Tag: Traditionis Custodes

The Halal Meat Debate and the Christian Conscience

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplier_Transparency_Request_Letter_EqualityActDownload

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

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

Unity as a Weapon: The Hollister Suppression

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

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

Be Not Deceived: The Church Does Not Change

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

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

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

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons for Our Time

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

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

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

For a more indepth presentation visit Nuntiatoria.org

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

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

Published on by TheOldRomanLeave a comment

By the Archbishop of Selsey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft_Letter_IslamophobiaDownload

Footnotes

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