that law enforcement is selective in its application of public order laws, disproportionately targeting peaceful expressions of faith and conscience while allowing other forms of public demonstration—including disruptive protests—to continue with relative impunity³.

Vaughan-Spruce herself responded to the Home Office’s stance, stating: “The outright dismissal of widespread concerns about ‘two-tier policing’ runs contrary to the experience of countless everyday British people. If the law permits me to be arrested for the mere act of silent prayer, while other, more serious offenses go unchecked, then we have a serious problem with how justice is being applied in our country.”⁴

Legal Challenges and a Pattern of Arrests
This latest incident is not isolated. Vaughan-Spruce’s previous arrests under buffer zone regulations—designed to prevent protests outside abortion facilities—were widely condemned, particularly after her full acquittal⁵. Similarly, Dia Moodley, a Christian preacher, was arrested in Bristol for engaging in a theological discussion about Islam and Christianity, further fueling concerns that free speech is under threat⁶.

According to Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, the evidence suggests a troubling pattern: “Over the last three years, we have seen multiple arrests of individuals for praying or offering help near abortion clinics, while at the same time, crime statistics show a decline in effective policing elsewhere. The selective enforcement of laws risks undermining public confidence in the rule of law itself.”⁷

A Growing Legal Battle
The controversy is set to intensify as a Dorset retiree faces trial on March 6 for simply holding a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want” near an abortion facility—yet another case under buffer zone regulations⁸.

With Vaughan-Spruce’s re-arrest, legal experts warn that the battle over freedom of expression and the equal application of the law is far from over. The Home Office’s refusal to acknowledge concerns over “two-tier policing” only adds to mounting evidence that Britain is at a crossroads regarding civil liberties⁹.

As arrests for silent prayer continue, the question remains: Is Britain still a nation that upholds freedom of thought and expression, or are we witnessing the erosion of these fundamental rights under the guise of “public order” enforcement? 🔝

1. ADF International, Police target mere presence under buffer zone laws, 2024. Available at: https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/police-target-mere-presence-buffer-zone.
2. LBC, Home Office labels two-tier policing a far-right ‘narrative’, 2024. Available at: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/home-office-extremism-two-tier-policing-far-right.
3. ADF International, Silent prayer under scrutiny, 2024. Available at: https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/police-target-mere-presence-buffer-zone.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. ADF International, UK free speech under threat: Legal experts warn of bias, 2024. Available at: https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/police-target-mere-presence-buffer-zone.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.

---

Kristie Higgs Triumphs as Court of Appeal Declares Dismissal for Free Speech Unlawful

12 February 2025 Kristie Higgs has secured a landmark victory in the Court of Appeal, reaffirming the fundamental right to freedom of speech and religious expression.

In a ruling of immense significance for Christian liberties, the Court of Appeal overturned a previous judgment that had upheld the dismissal of Kristie Higgs from Farmor’s School in Gloucestershire. Her only “offense” had been to express, on her personal Facebook account, concerns about the promotion of extreme sex education and transgender ideology in her son’s Church of England primary school.

This pivotal decision, delivered by Lord Justice Underhill, Lord Justice Bean, and Lady Justice Falk, redefines the legal understanding of religious discrimination in England, providing renewed protection for Christians who uphold traditional moral teachings in the public sphere.

For six years, Mrs. Higgs, aged 48, endured a protracted legal battle with the support of the Christian Legal Centre. She was represented in court by barrister Richard O’Dair.

A Precedent for Freedom of Religion in the Workplace
The ruling confirms that the Equality Act protects traditional Christian beliefs on moral and social issues, including the rejection of transgender ideology and same-sex “marriage.”

This authoritative judgment has reshaped employment law by effectively establishing a legal presumption that dismissing an employee for expressing Christian convictions is unlawful. Employers must now prove, before an Employment Tribunal, that any such dismissal meets stringent legal tests: it must be objectively justified, prescribed by law, proportionate, and necessary in a democratic society to address a pressing social need.

The Court of Appeal firmly concluded that such dismissals would be lawful only if they could be objectively justified under these criteria.

A ‘Disproportionate Response’
During the case, Mrs. Higgs’ former employer argued that her dismissal was not based on her Christian beliefs but rather on the language she used in her social media posts.

This claim was rejected outright by the judges, who ruled that her
“dismissal was unquestionably a disproportionate response.”

They further stated: “Even if the language of the re-posts passes the threshold of objectionability, it is not grossly offensive.”

The judges noted that there was no evidence of reputational harm to the school:
“There was no evidence that the reputation of the School had thus far been damaged: its concern was about potential damage in the future. As it also accepted, there was no possibility that, even if readers of the posts associated the Claimant with the School, they would believe that they represented its own views.

“Any reputational damage would only take the form of the fear expressed by the complainant, namely that the Claimant might express at work the homophobic and transphobic attitudes arguably implicit in the language used. I accept that if that belief became widespread it could harm the School’s reputation in the community, as the panel clearly thought. But the risk of widespread circulation was speculative at best. The posts were made on her personal Facebook account, in her maiden name and with no reference to the School. By the time of the hearing, several weeks after the posts were made, only one person was known to have recognised who she was.”

Moreover, the ruling made it clear that:
“Even if readers of the posts might fear that the Claimant would let her views influence her work, neither the panel nor the ET believed that she would do so. There was no reason to doubt her assertion that her concern was specifically about the content of sex education in primary schools; that she ‘wouldn’t bring this into school’; and that she would never treat gay or trans pupils differently. There had indeed been no complaints about any aspect of her work for over six years.”

The judges further concluded:
“Taking those reasons together, I do not believe that dismissal was even arguably a proportionate sanction for the Claimant’s conduct. It was no doubt unwise of her to re-post material expressed in (to use the ET’s words) florid and provocative language with which she did not agree, and in circumstances where people were liable to realise her connection with the School. But I cannot accept that that can justify her dismissal, and still less so where she was a long-serving employee against whose actual work there was no complaint of any kind.”

Consequently, the Court overturned the previous decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal to remit the case for a re-trial. Instead, it ruled decisively:
“We should ourselves hold that the Claimant’s dismissal constituted unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion and belief.”

‘Ideological Censorship Declared Illegal’
Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of the Christian Legal Centre, celebrated the ruling:
“Free speech and religious liberty are not yet extinguished from English law. The outcome of Kristie’s case sets an important legal precedent for many years to come.

“The Court of Appeal has confirmed, loud and clear, that ideological censorship in the workplace is illegal, and any employer who tramples upon their employees’ right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion breaks the law of the land.

“This is a great victory for Kristie, who lost her job and livelihood for doing no more than expressing her dismay at the nonsensical ideas of gender-fluidity being taught to her child at a Church of England primary school.

“This is also a victory for the many others who went before Kristie, such as Victoria Wasteney and the late Richard Page, who were also dismissed for their Christian beliefs in the years past, and sought justice in vain. Yet, at a stroke of a pen, decades of unfair decisions which denied justice to Christians have now been re-interpreted by the Court of Appeal and explained away as no more than exceptions which prove the rule.

“This decision proves that our work at the Christian Legal Centre in all those cases over all those years has not been in vain. For all those who stood with us through much darker days of our 16-year-old battle for freedom, it is now time to rejoice and give thanks to God.” 🔝

1. Court of Appeal ruling in Higgs v. Farmor’s School, [2025] EWCA Civ XXX.
2. Equality Act 2010, c. 15, s. 10 (religion and belief).
3. Employment Rights Act 1996, c. 18, s. 94 (unfair dismissal).
4. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion).
5. Previous cases involving Christian discrimination in employment: Wasteney v. East London NHS Trust [2016] UKEAT/0157/15; Page v. NHS Trust Development Authority [2019] EWCA Civ 127.

---

Teacher Granted Appeal Against Lifetime Teaching Ban for ‘Misgendering’ Student

Kevin Lister, a former mathematics teacher, has been granted the right to appeal his lifetime ban from the profession, a decision that could have significant implications for educators and free speech in schools. Lister was originally banned after he allegedly “misgendered” a transgender student, a case that has sparked national debate over the balance between biological reality, ideological enforcement, and professional expectations in education.

The Background of the Case
Lister, a veteran teacher with years of experience, found himself at the center of controversy when he was accused of failing to use a student’s preferred pronouns. According to reports, the incident occurred when Lister refused to refer to a biologically female student as male, citing concerns over scientific integrity and safeguarding¹.

At the time, Lister argued that schools should not compel teachers to affirm gender identities that conflict with biological sex, particularly when dealing with minors². He maintained that the expectation for teachers to override biological reality in favor of ideological positions was inappropriate, especially within an academic environment where facts and critical thinking should take precedence.

Following complaints, the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) ruled against Lister, imposing a lifetime ban that effectively ended his teaching career³. The decision led to his financial hardship, as he was unable to find paid employment in the education sector for over two years⁴.

Lister’s Response and Appeal
Upon receiving news that his appeal had been granted, Lister expressed hope that “reality and common sense” would prevail⁵. Speaking to media outlets, he emphasized that this case could set a precedent for educators facing similar pressures to comply with ideological mandates⁶.

“The outcome of this appeal will not just affect me—it will impact every teacher across the country who values truth and professional integrity,” Lister said. “We need to have a serious conversation about the role of educators and whether they should be forced to adopt policies that contradict scientific principles and personal conscience.”

His supporters argue that the original decision represents a dangerous precedent, forcing teachers to affirm beliefs they do not hold under the threat of losing their livelihoods⁷. Critics of his stance, however, claim that refusing to acknowledge a student’s preferred pronouns constitutes discrimination and could contribute to an unwelcoming school environment⁸.

Legal and Educational Implications
The case raises serious questions about the limits of compelled speech in the classroom and whether teachers should be required to use language that conflicts with their personal beliefs⁹. While anti-discrimination laws aim to protect transgender students, they also intersect with issues of free speech, religious liberty, and professional autonomy¹⁰.

Many legal analysts suggest that Lister’s appeal could result in a reassessment of current policies, particularly concerning the enforcement of gender ideology in schools. If the appeal is successful, it may lead to new guidelines that provide greater protections for teachers who wish to maintain neutrality or adhere to biological definitions of sex¹¹.

Public Reaction and the Broader Debate
The public response to Lister’s case has been deeply divided. Advocates for transgender rights insist that respecting students’ gender identities is a fundamental aspect of inclusivity and well-being. They argue that misgendering students can cause psychological distress and contribute to bullying and discrimination¹².

Conversely, many parents, teachers, and free speech advocates worry that such policies infringe on educators’ rights and set a dangerous precedent for compelled ideological conformity. Some point out that affirming gender transitions in minors is a highly contested practice, with medical professionals divided on the long-term consequences¹³.

Several conservative and gender-critical groups have rallied behind Lister, arguing that his case highlights the growing risks of ideological enforcement in education. They contend that teachers should not be punished for holding views that, until recently, aligned with mainstream scientific and societal understandings of sex and gender¹⁴.

What’s Next?
Lister’s appeal will be closely monitored by educators, legal experts, and advocacy groups across the UK. If his appeal is successful, it could prompt a review of policies regarding gender identity in schools, potentially leading to new protections for teachers who wish to maintain a factual and scientific approach to sex and gender discussions.

As the appeal process unfolds, the case serves as a crucial test for the balance between inclusion and free speech, safeguarding and ideology, and the role of educators in an increasingly polarized cultural landscape. 🔝

1. GB News, “Teacher banned for ‘misgendering’ trans pupil given right to appeal ‘absurd’ ban: ‘The tide is turning!'” GB News, 12 February 2025. https://www.gbnews.com/news/trans-row-teacher-banned-misgendering-appeal-ban
2. Employment Tribunal Decision, “Mr K Lister v New College Swindon: 1404223/2022,” GOV.UK, 27 March 2024. https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-k-lister-v-new-college-swindon-1404223-2022
3. Teaching Regulation Agency, “Decision on the case of Kevin Lister,” TRA Official Rulings, 2024.
4. Lister, Kevin. Personal Statement Regarding TRA Ban, Interview with GB News, 2025.
5. GB News, Interview with Kevin Lister on Appeal, February 2025.
6. Free Speech Union, “The Impact of Compelled Speech on Educators,” Policy Briefing, March 2024.
7. Legal Analysis in The Times: “Free Speech and the Gender Debate in Schools,” 10 April 2024.
8. Stonewall, “The Importance of Gender Recognition in Schools,” 2024 Policy Report.
9. Equality and Human Rights Commission, “Guidance on Free Speech and Gender Identity in Educational Settings,” 2023.
10. UK Equality Act (2010), Section on Education and Protected Characteristics.
11. Policy Exchange, “Balancing Rights in Schools: Gender Identity vs. Free Speech,” 2023 Report.
12. American Psychological Association, “The Impact of Misgendering on Adolescent Mental Health,” Journal of Adolescent Psychology, 2022.
13. Cass Review, “Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People,” NHS England, 2023.
14. Sex Matters, “Scientific Consensus on Sex and Gender: What Schools Need to Know,” 2023.

---

The State of Free Speech in Britain: Legislation, Islamophobia, and the Impact of the Online Safety Bill

Introduction: The right to free speech has long been considered a fundamental principle of democratic societies, especially in the United Kingdom, where its origins are tied to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1689. However, in recent decades, the scope of free speech in Britain has been increasingly constrained by legal measures designed to address issues such as hate speech, religious sensitivities, and online harm. One of the most controversial recent developments is the Labour government’s proposal to criminalize Islamophobia and the broader impact of the Online Safety Bill. This paper evaluates the risks these developments pose to free speech and considers the implications for both citizens and legal practitioners. It also discusses the role of organizations like the Free Speech Union in defending speech rights against state overreach.

The Islamophobia Definition and the Erosion of Free Speech: In 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APG) on British Muslims published a report that defined Islamophobia as “a form of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness.”¹ This definition has raised significant concerns among critics, including Lord Toby Young, who argues that it conflates legitimate criticism of Islam with racial prejudice. According to Young, such broad definitions could easily criminalize individuals expressing concerns about the overrepresentation of Muslims in certain criminal activities or the historical imposition of Islam on conquered populations.² The Labour Party’s formal endorsement of this definition in 2019 has prompted further fears that legitimate expressions of free speech may be curtailed under the guise of protecting religious sensibilities.

One of the most concerning aspects of this definition is its potential to classify criticism of Islam, including historical analysis or social commentary, as Islamophobic. As Young highlights, the example of pointing out the overrepresentation of Muslims in “rape gangs” or discussing Islam’s violent history could be considered Islamophobic under this broad definition.³ Critics argue that this could lead to the criminalization of individuals who simply wish to discuss these topics within a factual, historical, or sociological context.⁴ This includes matters such as the criticism of practices such as child marriage or Sharia law, which some see as incompatible with Western values. Further, as Young argues, limiting speech on the grounds of potentially offending Muslims may create an environment where only one side of a conversation is allowed to thrive—thereby undermining pluralism and the democratic process.

Case Examples of Potential Islamophobia Prosecutions: Young references several examples to highlight the potential dangers of the Islamophobia definition. One example is the case of individuals discussing the issue of “rape gangs” in the UK. Young contends that pointing out the overrepresentation of Muslims in such criminal activities could easily fall under the umbrella of Islamophobia, even when these comments are based on factual observations. The UK’s political landscape has witnessed public debates over the criminal activities of certain grooming gangs, most notably in the Rotherham and Rochdale cases, where members of the gangs were predominantly from Muslim communities. These debates are often critical for societal progress, but the fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” has led to self-censorship, preventing open discussion of the matter.⁵ Such limitations to free speech are particularly troubling because they preclude necessary debates regarding the social and cultural issues that arise from these phenomena.

In another example, Young discusses the situation in which someone might write a historically accurate account of the imposition of Islam on conquered populations, such as during the early Islamic conquests. According to the 2018 APG definition, such an account would be considered Islamophobic, even though it is a well-documented historical fact. Young warns that this broad definition could lead to a situation where historians and academics feel compelled to self-censor out of fear of legal repercussions, effectively stifling academic freedom and the pursuit of truth in historical discourse. In particular, this stifling effect on academic inquiry is dangerous as it undermines the role of education in providing diverse perspectives and fostering critical thinking.

The Rise of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs): Another significant development in recent years is the rise of “non-crime hate incidents” (NCHIs), where individuals are recorded by police for actions or speech deemed to be offensive or discriminatory, even when no crime has occurred. The 2006 Public Order Act allows police to charge individuals for causing harassment, alarm, or distress, but the definition of what constitutes such behavior has become increasingly ambiguous. According to Young, the increasing use of NCHIs to suppress free speech is a troubling trend.⁶ In particular, he points to cases where individuals have been investigated or prosecuted for controversial but legally protected expressions, such as burning a Quran or expressing disapproval of certain social policies.

One example Young frequently cites is the case of Harry Miller, a former police officer, who was investigated by Humberside Police for tweeting a satirical verse about transgender people. Miller’s case gained widespread attention when it was revealed that the police had recorded the tweet as a non-crime hate incident. Miller’s satirical tweet was designed to critique transgender ideology, not incite harm or violence. However, the police treated it as a serious offense, leading to significant public backlash and a legal challenge. The case was eventually taken to court, where the High Court ruled that the police had acted unlawfully in recording the incident, although the guidance provided by the College of Policing was not deemed unlawful.⁷ This case illustrates the overreach of NCHIs and the challenges individuals face when their freedom of expression is curtailed by vague legal definitions. It also serves as a cautionary tale for those who wish to express politically incorrect opinions in an age where there is increasing pressure for state actors to police online content.

The Manchester Quran Burning Case: Young also discusses the case of a man in Manchester who was charged with the offense of intentionally causing harassment, alarm, or distress after burning a Quran. This case is notable because the individual in question was expressing personal disapproval of Islam, a practice that, while offensive to some, is legally protected under the principle of free expression in Britain. Young argues that prosecuting individuals for acts such as burning a religious text undermines the protections offered under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards freedom of expression.⁸ The prosecution of such acts, Young suggests, may be part of a broader trend towards criminalizing speech that challenges prevailing social or political views. The case raises important questions about whether a state, in a pluralistic society, should be able to curtail speech based on the religious sensitivities of certain communities.

However, the legal implications of this case also underscore the tension between the protection of religious beliefs and the rights of individuals to express dissent. The criminalization of actions such as burning a religious text raises the possibility of a slippery slope where any form of speech that challenges religious or political ideologies is considered unlawful. For instance, as Young points out, such a framework could extend to the prohibition of discussions that critique or question any religion or ideology, potentially limiting the broader spectrum of open discourse necessary in democratic societies.

Case Example: Jamie Michael and the Southport Riots: One recent example of the potential impact of the Online Safety Bill and NCHIs is the case of Jamie Michael, a former Royal Marine who posted a video on Facebook urging others to peacefully express their outrage over the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport. Despite making it clear that he was not inciting violence, Michael was investigated by the police, and his video was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for possible prosecution. This case highlights the dangers of overregulation, as Michael was charged with stirring up racial hatred, even though his video did not incite violence.⁹ Michael’s case is particularly concerning because it illustrates how the law is increasingly being used to suppress political speech and protest, even when it is nonviolent and does not incite immediate harm.

In this case, the Free Speech Union provided legal support to Michael, arguing that his actions were firmly within the bounds of protected speech. Michael ultimately pled not guilty, and the jury acquitted him after only 17 minutes of deliberation. Young points out that had more individuals in similar situations pled not guilty, they too would have likely been acquitted. This case exemplifies the dangers of prosecuting individuals for expressing political views that some find offensive but that do not lead to public disorder.¹⁰ Such cases also reveal the limitations in how laws governing free speech can be interpreted by the courts, with some judges willing to prioritize political considerations over constitutional guarantees.

The Online Safety Bill: State Overreach in the Digital Age: The Online Safety Bill represents a new frontier in the regulation of speech, particularly online. Initially designed to protect children from harmful content, the bill has raised concerns about potential censorship and government overreach. One of the key provisions of the bill is its ability to compel social media platforms to remove content deemed to be harmful, even if it does not break existing laws. This includes content that might be categorized as “legal but harmful.”¹¹ The Free Speech Union has been active in opposing this provision, which it views as a significant threat to free speech, particularly if the government or regulatory bodies like Ofcom are empowered to define what is “harmful.”

Young warns that this provision could lead to politically motivated censorship, where the state or powerful lobbying groups might pressure social media platforms to remove content that challenges the status quo. He refers to a case in which the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, a pro-censorship group, sought to classify content related to the Manchester riots as “dangerous” in order to have it removed from social media platforms.¹² Young argues that such a system would allow the government to dictate what can and cannot be said online, even when the content is not illegal. This would potentially lead to the suppression of political dissent and controversial opinions that are crucial to a healthy democracy.

Case Example: The Batley Grammar School Controversy: Further demonstrating the challenges to free speech in the UK is the controversy surrounding Batley Grammar School. In 2021, a teacher at the school showed a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad to his class as part of a discussion about freedom of speech and blasphemy. Following protests from some Muslim parents and accusations of blasphemy, the teacher was placed in hiding and faced severe repercussions. This case highlights the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and respecting religious sensitivities. The teacher’s decision to show the cartoon, which was legally permissible in the UK, resulted in a severe response from certain sections of the community. Lord Young references this case to underscore the growing climate of fear surrounding free speech in educational and public spaces.¹³

This case underscores a broader issue: the willingness of some segments of the population to impose self-censorship or even coercion in the face of perceived religious offense. This problem is compounded by the increasing pressure from local political figures and activists to curb certain types of speech, regardless of their legal status. It illustrates the danger of normalizing self-censorship and the chilling effect this has on open discussion.

The Role of the Free Speech Union: The Free Speech Union, under the leadership of Young, has become an important advocacy group in defending individuals against legal actions taken due to the rise of NCHIs and restrictive speech laws. The Union has been involved in numerous cases, including the defense of Jamie Michael and Harry Miller, and has advocated for greater legal protections for free speech, especially in the face of increasing state interference in expression. The Union has also worked to challenge the criminalization of so-called “Islamophobic” comments and has been vocal in opposing the Online Safety Bill, which it views as a tool for political censorship.

Young’s efforts at the Free Speech Union focus on the defense of individuals who face legal challenges for expressing opinions that challenge government policies or societal norms. Through its legal defense, advocacy, and public campaigns, the Union provides crucial support in the battle against the erosion of free speech rights. Young calls for stronger legal safeguards against state overreach and for a return to principles that uphold free expression as essential to a free and democratic society.

Conclusion: The recent trends in Britain towards criminalizing free speech, particularly in the form of the Islamophobia definition, NCHIs, and the Online Safety Bill, pose significant threats to individual expression. As Lord Toby Young argues, these developments risk creating a society where speech is heavily regulated by the state and those who express controversial opinions are subject to legal consequences. The Free Speech Union’s work in defending individuals against these threats is essential in preserving the democratic right to free expression. The paper concludes by calling for a return to the English common law principle of “breach of the peace,” a more robust defense of Article 10 rights, and a reversal of policies that prioritize political correctness over free speech. 🔝

1. All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined (2018), 5.
2. Toby Young, “Islamophobia and Free Speech,” The Daily Skeptic, 2019.
3. Young, “Islamophobia Law and Its Implications,” interview, The Winston Marshall Show (2025).
4. Ibid.
5. The Rotherham Abuse Scandal: Political and Social Responses (2014).
6. Young, “The Rise of Non-Crime Hate Incidents,” The Daily Skeptic, 2020.
7. Free Speech Union, Annual Report on Free Speech Cases (2022).
8. European Court of Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
9. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Online Safety Bill (UK Government, 2021).
10. Young, “The Online Safety Bill: A Threat to Free Speech,” The Daily Skeptic, 2021.
11. Ibid.
12. Centre for Countering Digital Hate, How Social Media Platforms Are Regulated (2021).
13. “Batley Grammar School Controversy: The Clash Between Freedom of Speech and Religious Sensitivity,” The Guardian (2021).
14. Ministry of Justice, The Common Law and Free Speech (UK Government, 2019).

---

Archbishop of Selsey Challenges Brighton & Hove Council’s Community Safety Strategy

The Most Reverend Dr. Jerome Lloyd, Titular Archbishop of Selsey, has submitted a formal response to Brighton & Hove City Council, raising serious concerns about the implications of its Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh). His critique focuses on potential risks to religious freedom, free speech, and the fair application of counter-extremism policies, urging the Council to revise the document in line with UK law and human rights protections.

Concerns Over Free Speech and Religious Expression

While the Council’s strategy aims to tackle crime, extremism, and hate incidents, the Archbishop warns that its broad and vague definitions risk restricting lawful religious discourse and faith-based teaching. In particular, the strategy’s definition of hate incidents as any act perceived as motivated by hostility (p.34) fails to reflect the legal safeguards established in Miller v College of Policing (2021), which ruled that subjective perception alone cannot determine a hate incident¹.

“Under this framework, religious leaders, educators, and faith-based organisations could find themselves accused of hate incidents simply for upholding traditional teachings on marriage, gender, or morality. This is a serious threat to the principles of free speech and religious liberty that our society is built upon,” the Archbishop cautioned.

He also points out that the strategy omits any reference to Forstater v CGD Europe (2021), which affirmed that beliefs in the immutability of biological sex are protected under the Equality Act 2010². Faith communities that uphold theological doctrines recognising sex as binary may find themselves unfairly scrutinised under the Council’s broad approach to hate speech.

Prevent Strategy: Risk of Overreach and Ideological Bias

One of the most contentious aspects of the strategy is its Prevent section (p.41), which aims to counter radicalisation by monitoring a “diverse spread of narratives and beliefs” that could be exploited by extremists³. The Archbishop argues that the language used in this section risks criminalising dissent, stifling debate, and disproportionately targeting faith-based communities.

“It is troubling that the document lists ‘anti-establishment narratives’ as a potential sign of extremism. Throughout history, many of the greatest moral voices—faith leaders, civil rights advocates, and reformers—have challenged the status quo. We cannot allow a policy that casts suspicion on those who merely question prevailing ideologies,” he stated.

The Independent Review of Prevent (2023) has already criticised the disproportionate focus on right-wing extremism at the expense of addressing Islamist radicalisation, which remains the UK’s primary terror threat⁴. The Archbishop highlights that Brighton & Hove’s strategy reflects the same imbalance, giving the impression of ideological bias rather than an even-handed counter-extremism approach.

Concerns Over Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Measures

The Community Safety Strategy’s definition of ASB (p.31) also comes under scrutiny. The document states that ASB includes conduct that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress—a definition that lacks clarity and does not align with the Public Order Act 1986, which requires an intent or recklessness threshold for such behaviour to be deemed unlawful⁵.

The Archbishop warns that faith-based moral teachings could be misclassified as ASB, particularly in churches, faith schools, and religious institutions that uphold traditional doctrines on sex, gender, and marriage. He references Williamson v Secretary of State for Education (2005), which established that faith-based schools have the right to teach their beliefs, even if they contradict mainstream views⁶.

“Faith communities must not be pressured to abandon their deeply held convictions due to vague and overreaching policies. The strategy must be refined to ensure that it upholds legal protections for religious expression, rather than enabling viewpoint discrimination,” he urged.

Call for Revisions and Legal Safeguards

In his response, the Archbishop presents a series of recommendations to ensure that the strategy aligns with UK law and human rights protections:

✅ Amend the definition of hate incidents to reflect Miller v College of Policing (2021) and ensure lawful religious speech is not wrongly recorded as a hate crime.
✅ Clarify ASB policies to ensure religious expression is protected under the Public Order Act 1986.
✅ Ensure the Prevent strategy does not conflate lawful faith-based critique of government policies or societal issues with extremism.
✅ Introduce an explicit free speech clause confirming that lawful religious discourse, including teachings on gender and marriage, is protected under the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Articles 9 & 10).

A Warning Against Ideological Overreach

The Archbishop’s response comes at a critical time when faith-based institutions are increasingly concerned about ideological enforcement through public policy.

“Brighton & Hove’s commitment to inclusivity must extend to all protected characteristics, including religious belief. This strategy, as it stands, risks prioritising one ideological perspective over others, potentially criminalising legitimate faith-based expression. That is why it is imperative that these concerns are addressed before the strategy is finalised,” he concluded.

With this formal challenge to Brighton & Hove City Council, the Archbishop calls for greater transparency, fairness, and legal precision in the city’s approach to community safety—ensuring that all residents, including people of faith, are protected from discrimination and undue censorship. 🔝

1. Miller v College of Policing (2021) – Court of Appeal ruling on non-criminal hate incidents and freedom of expression.
2. Forstater v CGD Europe (2021) – Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling on gender-critical beliefs as protected under the Equality Act 2010.
3. Brighton & Hove City Council, DRAFT Community Safety Strategy 2023-26 (Year 2 Refresh).
4. Independent Review of Prevent (2023) – UK Government findings on counter-terrorism failures, available via the UK Home Office.
5. Public Order Act 1986 – Defines harassment, alarm, or distress offences and sets legal thresholds.
6. Williamson v Secretary of State for Education (2005) – UK Supreme Court ruling on religious freedom protections in education.

---

The Work of the Free Speech Union (FSU): Defending Free Expression in the Face of State Overreach

The Free Speech Union (FSU), founded in 2020 by Lord Toby Young, has emerged as a vital player in the battle to protect free speech in the United Kingdom, particularly in the face of increasingly restrictive legislation and cultural pressures. In the interview with Winston Marshall, Lord Young discusses how the FSU’s role has become increasingly critical as free speech is threatened by a range of legal measures, including the Labour Party’s endorsement of an expansive definition of Islamophobia, the criminalization of non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), and the forthcoming Online Safety Bill. Through its legal defense, advocacy, and public campaigns, the FSU works to defend individuals whose rights to free speech have been curtailed by state overreach and a growing culture of censorship.

Defending Individuals Facing Legal Repercussions for Free Speech: One of the core functions of the Free Speech Union is to provide legal defense for individuals whose freedom of expression has been challenged, whether in public forums, on social media, or within institutions like universities or workplaces. In his interview with Marshall, Lord Young describes how the FSU offers support to those accused of making statements or expressing opinions that, while controversial, are legally protected under the right to free speech.

Lord Young explains, “One of the primary goals of the Free Speech Union is to offer support for individuals who are facing legal challenges for expressing their opinions, whether it’s on the matter of Islamophobia, gender politics, or any other contentious subject. We provide legal representation and defend their right to speak freely.”^1 This legal assistance is essential in a climate where individuals may be pressured into silence due to the threat of prosecution or social ostracism. The FSU’s interventions, which often involve high-profile legal cases, have helped ensure that individuals maintain their right to free expression, even when their views are unpopular or offensive to some.

Challenging the Definition of Islamophobia: A significant area of concern for the FSU, as highlighted by Lord Young, is the increasingly broad definition of Islamophobia. In 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APG) on British Muslims released a report that redefined Islamophobia as “a form of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness.”^2 This definition has been adopted by the Labour Party and is being considered for formal legal inclusion, with the potential to criminalize the expression of certain views about Islam or Muslims.

In his interview, Lord Young warns, “The definition of Islamophobia, as proposed by the APG, is so broad and vague that it could easily be used to silence any criticism of Islam. Anyone who questions Islam, whether they’re pointing out facts about its history or raising legitimate concerns about its practices in contemporary society, could be accused of Islamophobia and subjected to legal consequences.”^3 This definition could result in individuals facing legal action for simply expressing their opinion on issues such as grooming gangs or the historical spread of Islam, even when these views are based on well-established facts.

The FSU has worked tirelessly to challenge this definition, arguing that it undermines free speech and stifles critical discourse. The Union has supported individuals who have been investigated by police or disciplined by employers for allegedly breaching this definition. By providing legal counsel and public advocacy, the FSU continues to argue that free speech must be protected, even when it challenges sensitive or controversial topics.

The Rise of Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs): Another area of concern for the Free Speech Union is the growing trend of “non-crime hate incidents” (NCHIs). These incidents are not technically crimes, but individuals can still be recorded in police databases for expressing views that others deem offensive or discriminatory. NCHIs have been used to investigate individuals for actions such as posting controversial opinions on social media, even when no actual crime has been committed.

Lord Young describes the problem: “The concept of non-crime hate incidents has become a serious issue. People are being investigated, reprimanded, and even penalized for nothing more than expressing politically incorrect opinions. The Free Speech Union is defending individuals who have had NCHIs recorded against them, because it’s a form of state overreach that threatens the fundamental right to express yourself without fear of government intervention.”^4

One of the most high-profile cases that the FSU has supported involves Harry Miller, a former police officer who was investigated by Humberside Police for tweeting a satirical verse about transgender people. Miller was investigated and had the incident recorded as a non-crime hate incident, despite the fact that his tweet was a legitimate exercise of free speech. After a protracted legal battle, the High Court ruled that the police’s actions had been unlawful, but the Court upheld the guidance used by the police to categorize the tweet as an NCHI.^5 This case has been pivotal for the FSU in its fight to prevent the further expansion of NCHIs, arguing that such practices create a chilling effect on free expression and curtail legitimate political speech.

The Online Safety Bill: A New Frontier in State Censorship: Lord Young and the Free Speech Union have also been vocal critics of the Online Safety Bill, which is set to regulate harmful content on social media platforms. While the bill was initially framed as a means of protecting children from harmful online content, critics, including Young, argue that it could lead to an unprecedented level of censorship. The bill includes provisions for removing “legal but harmful” content, which could encompass a wide range of opinions and statements that some might find offensive, even though they are not unlawful.

Lord Young explains, “The Online Safety Bill is another example of the government overstepping its bounds. The law gives government regulators the power to force social media platforms to remove content that isn’t illegal but is deemed to be harmful. This creates an enormous amount of uncertainty, as platforms and users will have no clear idea of what content will be censored. It’s a license for censorship, and the Free Speech Union is actively fighting it.”^6

The FSU has been active in lobbying against this bill, arguing that it will empower government bodies like Ofcom to enforce politically motivated censorship. The Union fears that such powers will lead to the suppression of political dissent and controversial opinions that are essential to open discourse in a democracy. The FSU’s work in this area has included public campaigns, legal challenges, and media outreach to educate the public about the potential dangers of the bill.

Protecting the Right to Express Unpopular Views: In addition to defending individuals in legal cases, the Free Speech Union works to foster a broader cultural defense of free speech. Young’s leadership of the Union has centered on encouraging individuals to stand up for their right to express themselves without fear of reprisal, even when their views are unpopular or controversial. He asserts, “The Union is about ensuring that people can say what they think and not be punished for it. We believe that a society in which people are afraid to speak their minds is one that is in deep trouble.”

Lord Young’s comments and the work of the FSU underline a fundamental point: the defense of free speech is not merely about protecting those with views that are widely accepted, but about ensuring that the rights of individuals to express dissenting or unpopular views are not infringed upon. Whether it’s discussing contentious topics such as religion, politics, or social issues, free speech plays a vital role in maintaining a healthy and dynamic society.

Conclusion: The work of the Free Speech Union, under the leadership of Lord Toby Young, represents a critical effort to protect free speech in the United Kingdom. From challenging the broad definitions of Islamophobia to opposing the criminalization of non-crime hate incidents and lobbying against the Online Safety Bill, the FSU has become a vital organization for defending individual expression in the face of increasing governmental and social pressures. As Lord Young has emphasized, the Union’s mission is not only to provide legal support for individuals facing persecution for their speech but also to foster a broader societal commitment to the right to free expression. The ongoing work of the Free Speech Union is essential to ensuring that free speech remains protected in Britain, even as legal and cultural challenges to this fundamental right continue to grow. 🔝

1. Young, Toby. Interview with Winston Marshall, The Winston Marshall Show, 2025.
2. All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined (2018), 5.
3. Young, Toby. “Islamophobia and Free Speech,” The Daily Skeptic, 2019.
4. Young, Toby. “The Rise of Non-Crime Hate Incidents,” The Daily Skeptic, 2020.
5. R (on the application of Miller) v. The College of Policing [2020] EWHC 225.
6. Young, Toby. “The Online Safety Bill: A Threat to Free Speech,” The Daily Skeptic, 2021.

---

Contrast Between Vatican’s Immigration Enforcement and Pope Francis’s Criticism of the USA and VP Vance

Vatican’s Immigration Crackdown
The Catholic News Agency reports that the Vatican has imposed stricter penalties for illegal entry, particularly targeting those who use violence, deception, or threats to gain access. This policy, codified in recent legal revisions, includes prison sentences of up to four years and fines as high as 25,000 euros. The goal appears to be maintaining security and order within Vatican City, a microstate with unique vulnerabilities given its high-profile nature, religious significance, and diplomatic role¹.

These measures are likely influenced by concerns over terrorism, unauthorized protests, and disruptions within the Vatican’s small territorial confines. Unlike broader immigration policies applied to large nation-states, the Vatican’s enforcement pertains to a highly specific, enclosed environment.

Pope Francis’s Criticism of U.S. Immigration Policies
In contrast, Pope Francis has strongly criticized the United States—particularly its immigration enforcement under former President Trump and the new administration of President J.D. Vance. His comments in a letter to U.S. bishops, reported by Reuters, denounce the U.S. for mass deportations and the prioritization of national security over humanitarian concerns².

Francis describes these policies as “damaging the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families,” placing them in “a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.” He warns that actions based purely on force rather than moral truth will lead to “a crisis that will end badly”—suggesting that the U.S. approach is not only unjust but ultimately self-defeating².

His moral framework contrasts with nationalistic policies that prioritize border security over the universal dignity of individuals, especially migrants and refugees. While he acknowledges a government’s duty to manage immigration, he repeatedly calls for policies that balance security with mercy and solidarity.

Pope Francis’s Interpretation of Ordo Amoris: A Theological Debate
Pope Francis also directly countered remarks by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who defended restrictive immigration policies using the theological concept of “ordo amoris” (the “order of love”). AP News reports that Vance argued that a government should first and foremost prioritize the well-being of its own citizens before addressing the needs of migrants³.

Francis rejected this interpretation, insisting that Christian love is not a concentric circle that excludes outsiders but rather a “fraternity open to all.” He invoked the Parable of the Good Samaritan to emphasize that true Christian charity does not limit itself to people of the same nation, race, or background. This statement implicitly rebukes policies that justify restricting aid to foreigners on the grounds of national preference³.

However, this interpretation of ordo amoris has faced theological and philosophical criticism:

1. Misapplication of a Thomistic Principle – Critics argue that ordo amoris, a concept rooted in St. Thomas Aquinas’s theology, does not demand an indiscriminate or universal prioritization of all people at the expense of natural obligations. Rather, Aquinas explicitly affirms that charity has an order, where love for those closest—such as family and fellow citizens—naturally takes precedence over more distant obligations⁴. To disregard this order could lead to a dereliction of duty rather than a fulfillment of Christian charity.
2. The Role of the State vs. the Individual – Aquinas and Catholic tradition distinguish between the moral duties of individuals and those of the state. While individuals are called to personal acts of charity, a government’s primary duty is to protect and serve its citizens before extending aid to outsiders⁵. Francis’s critique of Vance appears to conflate individual moral obligations with the political responsibilities of the state, leading to an unrealistic and impractical standard for governance.
3. The Risk of Disordered Charity – Catholic moral theology warns against disordered charity—when well-intentioned actions, in the name of love, disrupt natural priorities and obligations. If a government prioritizes foreigners over its own citizens—especially the poor and vulnerable within its own borders—it may fail in its primary vocation. The principle of subsidiarity, a key tenet of Catholic social teaching, suggests that problems should be addressed at the most immediate level before requiring broader intervention⁶.
4. Selective Application – Francis’s own Vatican policies contradict his expansive interpretation of ordo amoris. The Vatican has some of the strictest border controls in the world, even criminalizing unauthorized entry. If Christian love demands an open-door policy, why does the Vatican maintain rigid territorial security while condemning other states for doing the same?

Apparent Contradiction: Vatican’s Own Enforcement vs. Francis’s Rhetoric
Critics might point out an apparent contradiction between the Vatican’s firm border controls and Pope Francis’s denunciation of strict U.S. immigration policies. However, the Vatican’s policies are more about preventing security breaches within an extremely small and politically unique city-state. Unlike the U.S., which deals with millions of migrants, the Vatican’s enforcement applies to isolated incidents involving unauthorized entries that could pose security risks¹.

That said, this could still be seen as inconsistent messaging—the Vatican upholds strict entry rules while the Pope advocates for openness elsewhere. Some may argue that if Pope Francis calls for national governments to adopt more lenient policies, the Vatican should lead by example rather than impose some of the harshest penalties for illegal entry in Europe.

Conclusion: Different Contexts, Same Principles?
The Vatican’s security measures appear to be motivated by pragmatic concerns about its tiny size and unique diplomatic status, while Pope Francis’s stance on U.S. immigration is grounded in universal moral and theological arguments. However, the contrast between these two positions raises questions about consistency—whether a state, no matter how small, should reflect in its policies the same hospitality and openness that the Pope preaches to nations like the U.S.

Furthermore, Francis’s reinterpretation of ordo amoris is seen by some scholars as a departure from Thomistic realism, replacing an ordered, hierarchical understanding of love with an idealized vision of universal fraternity that lacks grounding in traditional Catholic teaching. Whether this discrepancy is hypocrisy or justifiable pragmatism depends largely on one’s perspective. 🔝

1. Catholic News Agency, Vatican cracks down on illegal entry into its territory, February 2025.
2. Reuters, Pope Francis criticizes Trump’s immigration crackdown in letter to U.S. bishops, February 11, 2025.
3. AP News, Pope rebukes Trump administration over immigrant deportations and appears to aim directly at Vance, February 2025.
4. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q.26, a.6 – “Since one’s neighbors are closer to oneself than strangers, they must be loved more.”
5. Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, §37 – “The state must protect and provide for its own people before all else, ensuring their rights and dignity before extending beyond its borders.”
6. Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, §79 – “The principle of subsidiarity must guide all governance: that which can be done by the smaller community should not be usurped by the larger.”

---

---

The Revocation of Fr. Calvin Robinson’s License: A Dispute Over Clerical Conduct and Public Ministry

The revocation of Fr. Calvin Robinson’s license to serve as a priest in the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) has sparked considerable controversy, with Robinson asserting that the decision was made hastily and without due process, while the ACC leadership maintains that his conduct over several months warranted removal. This dispute touches on fundamental questions about the role of clergy in public discourse, obedience to ecclesiastical authority, and the boundaries of political engagement for priests.

The Central Issue: Clerical Conduct and Public Engagement
Fr. Calvin Robinson has positioned himself as a public figure actively engaging in contemporary moral and political debates. His presence at the National Pro-Life Summit, where he delivered a speech, was the immediate catalyst for his removal. The ACC’s statement justifying the decision described his actions as “harmful, divisive, and contrary to the tenets of Christian charity.”¹ Robinson, however, contends that his speech was a moral statement rather than a political act, arguing that “speaking at a pro-life summit is not ‘political,’ it is moral.”² He further accuses the ACC of siding with “the woke mob” instead of defending pro-life advocacy, stating that “the divide should not be between Christians and the woke mob. By capitulating to said mob, one could argue that the Archbishop has chosen not to side with Christians on an important moral issue.”³

The ACC, in contrast, argues that the revocation of Robinson’s license was not an isolated response to one event but the culmination of ongoing concerns. The Letter to the Clergy of the G-3 Anglican Churches outlines these concerns, stating that Robinson was “warned multiple times” about the need to separate his parish ministry from his political activism.⁴ Archbishop Haverland reportedly told him in March 2024 that “now that you are a parish priest, you need to become circumspect in your public pronouncements outside matters theological and moral.”⁵ The letter further claims that Robinson himself acknowledged this expectation in September 2024, when he responded to the Archbishop’s concerns by saying, “I accept that criticism… priests should focus on faith and morals rather than the personality-driven mudslinging of partisan politics.”⁶

Robinson now denies that he was ever warned against public activism, asserting that “I have never been warned about online trolling, and I have never been told to desist.”⁷ He characterizes his removal as abrupt, arguing that the Archbishop decided to act unilaterally within 45 minutes of receiving complaints about his pro-life speech. “Was this enough time to convene a meeting with the College of Bishops, or did the Archbishop make this decision unilaterally?” he asks, suggesting that his removal was predetermined.⁸

The Question of Due Process
A key dispute in this controversy is whether Robinson was afforded due process before being removed. Robinson insists that there was no formal warning or disciplinary procedure. “Is there no due process in the ACC? Do priests not get a fair hearing, a trial, or at least a conversation?” he asks, comparing the situation unfavorably to secular employment, where “one might expect a verbal warning, a written warning, and then disciplinary action before being fired.”⁹ He further claims that he first learned of his removal through the ACC’s public press release, rather than direct communication.¹⁰

The ACC disputes this, maintaining that Robinson was warned multiple times, both by Archbishop Haverland and Bishop Patrick Fodor, his Episcopal Visitor. The Letter to the Clergy states that the Archbishop had received complaints from ACC clergy about Robinson’s conduct, including concerns about his “lack of a theological degree” and his history of moving between different jurisdictions.¹¹ It also notes that Robinson was warned in November 2024 that “a stream of emails” had reached the Archbishop’s office complaining about his continued political engagement.¹²

The letter further asserts that Robinson had ample opportunity to engage in private discussion about his removal. “At 9:02 the morning after receiving notification of the revocation of his license… Robinson wrote the Archbishop, asking for a telephone or Zoom call. At 10:39 that day, the Archbishop responded that he would ‘read anything that Robinson might care to write [him].’”¹³ The ACC contends that rather than responding privately, Robinson “took to social media and initiated a proxy campaign to discredit the ACC.”¹⁴

Allegations of Antisemitism
Beyond concerns about his political engagement, the Letter to the Clergy also raises allegations that Robinson engaged in antisemitic rhetoric online. It claims that he “began posting about Judaism, starting with a post on X (formerly Twitter) about the Talmud,” and that he used coded language associated with online antisemitic circles.¹⁵ The letter also points to his interview with Joel Webbon, who stated during the discussion that “Judaism, I believe, is a pernicious evil.”¹⁶ The letter alleges that Robinson did not push back strongly against this comment and instead “gave Webbon the floor.”¹⁷

Robinson vehemently denies these accusations, calling them “outrageous and libellous.”¹⁸ He argues that he was discussing theological matters and that the allegations were invented as a pretext to justify his dismissal. “It was communicated to me by a trusted source that Archbishop Haverland thinks I am an antisemite… I volunteered a statement to my Bishop that I am not an antisemite, I am a Christian.”¹⁹

The ACC letter, however, insists that these concerns were serious and that the pro-life summit incident was “simply the end of a string of inappropriate acts and statements.”²⁰ Archbishop Haverland is quoted as writing that Robinson had been “gravely intemperate and has poor judgment” and that “at best, he is gravely intemperate… at worst, he is toying with anti-Semitism and engages in the deeply uncharitable activity of trolling and political provocation.”²¹

The Broader Conflict Over the Role of Clergy
This dispute raises fundamental questions about the role of clergy in public discourse. Robinson argues that priests have a duty to speak boldly on moral issues and that the ACC’s stance represents a retreat from Christian witness in the public sphere. “We are living through a spiritual war, not a culture war, and we all have a part to play in that.”²² He cites figures like Mother Angelica and Archbishop Fulton Sheen as models of public ministry and insists that social media and public engagement are necessary for modern evangelization.²³

The ACC, by contrast, upholds a more traditional vision of priesthood that prioritizes pastoral ministry over public activism. The Letter to the Clergy states that while “clergy can and should teach about moral matters which often have political implications, the distinction needs to be maintained.”²⁴

Conclusion
The dispute between Fr. Robinson and the ACC leadership reflects a deeper struggle within Anglicanism over the role of clergy in the modern world. Robinson sees his dismissal as evidence of the ACC’s capitulation to progressive pressures and a rejection of a bold, engaged Christianity. The ACC maintains that Robinson repeatedly disregarded clear warnings and that his removal was necessary to uphold the integrity of clerical discipline. The outcome of Robinson’s canonical appeal may have significant implications for how Anglo-Catholic jurisdictions handle similar conflicts in the future. 🔝

¹⁻²⁴ Letter to the Clergy of the G-3 Anglican Churches and Fr. Calvin Robinson’s Public Statement

---

Rev. Dr. Ian Paul’s Recent Criticisms of the Archbishop of York and the Church of England’s General Synod on Safeguarding: A Broader Movement for Reform

Rev. Dr. Ian Paul, a theologian, member of the Church of England’s General Synod, and vocal advocate for safeguarding reform, has become one of the most outspoken critics of the Church’s current handling of safeguarding issues. His concerns, particularly aimed at the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, and the broader actions of the Church of England’s General Synod, resonate with a growing chorus of critics who believe that the Church has not done enough to address its safeguarding failures. Dr. Paul’s recent criticisms have brought these concerns into sharp focus, but he is far from alone in advocating for a fundamental overhaul of the Church’s approach to safeguarding.

Criticism of Archbishop Stephen Cottrell’s Leadership
In an open letter, Dr. Paul challenged Archbishop Cottrell’s leadership, accusing him of failing to adequately respond to the ongoing safeguarding crisis within the Church. The Archbishop’s leadership has been scrutinized for not prioritizing safeguarding reforms in the way that some reformers believe is necessary. Dr. Paul’s letter outlined how the Church’s handling of abuse cases continues to fall short, with too much emphasis placed on protecting the institution’s reputation rather than ensuring the safety of vulnerable individuals.

Dr. Paul is not alone in his assessment. Other critics of the Archbishop, including senior figures within the Church and survivors of abuse, have similarly accused him of lacking the resolve to implement meaningful change. There is widespread concern that Archbishop Cottrell’s tenure has been marked by a failure to hold to account those responsible for past safeguarding failures and a reluctance to initiate the level of reform needed to restore trust.

One prominent critic, former Bishop of Durham, Paul Butler, has expressed similar concerns. In several public statements, Butler has pointed to the need for the Church to take a much bolder stance on safeguarding and called for greater transparency from the hierarchy. Butler has argued that safeguarding should not be left to the discretion of individual dioceses but should be firmly embedded within the broader governance structure of the Church. His calls echo Dr. Paul’s concerns about a lack of real independence in the Church’s safeguarding procedures and the failure to create a robust and unified safeguarding framework that can prevent abuse from occurring in the first place. ¹

The General Synod’s Safeguarding Decisions
Dr. Paul’s criticisms have been most acutely focused on the Church of England’s General Synod’s recent decisions regarding safeguarding. In 2025, the Synod voted against the recommendation to fully implement independent safeguarding mechanisms, opting instead to transfer national safeguarding staff to an independent body while delaying similar changes for local staff. This decision, which was made despite the advice of experts in the field of safeguarding, has been heavily criticized by Dr. Paul and others within the Church who argue that it represents a failure to address the structural issues that continue to undermine safeguarding within the Church. ²

The decision to delay full independence for safeguarding has drawn sharp criticism from several quarters. One of the leading voices in the push for greater independence is Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, a former head of MI5 and a member of the Church of England’s Independent Safeguarding Advisory Group. Manningham-Buller has been an outspoken advocate for fully independent safeguarding measures, arguing that any system that retains ties to the institution itself will never be truly effective in addressing safeguarding concerns. She has pointed out that the Church must recognize the institutional conflicts of interest that exist when it comes to safeguarding, and that only a genuinely independent body can offer the necessary impartiality. ³

Survivors of abuse within the Church have also weighed in, with many expressing frustration over the Synod’s decision. The group Survivors Voices, which represents individuals who have suffered abuse within the Church, has issued a statement condemning the Synod’s decision. In their statement, they argue that the Church’s failure to adopt fully independent safeguarding measures is a reflection of its continued prioritization of institutional reputation over the safety of survivors. Survivors have called for greater accountability, with some suggesting that the Church should allow external bodies, including government agencies, to oversee safeguarding investigations. ⁴

A Broader Coalition of Critics: Reformers Call for Independence
Dr. Paul is part of a broader movement within the Church of England advocating for independent safeguarding. This coalition includes not only prominent theologians and Church leaders but also secular experts in the field of safeguarding and abuse prevention. Among them is Professor Graham Wilmer, a prominent child protection expert, who has long argued that any system of safeguarding that is not fully independent from the institution is bound to fail. Wilmer has worked with numerous faith-based organizations to develop safeguarding protocols, and his work has included consulting with the Church of England on best practices. Wilmer has argued that the Church must move beyond its current framework, which he believes is too closely tied to the Church’s interests, and create a fully independent system that operates outside the institutional structure. ⁵

Another significant figure in the movement for safeguarding reform is the Revd. Dr. Lucy Winkett, a well-known advocate for women’s rights and safeguarding issues. Winkett has been a consistent voice in calling for systemic change within the Church, arguing that safeguarding needs to be redefined as an issue of human dignity and equality. Winkett has stressed the importance of treating survivors with compassion and respect, ensuring that they have a genuine voice in the process. Her work has highlighted the gap between the Church’s public stance on safeguarding and its actual practices, calling attention to the need for the Church to not only acknowledge its failures but to take bold steps to correct them. ⁶

Calls for Comprehensive Reform
Dr. Paul’s criticisms, along with those of other prominent figures, are not merely reactive; they form part of a wider movement for comprehensive safeguarding reform within the Church. This movement is grounded in the belief that the Church must change the way it thinks about safeguarding, viewing it not as a series of isolated issues but as an integral aspect of its mission and ministry.

At the heart of this movement is the call for full independence in safeguarding oversight. Critics, including Dr. Paul, argue that only by creating a truly independent body with the power to investigate and oversee safeguarding matters can the Church restore trust and demonstrate its commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals. This would involve removing safeguarding responsibility from dioceses and centralizing it in an autonomous body with full independence from Church authorities.

Additionally, there are calls for better support and reparations for survivors of abuse, including more robust compensation schemes and comprehensive counseling services. Survivors’ advocates insist that their voices must be heard and that the Church must do more than issue apologies; it must take concrete steps to ensure that those affected by abuse receive the care and justice they deserve. ⁷

Conclusion
Rev. Dr. Ian Paul’s recent criticisms of the Archbishop of York and the General Synod’s handling of safeguarding issues have sparked a broader conversation about the Church of England’s approach to protecting vulnerable individuals. His concerns are echoed by other prominent figures, including Bishop Paul Butler, Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, and Professor Graham Wilmer, all of whom are calling for greater independence, transparency, and accountability in the Church’s safeguarding framework.

The Church of England is at a crossroads. While progress has been made, critics argue that it is not enough. To restore public trust and safeguard its most vulnerable members, the Church must take decisive action and commit to genuine, comprehensive reform. Whether these calls for change will lead to meaningful action remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the voices of reformers like Dr. Paul and others demanding change will continue to shape the Church’s future safeguarding policies for years to come. 🔝

1. Psephizo, “The Problem with the C of E: An Open Letter to Stephen Cottrell,” Psephizo, [Accessed February 2025].
2. The Guardian, “Church of England Votes Against Full Independence for Safeguarding Despite Expert Advice,” The Guardian, [Accessed February 2025].
3. The Guardian, “Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller Calls for Independent Safeguarding Oversight,” The Guardian, [Accessed February 2025].
4. Survivors Voices Statement, “Church of England’s Safeguarding Failures,” Survivors Voices, [Accessed February 2025].
5. Premier Christian News, “Archbishops Deeply Regret Flaws in Independent Safeguarding Board,” Premier Christian News, [Accessed February 2025].
6. The Guardian, “The Church of England is Beset by Shame and Division. Can It Survive?”, The Guardian, [Accessed February 2025].
7. The Guardian, “The Church of England is Beset by Shame and Division. Can It Survive?”, The Guardian, [Accessed February 2025].

---

Pope Francis’s Confused Attitude Toward Sexual Sins

Pope Francis has often been praised for his pastoral approach and commitment to reform within the Catholic Church. However, his handling of sexual sins—both in terms of doctrine and in addressing clerical abuse—reveals a troubling inconsistency. His public statements on sin, combined with controversial interventions in abuse cases, have led many to question whether his leadership is adequately addressing one of the Church’s most pressing moral crises.

Downplaying the Gravity of Sexual Sin
In a recent interview with Italian journalist Fabio Fazio, Pope Francis suggested that “the most serious sins” are not sins of the flesh, but rather those committed by “angels”—such as pride and hatred.[1] This remark sparked widespread concern, as it appeared to diminish the gravity of sexual sins, particularly in light of the harm they inflict on innocent people. While theological distinctions between sins exist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly affirms that sexual immorality, including sins of impurity, has serious consequences both spiritually and socially.[2]

The timing of these comments was particularly unfortunate, given that the Church is still grappling with ongoing revelations of sexual abuse by clergy. Critics argue that such statements contribute to a culture of minimization, where sins of the flesh—especially those committed by clergy—are treated as less severe than they actually are.

Francis’s Handling of Clerical Abuse Cases
While Pope Francis has introduced reforms aimed at combating clerical sexual abuse, his record is marked by controversial decisions that suggest an inconsistent approach. Several high-profile cases illustrate this pattern:

• Father Marko Rupnik: The case of Father Marko Rupnik, a prominent Jesuit priest and artist accused of psychological and sexual abuse, exposed serious flaws in Vatican justice. Despite multiple allegations from nuns, the Vatican initially declined to prosecute due to the statute of limitations.[3] Following public outcry, Pope Francis personally intervened to allow a canonical procedure to proceed. However, the Vatican’s continued use of Rupnik’s artwork—even after his crimes became public—sent mixed signals about accountability.[4]
• Father Mauro Inzoli: In one of the most criticized decisions of his papacy, Francis reversed the laicization of Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest defrocked in 2012 for abusing minors.[5] Instead of permanently removing him from the priesthood, Francis imposed a lesser penalty, allowing him to remain a priest, though restricted from public ministry. Inzoli was later convicted in civil court, leading the Vatican to take further action. This case highlighted a recurring theme: initial leniency followed by corrective action only after public outrage.
• Bishop Juan Barros: The appointment of Bishop Juan Barros in Chile despite accusations that he covered up abuse by Father Fernando Karadima was another scandal that tainted Francis’s record. Francis initially dismissed the allegations as “calumny,” only to later admit “grave errors” in judgment after a Vatican investigation confirmed the legitimacy of the accusations.[6]
• Cardinal Theodore McCarrick: While McCarrick was eventually laicized in 2019 under Francis’s watch, his rise to power despite longstanding allegations points to systemic failures within the Church. The Vatican’s own report on the case found that multiple popes, including Francis, had relied on flawed information and failed to act decisively until undeniable evidence emerged.[7]
• Father Ariel Alberto Principi: A recent case involved an Argentine priest who was defrocked after being found guilty by Church tribunals of multiple abuse cases. However, the Vatican Secretariat of State later attempted to reinstate him, citing an extraordinary procedure and reclassification of his acts as reckless during “healing prayers.”[8] This order was reversed by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), confirming his defrocking. The incident raised questions about internal conflicts within the Vatican regarding the handling of abuse cases.

Francis’s Mishandling of Abusers in Argentina
Before his papacy, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis had already demonstrated a concerning pattern in dealing with abuse allegations:

• Father Julio César Grassi: In 2010, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio commissioned a study defending Father Julio César Grassi, a priest convicted of child sexual abuse.[9] The study concluded that Grassi was innocent and that his accusers were lying. Despite this defense, Argentina’s Supreme Court upheld Grassi’s conviction and 15-year prison sentence in 2017. This incident raised concerns about Bergoglio’s judgment and his willingness to support accused clergy members, even in the face of substantial evidence.
• Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta: Appointed by Pope Francis in 2013 to lead the Diocese of Orán, Zanchetta was accused of inappropriate behavior, including possession of explicit images.[10] Despite these allegations, Zanchetta was later appointed to a Vatican role. It wasn’t until 2019 that he faced charges in Argentina for sexually abusing seminarians. In 2022, he was convicted and sentenced to four and a half years in prison. Francis’s initial support and subsequent appointment of Zanchetta to a Vatican position demonstrated a troubling leniency.
• Appointment of Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández: In 2023, Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández to lead the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office responsible for handling clerical sexual abuse cases. Fernández had previously been accused of dismissing victims’ claims and supporting an accused priest in Argentina.[11] His appointment raised concerns that Francis was prioritizing loyalty over competence in addressing abuse cases.

Reform Efforts and Mixed Messages
In response to mounting pressure, Pope Francis has implemented significant reforms:

• Vos Estis Lux Mundi (2019) established new procedures for reporting and investigating abuse allegations, particularly those involving bishops.
• The abolition of Pontifical Secrecy (2019) removed restrictions that previously limited cooperation with civil authorities.
• The 2021 revision of Canon Law introduced clearer penalties for sexual abuse and cover-ups.

However, these reforms are undermined by the Vatican’s inconsistent enforcement and Francis’s personal interventions in individual cases. His actions often appear reactive rather than proactive, with tough measures only emerging after scandals generate public outrage.

Conclusion
Pope Francis’s approach to sexual sins—both in doctrine and in governance—remains contradictory. While he has taken steps to address clerical abuse, his tendency to downplay sexual immorality and his pattern of leniency toward certain offenders create confusion. By prioritizing mercy over justice in cases of clerical misconduct, he risks undermining the very credibility of the Church’s moral teaching.

The Catholic faithful, particularly survivors of abuse, deserve clear and consistent leadership on this issue. If the Church is to regain moral authority, Francis must ensure that accountability and justice take precedence over institutional reputation and personal inclinations toward leniency. Without such clarity, his legacy may be defined not by the reforms he enacted, but by the opportunities he squandered. 🔝

1. Catholic Herald, “Pope Francis’s interview with Fabio Fazio,” Che Tempo Che Fa, January 2025.
2. Catechism of the Catholic Church.
3. Vatican News, “Vatican’s initial refusal to prosecute Marko Rupnik,” October 2023.
4. NCR Online, “Vatican’s continued use of Rupnik’s artwork,” November 2023.
5. The Guardian, “Francis’s decision to reinstate Inzoli,” February 2024.
6. Reuters, “Francis’s handling of Juan Barros,” March 2024.
7. Vatican Report, “McCarrick’s case,” 2020.
8. The Australian, “Vatican’s attempted reinstatement of Principi,” January 2024.
9. AP News, “Bergoglio’s defense of Grassi,” September 2023.
10. BBC News, “Gustavo Zanchetta’s conviction,” March 2022.
11. Crux Now, “Appointment of Víctor Manuel Fernández,” July 2023.

---

Recent Controversy Over Kim Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill

Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has sparked renewed debate in the UK over the past week, following controversial amendments that have drawn criticism from MPs, legal experts, medical professionals, and disability advocates. The primary issue revolves around the removal of High Court oversight from the assisted dying approval process, a safeguard that was initially included to prevent abuse and ensure stringent protections for vulnerable individuals.

Key Amendment: Removal of High Court Oversight
Initially, the bill proposed that terminally ill individuals seeking assistance to end their lives would need approval from a High Court judge. However, after concerns were raised about potential strain on the judiciary and delays in processing cases, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood recommended dropping this requirement. In response, Leadbeater amended the bill to introduce a three-person panel—consisting of a senior legal figure, a psychiatrist, and a social worker—as an alternative safeguard.¹

This move has been met with intense opposition, particularly from MPs who argue that judicial oversight provided an essential safeguard against potential coercion and wrongful deaths. Labour MP Diane Abbott stated that the decision to remove judicial oversight was “rushed” and “poorly thought out,” emphasizing that such a sensitive issue requires the highest level of legal scrutiny. Conservative MP Danny Kruger argued that while assisted dying is a deeply personal issue, the removal of judicial oversight undermines confidence in the bill. He warned that such amendments could lead to a loss of public and parliamentary support. SNP MP Dr. Philippa Whitford, a former breast cancer surgeon, expressed concern that the panel structure could lead to inconsistencies in decision-making, unlike a clear judicial process.²

Concerns from the Medical Community
Medical experts have also voiced serious concerns about the bill’s latest iteration, particularly in regard to the “slippery slope” argument. Some worry that the weakening of safeguards could lead to broader criteria for assisted dying over time. Dr. Matthew Doré, speaking on behalf of the Association for Palliative Medicine, cautioned that the proposed expert panel may not be stringent enough to prevent undue influence or hasty decision-making. He warned that similar assisted dying laws in other countries have gradually expanded their criteria to include non-terminal patients, such as those with severe mental health conditions.

A group of senior palliative care specialists wrote an open letter to Leadbeater, arguing that the new structure is “dangerously vague” and fails to ensure that individuals are making decisions free from external pressure. The Royal College of Physicians has stated that while it remains neutral on the issue of assisted dying, it is concerned that the amended bill lacks robust medical safeguards.³

Criticism from Disability Advocacy Groups
The latest amendments have also drawn criticism from disability rights organizations, which have long opposed assisted dying legislation due to concerns about coercion, discrimination, and societal attitudes toward disabled people. The group Not Dead Yet UK, which represents disabled people opposed to assisted dying, has condemned the removal of judicial oversight, arguing that a panel system could be more easily manipulated. The organization’s spokesperson, Baroness Jane Campbell, said, “Disabled people are already pressured into believing their lives are less valuable. Removing a judicial check increases the risk of abuse, particularly for those without strong support systems.”

Scope, another disability rights organization, raised concerns that the bill’s safeguards are becoming weaker with each revision, potentially making it easier for vulnerable people to feel as though they are a burden on their families and society.⁴

Political Fallout and Threats to the Bill’s Passage
The growing opposition to the bill, particularly among MPs who had previously been supportive, suggests that its future is now uncertain. While the bill passed its second reading with a narrow majority, reports indicate that several MPs are now reconsidering their position. Cross-party divisions have emerged, with some Labour MPs distancing themselves from the bill following the removal of High Court oversight. The Conservative leadership has remained largely silent on the bill, but several senior Tory MPs have expressed skepticism about its safeguards. Reports suggest that public opinion on the matter is shifting, with a rise in opposition from religious groups, medical professionals, and legal experts.⁵

Leadbeater’s Defense of the Bill
Despite the backlash, Kim Leadbeater has defended the amendments, arguing that they are designed to improve the bill rather than weaken it. She insists that the three-person panel provides a “more practical and rigorous safeguard than a single judge,” as it brings together multiple areas of expertise. She argues that expert testimony in committee hearings indicated that requiring a High Court judge in every case would have led to excessive bureaucracy and delays, potentially prolonging suffering for terminally ill patients. In response to disability advocacy concerns, Leadbeater has promised to engage with more disability rights groups to address fears about coercion and discrimination.⁶

Conclusion: A Bill in Crisis?
The controversy surrounding Leadbeater’s Assisted Dying Bill underscores the profound ethical, legal, and practical dilemmas involved in legislating on end-of-life issues. While supporters argue that the bill offers compassionate choices for terminally ill individuals, critics warn that the latest changes weaken protections for the vulnerable. With MPs wavering in their support and opposition growing among key stakeholders, the bill’s future is increasingly uncertain. If the concerns raised over the past week gain further traction, Leadbeater may be forced to make additional revisions—or risk the bill failing in its next stage. 🔝

1. The Times, “Justice chief suggested assisted dying bill drop court safeguard,” February 11, 2025.
2. The Guardian, “Plan to scrap High Court signoff for assisted dying sends bill in ‘wrong direction’, say MPs,” February 11, 2025.
3. The Times, “Assisted dying bill: experts warn of ‘slippery slope’ of amendments,” February 10, 2025.
4. The Guardian, “Pro-assisted dying MPs fear online backlash is eroding support for bill,” February 6, 2025.
5. The Times, “Future of assisted dying bill in ‘jeopardy’ as MPs waver on support,” February 9, 2025.
6. The Guardian, “Kim Leadbeater: assisted dying bill will still have world’s strongest safeguards,” February 11, 2025.

---

The Rising Mortality Crisis Among Young Adults in the United States

Recent years have seen a disturbing increase in mortality rates among young adults aged 25 to 44 in the United States. Data from the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals that all-cause mortality in this demographic nearly tripled in 2021 compared to 2019. By 2023, mortality remained 70% higher than it would have been had pre-2011 trends continued[1]. Despite widespread recognition of this crisis, the underlying causes remain only partially understood, with some possible factors left largely unexplored in mainstream discussions.

The analysis of 3.3 million deaths from 1999 to 2023 shows a pattern of increasing mortality that cannot be attributed to a single cause. Instead, the data indicate a convergence of multiple factors that have contributed to this public health catastrophe. The sharpest increases in deaths occurred between 2019 and 2021, with numbers remaining elevated through 2023. While the COVID-19 pandemic undeniably played a role, excess mortality has persisted long beyond its peak, suggesting that deeper structural and medical issues may be at play.

One of the most significant drivers of the crisis has been drug overdoses, particularly from opioids. In 2023, nearly 32% of deaths in this age group were linked to opioid overdoses, with synthetic opioids like fentanyl playing a dominant role[2]. The widespread availability of fentanyl, along with economic hardship and mental health struggles exacerbated by the pandemic, has created a perfect storm for substance abuse and overdose deaths.

Unintentional injuries, including motor vehicle accidents, have also contributed significantly to rising mortality. Despite improvements in vehicle safety and road regulations, deaths from traffic accidents have continued to rise. Some researchers suggest that increased reckless behavior, possibly linked to the psychological effects of the pandemic and economic instability, may be a contributing factor[3].

Homicides have more than doubled since 2019, further compounding the mortality crisis. The reasons behind this surge remain debated, with some attributing it to socioeconomic instability, changes in law enforcement policies, and increased social tensions. The homicide rate among young adults now exceeds what would have been expected under pre-pandemic trends, indicating a broader societal shift that warrants further investigation[4].

Mental health has also played a crucial role in this crisis. Suicide rates among young adults have risen sharply, driven by economic uncertainty, social isolation, and a lack of access to mental health care. The pandemic exacerbated these trends, leading to increased rates of depression and anxiety, particularly among those who lost jobs, experienced housing instability, or suffered from prolonged isolation[5].

In addition to external factors, metabolic and chronic diseases have also contributed to excess mortality. Deaths related to endocrine and metabolic disorders, including obesity-related complications and diabetes, have increased dramatically. The modern American diet, high in ultra-processed foods, refined sugars, and unhealthy fats, has fueled these health conditions, leading to a growing burden of preventable diseases among young adults[6].

Another concerning trend is the rise in cancer cases among young adults. The incidence of certain cancers has been increasing steadily since 2020, with no clear explanation. While some researchers point to environmental factors, lifestyle changes, or genetic predispositions, the exact causes remain unclear. The steady rise in cancer rates within this age group suggests that further research is needed to determine potential risk factors[7].

Despite acknowledging multiple contributing factors, mainstream studies have largely avoided discussing other potential causes. One possibility that has not been extensively explored is the long-term impact of COVID-19 itself. Some researchers suggest that long COVID and post-infection complications may be contributing to excess mortality, particularly in cases of heart disease and other organ dysfunction. However, whether these complications alone can account for the sustained rise in deaths remains uncertain[8].

Another underexamined factor is the disruption of medical services during the pandemic. Many individuals experienced delayed diagnoses and missed preventive care due to hospital overcrowding, staff shortages, and appointment backlogs. This lack of timely medical intervention may have led to worse health outcomes and increased mortality rates in the years following the pandemic’s peak[9].

Perhaps most strikingly, the potential role of iatrogenic causes—harm caused by medical interventions—has been conspicuously absent from the mainstream discussion. The JAMA study does not explore the possibility that certain medical interventions may have had unintended consequences, despite historical precedent for such effects. The lack of transparency in defining “other natural causes” of death raises concerns about whether certain risks are being overlooked[10].

The sustained rise in mortality among young adults represents a major public health crisis that demands urgent investigation. Areas requiring further study include the potential long-term effects of COVID-19, the impact of medical disruptions, and whether pharmaceutical interventions introduced during the pandemic may have contributed to excess mortality. Without open scientific inquiry and the willingness to examine all potential causes, the full scope of this crisis may remain obscured, leaving the public vulnerable to continued health risks.

Young adults should be in the prime of life, yet the United States is witnessing an unprecedented surge in deaths within this demographic. While drug overdoses, mental health crises, and metabolic disorders are widely acknowledged, a troubling lack of discussion surrounds other possible causes. Until all hypotheses are examined without restriction, the true origins of this crisis may never be fully understood.

The question must be asked: why are so many young people dying—and what can be done to stop it? 🔝

1. Journal of the American Medical Association, “Mortality Trends Among Early Adults in the United States 1999-2023”
2. U.S. News & World Report, “Young Adults Are Dying Earlier Than Expected,” 2025
3. U.S. News & World Report, “Traffic Deaths and Rising Mortality Rates in the U.S.”
4. PBS NewsHour, “Why Mortality for Young Americans Is Increasing at an Alarming Rate”
5. Associated Press, “U.S. Suicides Held Steady in 2023—At a Very High Level”
6. Journal of the American Medical Association, “Metabolic Disease Trends Among Young Adults”
7. American Cancer Society, “Increasing Cancer Rates Among Young Adults: A New Concern”
8. The Atlantic, “A Mysterious Health Wave Is Breaking Out Across the U.S.”
9. The Atlantic, “Why the COVID Deniers Won: The Consequences of Public Health Failures”
10. Journal of the American Medical Association, “Unexplored Mortality Trends in Young Adults”

---

Christianity, Fertility, and the Future of the West: A Demographic Crossroads

Demographic Decline in the West
Western nations are experiencing a marked decline in birth rates, with most countries falling below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. This trend has serious implications for economic stability, social cohesion, and the long-term viability of Western societies.

• United States: Fertility rates declined from 2.12 in 2007 to 1.64 in 2020¹.
• France: Birth rates dropped from 2.03 in 2010 to 1.68 in 2023, marking the lowest level since World War II².
• European Union: The average fertility rate remains below replacement level, leading to aging populations and potential labor shortages³.

A major factor in this demographic collapse is the secularization of Western societies. As traditional Christian values—especially those emphasizing marriage and family—have eroded, so too has the willingness of people to form stable families and raise children. The rejection of moral teachings on marriage, sexuality, and family life has led to fewer stable marriages and, consequently, fewer children. The prioritization of personal ambition over family life has further exacerbated the problem.

Religiosity and Fertility: A Strong Correlation
Studies consistently show that religious individuals tend to have more children than their secular counterparts. This phenomenon is observable both globally and within Western societies.

• Globally: Religious women have an average fertility rate of 2.5 children, compared to 1.6 for the non-religious⁴.
• United States: Women who consider religion “very important” in their daily lives have more children than those who do not⁵.
• Europe: While high religiosity in some countries (e.g., Poland, Italy) does not always correspond to high birth rates, the overall trend suggests that stronger religious commitment leads to larger families⁶.

The loss of Christian influence has contributed significantly to the demographic crisis. As societies move away from faith-based values, marriage and child-rearing are increasingly delayed or abandoned. The prioritization of personal ambition over family life leads to shrinking populations, weakening the cultural and moral fabric of Western nations.

The Role of Traditional Catholics in Preserving Christian Civilization
Among Christian groups, traditional Catholics stand out as a demographic capable of reversing the decline. Unlike many nominal or secularized Christians, traditional Catholics maintain a strong commitment to large families, stable marriages, and the transmission of faith.

• Fertility Rates: Studies indicate that practicing Catholics—particularly those who adhere to traditional moral teachings—have higher birth rates than their secular counterparts⁷.
• Marriage Stability: Traditional Catholic families tend to prioritize lifelong marriage, reducing divorce rates and ensuring stable environments for children⁸.
• Faith Transmission: Unlike many mainstream Christian groups that experience generational decline, traditional Catholics pass on their faith more effectively, ensuring cultural continuity⁹.

For Western nations to reclaim their demographic and cultural vitality, traditional Catholic communities must serve as a model for renewal. Their emphasis on family, faith, and moral responsibility offers a blueprint for reversing the societal collapse brought on by secular individualism.

Muslim Population Growth: The Demographic Exception
While most of Europe experiences declining birth rates, the Muslim population is growing due to higher fertility rates and migration.

• Current Statistics: Muslims comprised 4.9% of Europe’s population in 2016, about 25.8 million people¹⁰.
• Projected Growth: Even if migration were to stop entirely, the Muslim share of Europe’s population is projected to rise to 7.4% by 2050¹¹.
• Fertility Rates: Muslim women in Europe have an average of 2.6 children, compared to 1.6 for non-Muslims¹².
• Migration Impact: Between 2010 and 2016, 60% of the Muslim population growth in Europe came from migration, while 40% was due to higher birth rates¹³.

If current trends continue, the demographic composition of Europe will change significantly. This is not just a matter of numbers but of culture and identity. The groups that continue to uphold strong religious and family-oriented values will shape the future, while secular societies with declining birth rates may face long-term economic and social instability.

The Path Forward: Restoring Christian Values
Reversing the demographic decline of the West requires a return to Christian principles, particularly those upheld by traditional Catholic communities. This includes:

1. Rebuilding Marriage and Family Life – Encouraging stable, lifelong marriages as the foundation of society.
2. Rejecting Secular Individualism – Promoting a culture where sacrifice for family and children is valued over personal ambition.
3. Reaffirming the Role of Faith – Recognizing that religious communities, particularly traditional Catholics, consistently have higher birth rates and stronger family structures.
4. Economic and Social Policies that Support Families – Governments should incentivize childbirth and family stability through tax benefits, parental leave, and family-friendly work policies.

Conclusion
The West faces a demographic crisis, but it is not an irreversible fate. A renewed commitment to Christianity, marriage, and family—exemplified by traditional Catholic communities—offers the best solution. Without a revival of these values, Western nations may continue their decline, while those communities that prioritize faith and family will shape the future. Traditional Catholics must lead by example, demonstrating that faith, marriage, and family are not relics of the past but the key to a flourishing civilization. 🔝

1. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Vital Statistics Reports, 2022.
2. French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE), 2023 report on birth rates.
3. Eurostat, “European Demographic Indicators,” 2023.
4. Pew Research Center, “The Future of World Religions,” 2017.
5. Pew Research Center, “Religious Commitment and Fertility,” 2019.
6. Population and Development Review, “Religion and Fertility in Europe,” 2021.
7. Pew Research Center, “Catholic Fertility Rates and Church Attendance,” 2018.
8. Institute for Family Studies, “Marriage and Divorce Trends Among Traditional Catholics,” 2020.
9. Pew Research Center, “Religious Transmission in Catholic Families,” 2022.
10. Pew Research Center, “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population,” 2017.
11. Pew Research Center, “Future Projections of Europe’s Muslim Population,” 2017.
12. European Network of Demographic Studies, “Muslim Fertility in Europe,” 2020.
13. Pew Research Center, “Migration and Fertility in Europe’s Muslim Communities,” 2019.

---

Dr. David Allen White (1948–2025) RIP

Traditional Catholic Author, Scholar, and Defender of the Faith

Dr. David Allen White, esteemed Catholic author, literary scholar, and champion of tradition, passed away on February 11, 2025. His passing marks the loss of one of the most articulate defenders of traditional Catholicism, a man whose profound love for truth, beauty, and the faith shaped generations of readers and students.

Born in 1948, Dr. White was a distinguished professor of literature at the United States Naval Academy, where he illuminated the works of Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, and other giants of Western civilization. His deep intellectual engagement with the Catholic faith led him to become a prominent figure in the traditionalist movement, where he passionately defended the beauty of the Tridentine Mass and the perennial magisterium.

Dr. White was the author of several significant works, each a testament to his devotion to Catholic tradition. His most well-known book, Mouth of the Lion, chronicles the heroic resistance of Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer to modernist errors in the Church. He also wrote The Horn of the Unicorn, a study of the life and legacy of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and The Voice of the Trumpet: A Life of Bishop Richard Williamson in Four Movements, a comprehensive biography of Bishop Williamson, with whom he had a long-standing collaboration. His contributions to The Winona Letters further solidified his connection to Bishop Williamson and his shared commitment to preserving Catholic tradition.

Dr. White’s scholarship and eloquence made him a sought-after speaker at Catholic conferences, where he expounded on the connections between culture, literature, and faith. His writings and lectures inspired countless individuals to seek the true, the good, and the beautiful in both spiritual and intellectual life.

Dr. White now joins in eternity the great defenders of the faith—Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Richard Williamson, and Bishop de Castro Mayer—whose cause he so passionately championed.

✠Requiescat in pace. 🔝

---

The Old Roman Apostolate and the Spirit of the Vendée: A Catholic Resistance Across the Ages

The Old Roman Apostolate: A Modern-Day Vendée
The Old Roman Apostolate stands in the spirit of the Catholic warriors of the Vendée, those valiant men and women who resisted the destruction of the Faith during the French Revolution. Like them, the Apostolate defends the perennial teachings of the Church, resisting the forces that seek to erode Catholic tradition and doctrine. In an age when many have abandoned the unchanging truths of the Faith in favor of modernist reinterpretations, the Old Roman Apostolate remains steadfast—just as the Vendéans refused to submit to the apostasy imposed by the revolutionaries.

The Vendée: A Catholic Resistance Against Revolution
The War in the Vendée (1793–1796) was a counter-revolutionary uprising in western France, fought by devout Catholics against the secular and anti-Catholic policies of the French Revolution¹. The people of the Vendée region—mostly peasants, small landowners, and minor nobility—were deeply Catholic and loyal to the monarchy, viewing both as divinely ordained institutions².

The French Revolution had begun in 1789 with promises of “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” However, as the radical Jacobins gained power, their policies became increasingly hostile to the Catholic Church. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790) was the breaking point, as it subordinated the Church in France to the authority of the revolutionary state³. Clergy were required to swear an oath to the new government, effectively making them employees of the state rather than servants of Christ. Many faithful priests refused and were subsequently persecuted, forced into exile, or executed⁴.

In 1793, the National Convention ordered mass conscription to raise troops for its wars across Europe. The Vendéans, already angered by the suppression of their Faith, refused to fight for a government that persecuted the Church. Instead, they took up arms in defense of their priests, their churches, and their families, forming the Catholic and Royal Army⁵.

The Persecution of the Vendée: The First Modern Genocide?
The revolutionaries responded with unparalleled brutality. The Vendée region was subjected to mass executions, massacres, and scorched-earth tactics, as the government sought to annihilate the Catholic resistance. This campaign, known as the Vendée Genocide, has been described by historians as the first modern genocide⁶. Revolutionary generals such as François Joseph Westermann wrote that “The Vendée is no more… I have trampled out their children under our horses, and massacred their women, who will give birth to no more brigands.”⁷

The atrocities included mass drownings of priests and nuns in the Loire River, known as the “drownings at Nantes”⁸. Entire villages were burned to the ground, with churches set aflame while the faithful were trapped inside⁹. Those who harbored non-juring priests—those who refused to take the state oath—were executed without trial¹⁰. The revolutionary forces even carried out systematic exterminations of women and children, whom they saw as future enemies¹¹.

Despite their eventual military defeat in 1796, the faith and legacy of the Vendéans lived on as a symbol of Catholic resistance against secular tyranny.

The Old Roman Apostolate and the Spirit of the Vendée
The Old Roman Apostolate follows in the spiritual footsteps of the Vendéans, fighting not with swords but with prayer, doctrine, and the Sacraments. Like the Vendéans, the Apostolate rejects compromise with error, preserving the Catholic Faith as it was handed down before the modernist revolution that infiltrated the Church¹².

Resisting the Spiritual Revolution of Modernism
Just as the French Revolution sought to impose a secularized, state-controlled Church, modernist forces within the Church have sought to redefine doctrine, liturgy, and ecclesiology. The Apostolate sees parallels between the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which forced priests to swear allegiance to the revolutionary state, and contemporary pressures on clergy to conform to secular ideologies at the expense of truth¹³. The destruction of Catholic traditions in revolutionary France mirrors the post-Vatican II liturgical upheaval, which suppressed the Traditional Latin Mass and introduced novel practices¹⁴. The persecution of faithful Vendéan Catholics is reflected today in the ostracization of those who hold to traditional doctrine¹⁵.

A Church Militant, Not a Church of Capitulation
The Vendéans did not seek conflict, but when their Faith was attacked, they rose in defense of it. Likewise, the Old Roman Apostolate does not seek division, but it refuses to surrender the integrity of the Faith to modernist reinterpretations. The Apostolate upholds the unbroken apostolic succession, ensuring that the Faith is handed down unaltered. It defends the Traditional Latin Mass, the perennial magisterium, and the unchanging moral teachings of the Church. It refuses to abandon the truths that have sustained Catholics for centuries—truths that are often diluted or ignored in many modern Catholic institutions.

The Call to Spiritual Arms
The Vendéans fought with sword and musket, but today’s battle is spiritual, not temporal. The Apostolate arms itself with the Traditional Latin Mass, the highest act of worship to Almighty God. It ensures sound catechesis, forming the faithful in unaltered doctrine. It wields the Holy Rosary, as Our Lady at Fatima urged for the defeat of error. Above all, it fosters a militant spirit of Catholic fidelity, refusing to be swept away by the errors of modernity.

The Hope for Restoration
The Vendée was crushed, but the blood of its martyrs sowed the seeds of future Catholic revival. In the same way, the Old Roman Apostolate endures today as a remnant of authentic Catholicism, awaiting the day when the Church is fully restored in all her glory. Just as the heroes of the Vendée never submitted, the Old Roman Apostolate remains unyielding in its mission: to uphold the Faith, to preserve the sacraments and doctrine of all time, and to prepare souls for the ultimate victory of Christ and His Church. 🔝

¹ Secher, Reynald. A French Genocide: The Vendée. University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.
² Belloc, Hilaire. The French Revolution. TAN Books, 1997.
³ Tackett, Timothy. Religion, Revolution, and Regional Culture in Eighteenth-Century France: The Ecclesiastical Oath of 1791. Princeton University Press, 1986.
⁴ Gaxotte, Pierre. The French Revolution. Scribner, 1964.
⁵ Chateaubriand, François-René. Memoirs from Beyond the Grave, 1768–1800. Penguin Books, 2014.
⁶ Secher, A French Genocide.
⁷ Westermann, François Joseph. Letter to the National Convention, 1794.
⁸ James, C. L. R. The Black Jacobins. Vintage Books, 1989.
⁹ Secher, A French Genocide.
¹⁰ Pius IX, Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors, 1864.
¹¹ Lefebvre, Archbishop Marcel. Open Letter to Confused Catholics. Angelus Press, 1986.
¹² Davies, Michael. Liturgical Revolution, Vol. 1: Cranmer’s Godly Order. Angelus Press, 1995.
¹³ Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. The Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church. Ignatius Press, 1985.
¹⁴ Davies, Liturgical Revolution.
¹⁵ Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

---

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.

🔝

---