Nuntiatoria XLII: Lumen Gentium

w/c 02/02/25

ORDO

Dies	02 SUN	03 MON	04 TUE	05 WED	06 THU	07 FRI	08 SAT	09 SUN
Officium	In Purificatione Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	S. Blasii Episcopi et Martyris	S. Andreæ Corsini Episcopi et Confessoris	S. Agathæ Virginis et Martyris	S. Titi Episc. et Confessoris	S. Romualdi Abbatis	S. Joannis de Matha Confessoris	S. Cyrilli Episc. Alexandrini Confessoris Ecclesiæ Doctoris
CLASSIS	Duplex II	Simplex	Duplex	Duplex	Duplex	Duplex	Duplex	Duplex
Color	Albus*	Rubeum	Albus	Rubeum	Albus	Albus	Albus	Albus
MISSA	Suscépimus	Sacerdótes Dei	Státuit	Gaudeámus	Státuit	Os justi	Os justi	In médio
Orationes	2a. Dom. IV Post Epiph.	2a. de S Maria 3a. Contra Persecutores			2a. S. Dorothæ V&M			2a. Dom. V Post Epiph. 3a. S. Appolloniæ VM
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. Nativitate Ult.Evang’ Dom IV PEpiph	Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Pref. Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. Trinitate Ult.Evang’ Dom V PEpiph
Nota Bene		UK: Com. S. Laurentius Cantuariensis			UK: S. Dorothæ V&M d.		UK: S. Cuthmani de Staninges d.

Lumen Gentium

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

On this Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, when Holy Mother Church recalls the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple and the prophetic words of Simeon, we find ourselves in a time of great trial and confusion. The light of Christ, which the just Simeon recognized as a “light to enlighten the Gentiles” and a “sign that shall be contradicted,” continues to shine, though many seek to extinguish it. This day, in the sacred liturgy, we bless candles—symbols of that divine light—which, as in ages past, must illumine our path amidst the growing darkness that engulfs both Church and society.

The mystery of Candlemas is one of obedience and sacrifice. The Most Holy Virgin, though entirely pure, submits to the Law. The Divine Infant, God Himself, is presented in the Temple in an act of profound humility, foreshadowing His supreme offering upon the Cross. This same obedience, this same humility before the will of the Father, must be our guide in these days of apostasy, in which the enemies of Christ seem to have taken control of His Church, distorting doctrine, profaning the sacraments, and leading countless souls into error.

Today, we cannot but recall with sorrow the passing of Bishop Richard Williamson, who for many years stood as an uncompromising voice in defense of Tradition, often at great personal cost. Though many disagreed with his manner and judgments at times, his unwavering commitment to the Faith of our fathers remains a witness that should not be forgotten. In an age when prelates bend to the spirit of the world, let us not fail to recognize those who, even in their imperfections, sought to defend the Depositum Fidei from corruption and compromise.

As we hold our blessed candles today, let us reflect on their meaning. They burn with a steady flame, consuming themselves in the service of giving light. Such is the model of the true Christian: to give light amid darkness, even at the cost of suffering, even unto martyrdom if necessary. The Church today does not suffer from a lack of structures, committees, or synodal assemblies; she suffers from a lack of faith, a lack of the supernatural vision which guided our forefathers and the saints. The modern hierarchy has surrendered to the world, seeking approval from secular powers rather than preaching the Gospel “in season and out of season.” They have abandoned the supernatural mission of the Church in favor of ecological manifestos, interreligious dialogues void of conversion, and a false mercy that excuses sin rather than calls souls to repentance.

But the light of Christ cannot be overcome. The darkness that seeks to suffocate the truth will not prevail, for He who is Truth has already conquered sin and death. The true Church, the Bride of Christ, remains intact, even if she appears hidden, persecuted, and abandoned by those who should be her guardians. As in the days of Athanasius, of Gregory VII, of Pius X, there remains a faithful remnant—priests, bishops, and laity—who refuse to bow before the idols of modernity and corruption.

Dear children, be that remnant. Cling to the unchanging Faith. Reject the false shepherds who lead souls astray. Do not seek the approval of the world, for as Our Lord warns, “If the world hate you, know ye that it hath hated Me before you.” Strengthen yourselves with the sacraments, recite the Holy Rosary daily, immerse yourselves in Sacred Scripture and the writings of the saints. Let your homes be bastions of the Faith, where Christ is honored as King.

Above all, take courage. The Blessed Virgin, she who humbled herself in the Temple, she whose soul was pierced by the sword of sorrow, remains our sure refuge. In this time of crisis, she calls her children to take up the weapons of prayer, penance, and fidelity. She is the Mother of the Church, the destroyer of heresies, the victorious Queen who shall crush the head of the serpent once more.

As we raise our candles in procession today, let it be not only a pious ritual but a declaration of faith. The light we hold is the light of Christ, the eternal Truth that no power of hell can overcome. Let us go forth as witnesses, steadfast and unyielding, until that day when Christ Himself shall reign in glory, and the darkness shall be no more.

May the Most Holy Virgin keep you under her mantle, may St. Joseph guard you, and may Our Lord bless you abundantly in these days of trial.

Semper in Christo.

⤴️

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

CANDLEMAS: The feast of Light and Sacrifice

Candlemas, that luminous feast falling on the fortieth day after Christmas, draws the mind and heart into a contemplation of Christ as the Light of the World and the mystery of sacrifice that this light entails. This feast, officially titled the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple, is not merely an historical commemoration of an event in the life of Christ and His holy Mother; it is a theological synthesis, a hinge between the joy of Christmas and the impending shadow of Lent. It is, as Dom Prosper Guéranger aptly observes, “the last radiance of the Christmas mystery before the Church turns towards the shadow of the Cross.” The entire liturgy—its solemn blessing of candles, the procession that follows, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass—draws the faithful into a deep reflection on the nature of Christ’s mission and the response required of us who would follow Him.

The Blessing of Candles: Christ, the Light Given to the World

The rite begins clothed in violet (purple) with the blessing of candles, a solemn act rich with theological significance. The five orations of the traditional Roman Rite make clear the mystical meaning of this sacramental. Christ is the Light that has come into the world to dispel the darkness of sin. The candle, as Bl. Ildefonso Schuster explains, is itself a perfect symbol of the Incarnation: the wax, produced by the pure bee, signifies the spotless flesh of Christ, while the flame represents His divine nature. Here is a microcosm of the mystery of salvation, a visible sign of the God-man whose radiance illumines the nations.

Yet, this light is not one that the world easily accepts. Just as St. John proclaims in his Gospel that “the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it,” so too does the ceremony of Candlemas remind us that the light of Christ, though freely given, will be opposed. The exorcistic nature of the blessing further emphasizes that this light is a weapon against the forces of darkness. The faithful have long used blessed candles in times of tribulation, during storms, at the bedside of the dying, and even in exorcisms. It is no mere pious custom but a recognition of the real power of Christ’s light over the prince of this world.

The Procession: A Pilgrimage of Light and Faith

With the newly blessed candles in hand, the faithful process in solemnity, enacting in visible form the truths the Church proclaims. The procession itself has a manifold significance. It recalls the journey of the Holy Family to the Temple, the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law’s prescription that the firstborn son be presented to the Lord. But it is also an icon of the Church militant, a people in pilgrimage through this darkened world, holding forth the light of faith amid opposition. Fr. Pius Parsch sees in this act an image of the Christian soul moving toward the heavenly Jerusalem, bearing the light of Christ against the encroaching gloom of sin. It is no accident that this moment so closely resembles the Paschal Vigil. Candlemas is, in a sense, an echo of Easter, yet while the great night of the Resurrection is a triumphal proclamation of light vanquishing death, the procession of Candlemas has an element of quiet foreboding.

For this is a light that will be contradicted. Simeon’s prophecy in the Gospel tells us as much: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted.” The faithful cannot carry their lighted candles with sentimentality, as though faith were a mere ornament. They carry them as those prepared for battle, as those who know that to follow Christ is to follow Him to the Cross. It is a procession not only toward the Temple but toward Calvary. Dom Guéranger reminds us that this light is not for ourselves alone; it must be borne through the world, through the trials and contradictions of life, until at last we reach the eternal light of heaven.

The Mass: The Obedience of Christ and the Sacrificial Offering

When the procession returns, the altar is now ablaze with light and dressed in white. The dramatic gesture is completed by the sacred ministers changing from violet vestments to white ones. The liturgical culmination of the feast is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, where the themes of light and purification find their deepest expression in the mystery of Christ’s offering. The Gospel recounts the presentation of the Christ Child in the Temple, a moment of profound significance. Here, the Lord of the Temple enters His Father’s house for the first time, not as a sovereign demanding homage but as an obedient Son, submitting to the prescriptions of the Law. Bl. Ildefonso Schuster observes that “the Temple, which had received the shadow of divine worship, now receives the reality.” The Old Covenant had long been filled with sacrifices offered in anticipation of the true Lamb; now, that Lamb is placed upon the altar of God, in the arms of Simeon, already consecrated for the sacrifice to come.

Mary, too, is drawn into this mystery, for though she had no need of purification, she humbly submits to the Law, teaching all the faithful that true greatness is found in obedience. St. Bernard of Clairvaux sees in her action a model for all who would follow Christ: to submit to God’s will even when such submission seems unnecessary or even painful. Candlemas is, in this sense, a preparation for Lent, a reminder that the purification of the soul comes through humility, obedience, and sacrifice.

Simeon’s words to Mary are the final note in this solemn symphony: “And thy own soul a sword shall pierce.” This prophecy speaks not only of Our Lady’s sufferings but of the path every faithful soul must walk. The light of Christ is not a comfortable glow but a fire that consumes. To bear the light of faith is to accept the contradiction that comes with it. It is to stand beneath the Cross, as Mary would, and to offer oneself in union with the sacrifice of her Son.

Living the Mystery of Candlemas

Candlemas is not merely a beautiful liturgy; it is a summons. To hold the light of Christ is to accept both the illumination and the suffering it entails. The blessed candle, preserved in the home, is a reminder that this light must not be hidden. It must shine forth in acts of charity, in fidelity to the truth, in the daily carrying of the Cross.

Fr. Pius Parsch expresses this beautifully: “The Lord comes to His Temple—this is the theme of today’s feast. But He desires to enter another temple as well: the temple of our hearts. Do we offer Him a dwelling, a lighted lamp of faith, a heart purified by grace?” The liturgy of Candlemas is a school of faith. It teaches us to recognize Christ as the Light, to carry that Light through the world’s darkness, and to prepare our souls for the purification that union with Him requires. This is no feast of mere ceremony; it is a call to live as true disciples, bearing witness to the Light that shines in the darkness, trusting that, even amid contradiction and suffering, the darkness will never overcome it. ⤴️

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

Presentation of Christ in the Temple/Fourth Sunday after Epiphany

The Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (commonly called Candlemass) is one of the great feasts of the Christian Year. It recalls how Christ was presented in the Temple and his mother was purified after her childbirth. This fulfilled the commandment of the Book of Exodus about the offering of the first born son to God (Exodus 13:2), and the commandment of the Book of Leviticus regarding the purification of women (Leviticus 12). From the beginning, as also throughout his earthly life, Christ fulfilled the Law perfectly on our behalf. As St. Paul put it to the Galatians, born of a woman, born under the Law to redeem those who are under the Law, that we might obtain the adoption of sons (Galatians 4:4-5).

The Old Testament prophets looked forward to a coming messianic age when the hope of Israel would reach its fulfilment. The nations would renounce their idols and come and worship God in a restored Temple in Jerusalem. The prophet Malachi (in today’s lesson) looked forward to one who would come suddenly to the Temple and purify the sons of Levi like a refiners fire and like fullers soap, and denounce the sorcerers, the adulterers and those who oppressed the hireling in his wages (Malachi 3:1-4).

Today’s Gospel proclaims the fulfilment of this prophecy (albeit in paradoxical form). It had been promised to an old man named Simeon who was looking for the consolation of Israel that he would not see death until he had seen the Lord’s Christ. When Jesus is presented in the Temple Simeon sees that his hopes have now reached their fulfilment, and he utters the words of the Nunc Dimittis, “Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, to be a light to lighten the Gentiles and to be the glory of thy people Israel (Luke 2:29-32).”

The prophet Isaiah had looked forward to a time when all flesh would see the salvation of God, and to one who would be a light to lighten the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6). However, he would not be a warrior and a conqueror but the Suffering Servant of the Lord who would not lift up his voice nor cry aloud. He would be despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, who was wounded for our transgressions and chastised for our iniquities (Isaiah 53). Messianic destiny (enthronement and rule) would only come through reversal, repudiation, suffering and death. He came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many. He would give life through giving his life.

When Simeon spoke of how the child would be the cause of the falling and rising of many in Israel, and that a sword would pierce his mother’s heart, it seems that he foresaw how Jesus would fulfil his vocation as the promised Christ as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah. He would be the promised messianic deliverer, but not the one most of his contemporaries were expecting. They were expecting a warrior and a conqueror who would defeat the Romans and rebuild the temple. Instead, Simeon recognised one who was presented in the Temple as a helpless child as the fulfiller of the hopes of his people. He would be one who was without form and comeliness and who would divide his contemporaries. Some responded. Most did not. Even those who did respond would see their hopes seemingly crushed by his crucifixion. His mother would later stand with St. John, the Beloved Disciple, at the foot of the cross. The only crown he would wear would be a crown of thorns. Yet he would rise from the dead, trampling down death by death and so be the one who fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah as the Suffering Servant.

The first Christians who met in his name did not number many wise or many mighty. Yet they saw in Jesus the promised Christ, the light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of his people Israel.

The events which we commemorate in this feast, as in the life of Christ as a whole, were wrought out for us men and for our salvation in time and history, once and for all, never to be forgotten, never to be repeated, until his final coming in glory at the end of history. But in the life and liturgy of the Church they are re-presented to us rather like a tape recording replays something to the listener. The recording is not in itself a repetition of the original event, but it makes present to the hearer the original event. It is not a different event from the original, but the same event made present.

Likewise, as Christ was once presented in the temple in the substance of our flesh we ourselves can now participate in that event in the here and now, as it is re-presented liturgically to us. The blessing of the candles before the liturgy represents Christ as the true light of the world, as Simeon said. The light of a candle is a flame that spreads warmth in all directions, so likewise is the light of Christ in our lives. We pray that, “these lights, kindled with visible flame, dispel the darkness of the night, our hearts may also be illumined with an invisible flame, namely the brightness of thy Holy Spirit, so as not to be blinded by any vices”.

During the procession of candles one of the antiphons sung sets this out very clearly “Do thou, O Sion deck out thy chamber and welcome Christ the King: Greet Mary who is Heaven’s Gate: for she beareth the King of Glory of the new light, she cometh a Virgin bringing in her arms the Son begotten before the day star: Whom Simeon taking into his arms proclaimed to the people to be the Lord of Life and Death and the Saviour of the world.”

In the liturgy itself, we proclaim in the words of the Introit, “Sheltered in thy temple, O God, we have sought and found deliverance: Wherever thy name is known on earth, thy praise is told, ever just in thy dealings”. In the Collect we pray that “like as thine only begotten Son who clad in our flesh was on this day presented in the Temple, we also purified in soul may likewise be presented to thee”. We are called to become by grace what he is by nature, to be pure even as he is pure. For it is not only the liturgy that is a re-presentation of Christ to the world, so likewise we ourselves are called to represent Christ to the world in our daily lives.

Every time we receive communion we can truly repeat the words of Simeon “For mine eyes have seen thy salvation…a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of thy people Israel”. Indeed, in the Eastern liturgy after receiving communion the faithful respond “We have seen the true light, we have received the heavenly spirit, we have found the true faith, worshipping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us”.

Let us make our own the words of a great hymn for this feast.

Hail to the Lord who comes,
Comes to his temple gate!
Not with his angel host,
Not in his kingly state;
No shouts proclaim him nigh,
No crowds his coming wait;

But borne upon the throne
Of Mary’s gentle breast,
Watched by her duteous love,
In her fond arms at rest;
Thus to his Father’s house
He comes, the heavenly guest

There Joseph at her side
In reverent wonder stands;
And filled with holy joy,
Old Simeon in his hands
Takes up the promised child,
The glory of all lands

Hail to the great first born
Whose ransom price they pay!
The Son before all worlds,
The child of man today,
That he might ransom us
Who still in bondage lay.

O light of all the earth
Thy children wait for thee!
Come to thy temple here,
That we, from sin set free,
Before thy Father’s face
May all presented be! ⤴️

---

Feasts this week

February 2 – The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Candlemas)
This feast, also known as the Presentation of the Lord, commemorates the event described in the Gospel of Luke (2:22-40) when the Blessed Virgin Mary, in obedience to the Law of Moses, presented her Son in the Temple and underwent the ritual purification required of Jewish mothers after childbirth. This day is also known as Candlemas because of the solemn blessing and procession of candles before Mass, symbolizing Christ as the “Light of the World” (John 8:12). The Nunc Dimittis, the canticle of Simeon, is prominently featured in the liturgy, reflecting the fulfillment of God’s promise in the revelation of the Messiah to the nations. This feast traditionally marks the end of the Christmas season in older liturgical usage.

February 3 – St. Blaise, Bishop and Martyr
St. Blaise was a bishop of Sebaste in Armenia who was martyred during the persecution of Christians under Emperor Licinius in the early 4th century. He is particularly venerated in the Latin Church for his miraculous intervention in saving a young boy from choking on a fishbone. Because of this, he is invoked as the patron saint of those suffering from throat ailments, and the Church observes a special blessing of throats on his feast day. This blessing is given by a priest using two crossed candles, invoking the intercession of St. Blaise for protection from diseases and ailments of the throat. His acts describe him as a bishop who lived in a cave as a hermit and performed many healings, both physical and spiritual, before his martyrdom by beheading.

February 4 – St. Andrew Corsini, Bishop and Confessor
Born into a noble Florentine family in the 14th century, St. Andrew Corsini led a dissolute youth before repenting and entering the Carmelite Order. His remarkable conversion led to a life of deep penance and devotion, and he was later appointed Bishop of Fiesole, where he became known for his holiness, wisdom, and dedication to the poor. He was widely regarded as a miracle worker during his lifetime and was often called upon to mediate conflicts between warring factions in Italy. His episcopacy was marked by humility, charity, and an austere personal life, reflecting his commitment to monastic ideals even as a bishop. He died on the feast of the Epiphany in 1373 and was canonized by Pope Urban VIII in 1629.

February 5 – St. Agatha, Virgin and Martyr
St. Agatha was a Sicilian virgin who suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Christians under Emperor Decius around the year 250 AD. According to tradition, she was a noblewoman of great beauty and virtue who consecrated her virginity to God. When she refused the advances of a Roman official named Quintianus, she was subjected to brutal tortures, including the mutilation of her breasts, before being imprisoned and eventually executed. Her steadfast faith and miraculous endurance of suffering made her one of the most venerated early Christian martyrs. She is one of the saints mentioned in the Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) and is invoked as the patroness of breast cancer patients and against volcanic eruptions, particularly in her native Sicily. Her feast has been celebrated since antiquity, and devotion to her remains strong in the universal Church.

February 6 – St. Titus, Bishop and Confessor
St. Titus was a disciple of St. Paul and is mentioned in several of his epistles, particularly in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to Titus, which was written to instruct him in his pastoral duties as Bishop of Crete. St. Paul praises him for his zeal and fidelity, entrusting him with difficult missions, including the resolution of conflicts in the Corinthian church. As bishop, Titus was responsible for organizing and strengthening the nascent Christian communities in Crete, ensuring the faithful transmission of apostolic teaching. He is regarded as a model for bishops due to his dedication to sound doctrine, ecclesiastical discipline, and evangelization. His cult was firmly established in both the Eastern and Western Churches, and he is honored for his role in the early expansion of Christianity.

February 7 – St. Romuald, Abbot
St. Romuald was born in Ravenna in the 10th century and became a major figure in monastic reform. After witnessing his father kill a man in a duel, he sought a life of penance and entered a Benedictine monastery. Desiring a stricter and more contemplative life, he later founded the Camaldolese Order, which blended the cenobitic and eremitical traditions of monastic life. His Rule emphasized solitude, prayer, and strict asceticism, fostering an environment for deeper spiritual growth. He traveled widely, founding monasteries and hermitages across Italy and promoting reform among monks and clergy. Despite opposition, his zeal for holiness and commitment to the contemplative life left a lasting legacy on Western monasticism. He died around 1027 and was canonized by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.

February 8 – St. John of Matha, Confessor
St. John of Matha was a French priest who co-founded the Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives (Trinitarians) at the end of the 12th century. The order’s primary mission was to ransom Christian captives from Muslim territories, particularly those enslaved by the Moors in North Africa. Inspired by a vision of an angel holding a cross between a Christian and a Moorish captive, St. John dedicated his life to the work of freeing prisoners and offering them spiritual and material assistance. His order received papal approval from Innocent III in 1198, and through their efforts, thousands of Christians were rescued from slavery. His life was marked by deep charity and self-sacrifice, and he is remembered for his dedication to the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

February 9 – St. Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church
St. Cyril of Alexandria was one of the most significant theologians of the early Church, serving as Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444 AD. He is best known for his defense of the title Theotokos (Mother of God) for the Blessed Virgin Mary and his opposition to Nestorianism, which sought to divide Christ into two distinct persons. At the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, he played a decisive role in upholding the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures, ensuring that orthodox Christology was preserved in the Church’s teachings. His writings include theological treatises, biblical commentaries, and letters, many of which remain foundational for Christological doctrine. For his contributions to the faith, he was later declared a Doctor of the Church. His feast has been long celebrated in both the Eastern and Western Churches, honoring his role as a defender of the Incarnation and the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

✠ Deus vult! ⤴️

---

S. Blaise: Blessing of Throats

The blessing of throats on the feast of St. Blaise is one of those luminous jewels of Catholic tradition, at once sacramental and devotional, mystical and practical, profoundly incarnational yet eschatologically oriented. It is a rite that speaks to the whole Catholic ethos, in which the natural and supernatural are seamlessly interwoven, where matter is consecrated to be the vehicle of divine grace, and where the physical health of the body is acknowledged as an essential aspect of human flourishing, without ever eclipsing the primacy of the soul’s eternal destiny.

This venerable blessing, firmly entrenched in the liturgical heritage of the Roman Church, is administered by a priest who holds two blessed candles—crossed in the shape of St. Andrew’s X-shaped cross—against the throat of the faithful while invoking the intercession of St. Blaise:

“Per intercessionem Sancti Blasii, Episcopi et Martyris, liberet te Deus a malo gutteris et a quolibet alio malo. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.”

(“Through the intercession of St. Blaise, bishop and martyr, may God deliver you from every disease of the throat and from every other evil. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”)

The theology behind this simple act is profound. It encapsulates the fundamental Catholic conviction that the saints, being members of the Mystical Body of Christ, continue their work of charity from heaven, extending divine aid to the suffering members on earth. The intercession of St. Blaise, a fourth-century bishop and martyr whose miraculous aid to a choking child rendered him the patron of throat ailments, is thus sought not as a mere commemoration of past wonders, but as an active, present reality in the life of the faithful. This is no empty ritualism, no mere sentimental attachment to bygone customs; it is an acknowledgment that the supernatural order penetrates and vivifies the natural world, that divine grace works through visible signs, as it does in all the sacraments and sacramentals of Holy Mother Church.

The use of candles in this blessing is no mere aesthetic embellishment but a deeply significant symbol. The candles, blessed on the preceding day, Candlemas, were already set apart as instruments of divine protection, signifying the light of Christ that conquers the darkness. Their crossing over the throat—a gesture evocative of both the salvific power of the Cross and the episcopal authority of the saint whose blessing is sought—reminds us that physical suffering, while a consequence of original sin, is not without meaning; it is, when borne in faith, an avenue of sanctification. Yet, in her maternal solicitude, the Church does not demand that we suffer unnecessarily but provides, wherever possible, the means of healing, both spiritual and physical.

There is also a striking liturgical logic in the placement of this feast within the Church’s calendar. It follows closely upon the Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Candlemas, wherein candles are blessed in honor of Christ, the “Light to the revelation of the Gentiles.” Just as Simeon’s prophetic words reveal that Christ has come to be a sign of contradiction, so too does the Feast of St. Blaise serve as a reminder that the Cross remains ever before us in the pilgrimage of life. This is not mere historical coincidence but part of the exquisite harmony of Catholic liturgy, in which feasts and devotions are not isolated occurrences but interconnected manifestations of the one faith.

It is deeply regrettable that in the wake of liturgical reform, many of the Church’s rich sacramentals, including this blessing, have fallen into neglect or been trivialized into something scarcely distinguishable from a well-meaning but purely human gesture. The traditional rite preserves not only the Latin formula, which lends it the solemnity and universality proper to the Church’s worship, but also the unmistakable air of the sacred, of something set apart from the mundane routines of life. In an age increasingly estranged from the supernatural, there is all the more reason to reclaim and restore these tangible expressions of the faith—remedies not only for bodily ailments but for the spiritual malaise of modernity.

To receive the blessing of St. Blaise is to step into the perennial stream of Catholic piety, to affirm one’s place in the great communion of saints, and to entrust oneself anew to the providence of God, who in His mercy deigns to work through the lowliest of means—a pair of simple candles, a priest’s invocation, and the intercession of a fourth-century martyr—to bestow His healing grace. ⤴️

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

Report on the March for Life 2025 and National Pro-Life Summit

Introduction
The 52nd annual March for Life took place on January 24, 2025, in Washington, D.C., bringing together tens of thousands of pro-life advocates in one of the largest annual demonstrations for the protection of unborn life. Organized by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, the event was followed by the National Pro-Life Summit on January 25, 2025, which provided education and training for grassroots activists. Both events showcased the commitment of various organizations and individuals to advancing anti-abortion policies and fostering a culture that upholds the sanctity of life.

March for Life 2025: Key Themes and Speakers
The theme for the 2025 March, “Life: Why We March,” focused on reaffirming the pro-life movement’s dedication to protecting unborn children and providing support to their mothers. Attendees included political leaders, faith-based figures, and activists who have played key roles in the movement.

Among the most notable speakers were:

• Vice President JD Vance, who spoke in person, reinforcing the administration’s commitment to pro-life policies.
• President Donald Trump, addressing the rally via video, highlighted his administration’s achievements in appointing Supreme Court justices opposed to abortion rights and reinstating policies that restrict abortion funding.
• Governor Ron DeSantis, who emphasized Florida’s legislative successes in limiting abortion access and expanding maternal health initiatives.
• Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), a veteran advocate for pro-life legislation in Congress.
• Bethany Hamilton, a professional surfer and inspirational speaker, known for her resilience after surviving a shark attack. She shared her testimony in support of protecting unborn life.
• Dr. Catherine Wheeler, an obstetrician, who provided medical perspectives on prenatal development and ethical concerns surrounding abortion.
• Josiah Presley, an abortion survivor, whose story underscored the pro-life argument that every unborn life has potential.
• Lila Rose, founder of Live Action, a media organization known for investigative journalism exposing abortion industry practices and promoting pro-life awareness.

The March for Life, held annually since 1974, continues to be a major mobilization effort for those opposing abortion, drawing people from all over the country and inspiring local pro-life initiatives.

National Pro-Life Summit 2025
Following the March, the National Pro-Life Summit was held on January 25, 2025, at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C. Organized by Students for Life of America (SFLA), in collaboration with other pro-life organizations, the Summit served as a platform for education, strategy, and networking among grassroots activists.

Students for Life of America (SFLA)
Founded in 2006 and led by Kristan Hawkins, Students for Life of America has grown into the largest pro-life youth organization in the U.S., with over 1,300 chapters nationwide. SFLA’s mission is to recruit, train, and mobilize young activists in advancing anti-abortion efforts across college campuses, legislatures, and social media platforms.

Summit Speakers and Topics
The Summit featured a variety of speakers addressing activism strategies, policy initiatives, and ways to engage the culture on life issues. Notable speakers included:

• Dr. Ben Carson, a renowned neurosurgeon and former Secretary of HUD, who discussed the scientific and moral arguments against abortion.
• Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, who focused on mobilizing young conservatives in the pro-life movement.
• Kayleigh McEnany, former White House Press Secretary, who shared her insights on advocating for life in the media and political arenas.
• Fr. Calvin Robinson, a traditionalist cleric and social commentator, who addressed the spiritual and moral responsibilities of the pro-life movement.
• Isabel Brown, a conservative commentator, who spoke about free speech challenges related to pro-life advocacy on college campuses.
• Christine Yeargin, a pro-life activist, who presented strategies for supporting pregnant and parenting students.

The Summit’s focus was on equipping attendees with skills in public advocacy, legal challenges, crisis pregnancy support, and digital outreach to expand the pro-life message in a post-Roe America.

Future Engagement: Celebrate Life Conference 2025
Looking ahead, the Celebrate Life Conference is scheduled for June 27–29, 2025, at the Capital Hilton in Washington, D.C. This event is designed to bring together pro-life leaders, activists, and supporters for a weekend of collaboration, strategy-building, and celebration of life victories. The conference will feature high-profile speakers, breakout sessions, and opportunities for networking with like-minded organizations.

Conclusion
The March for Life 2025 and National Pro-Life Summit reaffirmed the strength and dedication of the pro-life movement in America. By mobilizing political leaders, faith-based communities, and grassroots activists, these events provided both a public demonstration of commitment and the tools necessary for continued advocacy. With upcoming initiatives such as the Celebrate Life Conference, the movement remains focused on promoting a culture where abortion is not only legally restricted but also socially unthinkable. ⤴️

Further Engagement and Resources

For a visual recap of the March for Life 2025:
📺 March for Life 2025 from Washington D.C.

For highlights from the National Pro-Life Summit 2025:
📺 The National Pro-Life Summit 2025

---

The Impact of Bishop Richard Williamson’s Death on the Traditional Catholic Movement

The passing of Bishop Richard Williamson (see Obituary here) marks a significant turning point in the Traditional Catholic movement. He was one of the most prominent and controversial figures in Catholic traditionalism over the past half-century, standing as a defiant guardian of Tradition and an unyielding critic of the modernist influence that followed the Second Vatican Council. With his death, the movement faces both uncertainty and opportunity, as various factions will need to determine how they will continue or depart from his legacy.

A Fragmented Traditionalist Landscape
Williamson’s death leaves a leadership vacuum within the hardline traditionalist faction known as the SSPX Resistance, which he effectively led after his expulsion from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in 2012. Unlike Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who built an organized priestly society with clear structure, Williamson’s Resistance movement was more informal, less hierarchical, and centered largely around his personal influence. Without him, it is unclear whether his bishops—Jean-Michel Faure, Tomás de Aquino Ferreira da Costa, Gerardo Zendejas, Giacomo Ballini, Paul Morgan, Michał Stobnicki, and the reportedly conditionally consecrated Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò—will be able to maintain unity or whether the movement will fragment further.

While these bishops ensure apostolic succession within Williamson’s sphere of influence, there is no clear successor to his charismatic leadership. His forceful rhetoric and willingness to stand alone made him a singular presence in the movement, and it remains to be seen whether any of his consecrated bishops possess the same ability to galvanize and sustain a following. This uncertainty may lead to a diminishing of the Resistance, or conversely, to the emergence of more radical factions within the traditionalist world.

SSPX and Mainstream Traditionalism
The SSPX leadership, which distanced itself from Williamson following his controversial remarks and his increasingly uncompromising stance toward Rome, may view his passing as a chance to consolidate traditionalism under their authority. The SSPX has, in recent years, maintained a delicate balance between resisting modernist influences in Rome while still seeking dialogue with the Vatican. With Williamson—one of its most vocal critics—now gone, the Society may feel emboldened to assert itself as the primary force for traditionalism and attempt to reabsorb disaffected clergy and laity who previously followed Williamson.

At the same time, his death may also embolden SSPX hardliners, who always sympathized with his refusal to engage with Rome but remained within the Society. Some clergy and faithful who have long harbored doubts about SSPX’s cautious approach toward reconciliation with the Vatican may now push for a more hardline position, leading to renewed internal tensions.

Impact on the Broader Traditionalist Movement
Beyond the SSPX and Resistance, Williamson’s death also reverberates across the wider Traditional Catholic landscape, including sedevacantists, independent clergy, and those affiliated with the Old Roman tradition.

For sedevacantists, Williamson’s passing removes a perennial figure of ambiguity—one who never embraced their position but often spoke in ways that suggested he questioned the legitimacy of post-Vatican II popes. His absence may push some of his followers to align more fully with sedevacantist groups, while others may seek a new form of traditionalism that avoids both sedevacantism and SSPX-style canonical irregularity.

For the Old Roman Apostolate and other traditionalist groups that maintain full sacramental and apostolic continuity with pre-Vatican II Catholicism, Williamson’s passing provides an opportunity to clarify their position as one that rejects modernism while maintaining fidelity to the Church’s canonical framework. His death may prompt some disillusioned traditionalists to seek more structured alternatives to the Resistance model he embodied.

A Shifting Dynamic with Rome
From the perspective of Rome, Williamson’s passing removes one of the most uncompromising critics of the post-conciliar Church. While the Vatican had little direct engagement with him in recent years, his influence remained a thorn in the side of traditionalist-Vatican relations, as he often criticized both SSPX negotiations with Rome and any traditionalists who sought reconciliation.

His absence may lead to a more conciliatory atmosphere between the SSPX and Rome, or it may embolden Vatican officials to take a firmer stance against traditionalism, believing that the loss of such a high-profile critic weakens the movement.

The Uncertain Future of the Resistance
Ultimately, Williamson’s death marks a moment of reckoning for the Resistance movement he spearheaded. Without his charismatic presence and sharp rhetoric, it remains to be seen whether his bishops and followers will maintain a cohesive stance or whether new divisions will emerge. His legacy is deeply polarizing—some will see him as a prophetic voice who stood against modernist Rome, while others will remember him as a divisive figure who contributed to the fragmentation of Traditional Catholicism.

One thing is certain: his death will reshape the traditionalist landscape, forcing groups to reevaluate their identity, strategy, and vision for the future. Whether his passing leads to greater unity or further division remains an open question, but his influence—whether admired or contested—will undoubtedly be felt for years to come.

OREMUS

O Lord Jesus Christ, who prayed that all may be one as You and the Father are one, look mercifully upon Your Church divided by strife and error. Pour forth Your Holy Spirit upon all who seek the truth, that they may be guided into the fullness of Your one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
Grant that, putting aside pride and misunderstanding, we may work toward unity in faith, charity, and obedience to Your divine will. Strengthen those who labor for the restoration of true Apostolic tradition, that in one heart and one voice, we may glorify Your holy name.
Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of the Church, and all the saints, may we be gathered together in the bond of peace and truth, for the salvation of souls and the greater glory of God.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen. ⤴️

---

Objectivism vs. Subjectivism in Contemporary Theological and Political Discourse

Theological Objectivism and Its Political Implications
Objectivism in theology asserts that truth is absolute, universal, and derived from divine revelation. This belief has historically influenced political systems that prioritize natural law and moral absolutes. In the Catholic tradition, the concept of objective moral truth is foundational to teachings on governance, justice, and human dignity. Figures such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas argued that societies must align laws with divine and natural law to achieve justice¹. This perspective persists in political movements that emphasize moral absolutism in social policy, particularly regarding life issues, marriage, and religious freedom².

In contemporary politics, objectivism often aligns with conservative and traditionalist movements that resist moral relativism. Political leaders who uphold objective morality advocate for policies based on inherent human dignity rather than evolving cultural trends. For example, opposition to abortion and euthanasia is frequently grounded in an objectivist view of human life’s sacredness³. Similarly, debates over religious liberty often rest on the principle that certain rights are endowed by God rather than granted by the state⁴.

The Rise of Subjectivism in Political and Social Thought
Subjectivism, which prioritizes personal experience, cultural context, and evolving norms, has gained influence in modern political discourse. Rooted in Enlightenment individualism and later reinforced by existentialist and postmodernist thought, subjectivism supports a fluid interpretation of truth and morality. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s emphasis on personal autonomy and later developments in liberal political philosophy have shaped contemporary views on individual rights and identity⁵.

This perspective is evident in progressive political movements that advocate for legal and social policies reflecting personal and cultural shifts. Issues such as gender identity, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia are often framed within a subjectivist paradigm, where individual choice and self-perception override fixed moral standards. The subjectivist view also informs broader political trends, including identity politics, where subjective lived experiences are elevated as primary sources of truth⁶.

Moral Relativism and the Fragmentation of Public Consensus
The subjectivist-objectivist divide has contributed to increasing polarization in political and theological discourse. Objectivists argue that abandoning absolute truth leads to moral chaos and the erosion of foundational societal values. Pope Benedict XVI’s warning about the “dictatorship of relativism” highlighted concerns that, without objective standards, societies risk being governed by fluctuating majorities rather than enduring moral principles⁷.

Subjectivists counter that rigid adherence to objective moral claims can result in oppression, exclusion, or failure to adapt to social realities. This tension is especially pronounced in debates over free speech, hate speech laws, and the role of religious belief in public life. The push for legal recognition of self-defined identities, such as gender fluidity, is a direct result of subjectivist ideology, challenging traditional legal and moral frameworks⁸.

Contemporary Attitudes and the Challenge of Dialogue
The growing divide between objectivist and subjectivist worldviews has made political and theological dialogue increasingly difficult. Objectivists view truth as something to be discovered and upheld, while subjectivists see it as a construct shaped by historical and cultural forces. This ideological split manifests in media, academia, and public policy, where disagreements over foundational principles prevent consensus on moral and social issues⁹.

One significant challenge is the decline of shared moral frameworks. In previous generations, even those who disagreed politically often operated within a common moral and philosophical tradition. Today, however, competing visions of reality make dialogue challenging. Theological objectivists, for example, may argue that human nature is fixed and determined by God, whereas subjectivists may claim that human identity is fluid and self-defined¹⁰.

Finding a Path Forward
While objectivism provides stability and continuity, and subjectivism allows for flexibility and personal engagement, a society that leans too heavily on either risks imbalance. Unchecked objectivism can lead to rigid authoritarianism, while extreme subjectivism can dissolve the moral order into relativism and incoherence. A constructive path forward requires recognizing legitimate concerns from both perspectives while maintaining a commitment to moral truth rooted in divine order.

In theological discourse, this means affirming the authority of revelation while acknowledging the necessity of pastoral sensitivity. In political discourse, it requires upholding fundamental rights and moral truths while engaging in dialogue with those influenced by shifting cultural paradigms. Without a return to objective moral principles, contemporary societies risk fragmentation; yet, without some acknowledgment of personal experience and development, theology and politics risk becoming disconnected from the realities of modern life¹¹. ⤴️

1. St. Augustine, The City of God, Book XIX.
2. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 90-97.
3. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae (1995), n. 57-58.
4. Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (1888).
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (1762).
6. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality (1976).
7. Pope Benedict XVI, Homily on the Dictatorship of Relativism (2005).
8. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (1990).
9. Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (1981).
10. Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self (1989).
11. Joseph Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance (2004).

---

The Leftist Tactic of Labeling Opponents as Nazis or Fascists

One of the most common rhetorical strategies employed by the modern Left is the indiscriminate use of terms like “Nazi” or “fascist” to describe political opponents. This tactic is not merely an insult but a deliberate attempt to delegitimize, silence, and morally discredit anyone who challenges leftist orthodoxy. Rather than engaging in substantive debate, the Left weaponizes historical atrocities to frame their adversaries as dangerous extremists. This practice has its roots in communist propaganda and has evolved into a powerful tool of psychological manipulation, ensuring that anyone who questions progressive ideology is immediately put on the defensive.

The Origins of the Smear Tactic
The Left’s use of “fascist” as a universal slur dates back to the early 20th century. Communist movements, particularly those aligned with the Soviet Union, frequently used the term to demonize all forms of opposition. Joseph Stalin labeled his political enemies—whether conservative, liberal, or even rival leftists—as “fascists” to justify purges and repression¹. This manipulation continued through the Cold War, with the USSR accusing Western democracies and capitalist societies of being “fascist” regimes². The goal was simple: to conflate any opposition to communism with Nazism or fascism, thus making it morally indefensible.

George Orwell noted this rhetorical shift in 1946, observing that the word “fascism” had become almost meaningless, used as a synonym for anything considered undesirable³. This trend has continued into the modern era, where accusations of fascism function as a means of enforcing ideological conformity. Any deviation from progressive doctrine—whether regarding immigration, cultural traditions, or economic policy—risks being met with accusations of extremism.

Why the Left Uses This Tactic
Labeling opponents as “Nazis” or “fascists” serves multiple strategic purposes. First, it provides a method of moral delegitimization. Once someone is labeled a “Nazi” or “fascist,” they are no longer treated as a rational person with a different perspective but as an existential threat. This allows the accuser to bypass debate entirely, as no one is expected to engage with or defend a supposed “Nazi.” This framing also provides the accuser with a moral high ground, positioning them as a defender of democracy, human rights, and social justice—regardless of whether their own methods are authoritarian⁴.

Second, it enables avoidance of policy debate. Instead of addressing legitimate political disagreements, leftists can use these labels to shut down discussion. If someone argues for controlled immigration, they are called a “fascist” rather than having their position debated on its merits. If someone critiques radical gender ideology, they are smeared as akin to Nazi eugenicists rather than having their arguments engaged⁵. This tactic serves as a distraction—by shifting the focus from policy substance to moral outrage, leftists avoid having to justify their own positions.

Third, it functions as a tool of psychological warfare. The accusation of being a “Nazi” carries a heavy social stigma. People fear losing their jobs, reputations, and relationships over such a label. This makes it an effective tool for silencing dissent before it even happens⁶. Corporations, universities, and public figures are especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Many institutions choose to preemptively conform to leftist demands rather than risk being accused of tolerating “fascism.”

Fourth, it justifies censorship and political repression. If someone is a “Nazi” or “fascist,” then extreme measures to suppress them become justifiable. This is why radical leftist groups like Antifa claim they are engaging in “self-defense” when using violence against conservatives or nationalists⁷. Big Tech platforms also use this rhetoric to justify deplatforming individuals who challenge progressive narratives, portraying them as dangerous extremists even when their views are mainstream. The logic is simple: “If we allow fascists to speak, we risk another Holocaust.” This emotional appeal overrides any discussion about free speech or due process⁸.

Who Actually Resembles Fascism More?
While the Left consistently accuses conservatives of being “fascists” or “Nazis,” an objective analysis reveals that the Left exhibits far more characteristics of fascist ideology than the modern conservative movement. Fascist regimes sought to dominate every aspect of public and private life, imposing ideological control over speech, education, the economy, and culture⁹. The modern Left’s enforcement of ideological conformity through government policies, corporate pressure, and mob intimidation mirrors these historical tendencies far more closely than anything found within mainstream conservatism.

Fascist governments also engaged in extensive state and corporate collusion, using private industry as a tool to enforce their ideological and economic vision¹⁰. Today, the Left has mastered the art of corporate-government partnerships, leveraging Big Tech, media conglomerates, and financial institutions to silence opposition and promote progressive causes. The widespread censorship of dissenting voices, often in coordination with government agencies, mirrors the economic and information control structures of Mussolini’s Italy¹¹.

Speech suppression was another hallmark of fascist regimes, where propaganda dominated the public sphere and dissenters faced severe consequences. Today, the Left leads the charge in censorship, using hate speech laws, deplatforming, and cancel culture to silence critics¹². Social media platforms actively suppress conservative viewpoints, mainstream media outlets coordinate attacks against political opponents, and universities enforce rigid ideological conformity through speech codes and mandatory diversity training¹³.

Additionally, fascist regimes promoted collective identity over individual merit, enforcing rigid social hierarchies based on race, class, or nationality. The modern Left’s obsession with identity politics mirrors this structure, replacing national or racial purity with “diversity” quotas, racial reparations, and gender ideology¹⁴. The enforcement of racial preferences in hiring, college admissions, and even criminal justice policies bears striking similarities to the group-based discrimination policies of past totalitarian regimes.

Political violence was another defining feature of fascism, with Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Brownshirts using mob intimidation to silence and terrorize opponents. Today, Antifa operates as a modern-day equivalent, engaging in riots, arson, and physical assaults against conservatives and nationalists¹⁵. The widespread destruction during Black Lives Matter protests, often excused by progressive leaders, exemplifies the Left’s willingness to use violence as a political tool. While the January 6th riot is frequently cited as an example of right-wing extremism, it pales in comparison to the sustained, organized violence of leftist groups over the past decade¹⁶.

Conclusion
The Left’s habit of labeling opponents as “Nazis” or “fascists” is not about historical accuracy or moral integrity—it is a calculated strategy to silence dissent and enforce ideological conformity. This smear tactic relies on fear, misinformation, and social pressure, rather than legitimate debate. A closer examination of fascist ideology reveals that its core elements—totalitarian control, state-corporate collusion, censorship, identity politics, and political violence—are far more prevalent on the Left than among conservatives.

While conservatism fundamentally rejects these principles by defending individual liberty, free markets, free speech, and cultural traditions, the modern Left increasingly embraces authoritarian measures to achieve its goals. Thus, the widespread use of “fascist” as an insult against conservatives is not only historically inaccurate but also serves as a projection tactic—accusing opponents of what the Left itself is guilty of. Recognizing this tactic for what it is and refusing to be intimidated by it is essential for maintaining open discourse and resisting ideological tyranny. ⤴️

1. Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror, 1990.
2. Courtois, Stéphane et al. The Black Book of Communism, 1999.
3. Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language, 1946.
4. Scruton, Roger. Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands, 2015.
5. Pluckrose, Helen & Lindsay, James. Cynical Theories, 2020.
6. Rufo, Christopher. America’s Cultural Revolution, 2023.
7. Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, 2017.
8. Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind, 2012.
9. Payne, Stanley G. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, 1995.
10. Mosse, George L. The Fascist Revolution, 1999.
11. Kurlander, Eric. Hitler’s Monsters, 2017.
12. Hitchens, Peter. The Abolition of Britain, 1999.
13. Murray, Douglas. The War on the West, 2022.
14. Sowell, Thomas. Discrimination and Disparities, 2018.
15. Horowitz, David. Radical Son, 1997.
16. Ngo, Andy. Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, 2021.

---

The Roman Salute vs. the Nazi Salute: Key Differences and Misconceptions

The Roman salute and the Nazi salute are often confused due to their visual similarity, but they have distinct historical origins, meanings, and cultural implications. Additionally, there are other gestures, such as touching one’s heart before extending the arm outward, that may resemble these salutes but are fundamentally different in purpose and symbolism.

1. The Roman Salute: A Modern Invention
The Roman salute is commonly depicted as an extended right arm, slightly raised, with the palm facing downward. However, there is no historical evidence that ancient Romans actually used this as a formal salute. The modern concept of the Roman salute comes from 18th- and 19th-century neoclassical art, literature, and theater, where it was depicted as a sign of Roman grandeur and discipline.

This gesture was popularized by the 1914 silent film Cabiria, which depicted Romans saluting in this manner. The film’s influence led Italian Fascists under Benito Mussolini to adopt the salute in the 1920s as a nationalistic symbol, associating it with Rome’s imperial past.

2. The Nazi Salute: A Politicized Gesture
The Nazi salute (Hitlergruß) was a mandatory state-imposed gesture in Nazi Germany, consisting of a rigidly extended right arm, palm down, accompanied by Heil Hitler! or Sieg Heil! It was directly inspired by Mussolini’s Fascist salute, which itself had been borrowed from theatrical portrayals of ancient Rome.

Unlike the Roman salute, which was an artistic and later political reinterpretation, the Nazi salute had a defined political and ideological purpose, symbolizing absolute allegiance to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. After World War II, this salute was outlawed in Germany, Austria, and several other countries due to its association with National Socialism.

3. The Hand-over-Heart Gesture: Not a Nazi Salute
A distinct gesture that involves placing one’s right hand over the heart and then extending it outward with an outstretched arm is not a Nazi salute. This movement is commonly used in various cultural and ceremonial contexts:

• Patriotic or Nationalist Gestures – Some national traditions incorporate placing the hand over the heart as a sign of sincerity or allegiance, followed by an outward motion to indicate openness or dedication, e.g. Americans when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
• Religious or Spiritual Contexts – Many religious traditions use similar gestures as blessings or signs of peace and goodwill e.g. Eastern Orthodox and Syriac Christians, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims.
• Cultural and Diplomatic Greetings – Some societies use this gesture to convey respect and greeting e.g. in North Africa and the Middle East.

4. Key Differences in Meaning and Usage

Feature	Roman Salute (Historical/Artistic)	Nazi Salute (Hitlergruß)	Hand-over-Heart-Outward Gesture
Historical Evidence	No clear evidence in ancient Rome	Documented Nazi practice (1933–1945)	Used in various cultural contexts
Origins	18th–19th-century art and theater	Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, then Nazi Germany	Found in religious, military, and national traditions
Purpose	Dramatic or ceremonial	Political allegiance to Hitler/Nazism	Often a sign of sincerity, respect, or greeting
Legal Status	No restrictions	Criminalized in Germany, Austria, etc.	Generally accepted worldwide

Here are some examples of patriotic or nationalist gestures that involve placing the hand over the heart and then extending the arm outward to signify sincerity, allegiance, or dedication:

• 1. Filipino Oath of Allegiance (Panunumpa ng Katapatan sa Watawat)
  • In the Philippines, when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, individuals place their right hand over their heart as a sign of respect and devotion to the nation.
  • In some formal settings, such as government ceremonies, a gesture of extending the hand outward after the pledge may be used to symbolize commitment to national service.
• 2. Mexican Civic Salute (“El Saludo Civil a la Bandera”)
  • In Mexico, during the national anthem or civic pledges, people place their right hand over their heart, then extend it outward with the palm facing forward.
  • This gesture, known as El Saludo Civil, is performed at official events to express allegiance to the nation and respect for the flag.
• 3. Indonesian National Pledge (“Sumpah Pemuda”)
  • During patriotic recitations such as the Youth Pledge (Sumpah Pemuda), Indonesians sometimes place their right hand over their heart before extending it forward in certain ceremonial settings.
  • The gesture is meant to emphasize commitment to national unity and the founding principles of Indonesia.
• 4. Turkish Nationalist Salute (Bozkurt Selamı)
  • Turkish nationalist groups, particularly those associated with the Grey Wolves, use a variation of a salute where the hand is placed over the heart before extending outward, sometimes forming a “wolf” shape with the fingers.
  • While this is a specific nationalist gesture, it carries cultural and political meaning in Turkish nationalism, rather than any connection to fascist salutes.
• 5. U.S. Patriotic Gestures (During Pledge or Anthem)
  • In the United States, citizens place their right hand over the heart while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or during the National Anthem.
  • In some formal or military settings, a movement from heart to outward extension (such as during a formal pledge or oath) can symbolize dedication to the country and its ideals.

Conclusion
The Roman salute is largely a modern artistic invention that was later adopted by Fascists, whereas the Nazi salute was a rigidly enforced political gesture of Nazi Germany. The hand-over-heart-then-outward movement is not a Nazi salute, as it has been used in various cultural, religious, and national traditions without any connection to National Socialism.

While gestures may appear similar at a glance, their historical context, purpose, and meaning define their true significance. ⤴️

---

Was Fr. Calvin Robinson Prudent or Foolish?

Fr. Calvin Robinson, a British-born priest affiliated with the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), recently had his clerical license revoked following a controversial gesture at the National Pro-Life Summit in Washington, D.C., on January 25, 2025. At the conclusion of his speech, Robinson made a straight-arm gesture that many interpreted as a Nazi salute. This action mirrored a similar gesture made by Elon Musk earlier in the month, which had also sparked debate.

In response, the ACC released a statement on January 28, 2025, announcing the revocation of Robinson’s license. The church emphasized that, regardless of intent, mimicking a Nazi salute—even as a joke or provocation—trivializes the horrors of the Holocaust and disrespects its victims. The statement also noted that Robinson had previously been cautioned against engaging in online trolling and similar behaviors deemed incompatible with his priestly duties.

Robinson defended his actions, stating that the gesture was intended as a mockery of those who had labeled Musk a Nazi, asserting that he is not a Nazi himself. He claimed the gesture was a joke aimed at highlighting what he perceives as overreactions from certain groups.

The Anglican Catholic Church’s Decision: Overreaction or Justified?
Before this incident, Robinson had already been cautioned by his superiors in the ACC regarding his public conduct. The ACC stated that he had been explicitly warned that “online trolling and other such actions (whether in service of the left or right) are incompatible with a priestly vocation and was told to desist.” Despite these warnings, Robinson continued his public activism in a manner that the ACC deemed inappropriate for a priest. This contributed to the church’s decision to revoke his license, indicating a broader concern over his behavior and its alignment with clerical responsibilities.

As an Anglican clergyman, Robinson’s ability to minister was dependent on the license issued by his bishop. The ACC’s revocation of that license did not merely remove him from a parish—it effectively severed him from the denomination entirely. This decision amounted to “de-churching” Robinson, as he was not just being removed from a ministerial post but was also being expelled from the ACC itself.

This highlights two possible interpretations. The ACC may have been justified, as Robinson was in a precarious position, having previously moved through multiple church jurisdictions (Church of England, Free Church of England, Nordic Catholic Church, and ACC). Given that the ACC was his last refuge within Anglicanism, he should have been more cautious. His failure to respect previous warnings about his conduct led to an inevitable outcome. Alternatively, the ACC may have overreacted. His speech at the pro-life summit was a passionate defense of life, particularly against abortion and euthanasia. The hand gesture was an obvious joke referencing Elon Musk’s recent controversy, yet the ACC treated it as grounds for expulsion. This suggests that the church may have been looking for an excuse to remove him due to broader discomfort with his political activism.

Regardless of intent, Robinson’s decision to make the gesture—and his general approach to public controversy—raised serious questions about his prudence.

Robinson’s Broader Political and Ecclesiastical Challenges
Robinson’s dismissal is not just about one incident but part of a larger struggle between his clerical role and his political activism.

Balancing political advocacy and priestly ministry is challenging. Robinson’s speech focused on the “culture of death” in Western society—abortion, euthanasia, and the degradation of human dignity. However, the controversy over his gesture overshadowed this message. Instead of debating the moral issues he raised, the media and his critics fixated on the perceived Nazi salute. This reflects a broader problem for politically engaged clergy: How does one remain an effective advocate for moral issues without becoming an easy target for cancellation?

Robinson also may have mismanaged his position in the ACC. The ACC is a small denomination with around 200 parishes and 10 dioceses. Unlike the Catholic Church, which has a long tradition of political engagement, many Anglican jurisdictions are less comfortable with priests becoming high-profile political figures. Robinson’s rising public stature made him the de facto face of the ACC, something the church may not have wanted. He was reportedly warned by church leaders to “tone it down” and avoid making himself too emblematic of the denomination. By ignoring these warnings, he may have overextended the goodwill they had offered him.

The Future of Calvin Robinson: What Comes Next?
With his license revoked, Robinson now faces an uncertain future. His immigration status in the United States may be at risk, as his stay was likely tied to his religious worker visa. Losing his license could mean he no longer qualifies for legal residency, potentially forcing him to return to the UK unless he secures a new sponsor. He is also without church affiliation, having cycled through four church jurisdictions. It is unclear whether another Anglican or Catholic body will take him in, or if he will transition to independent ministry.

Rather than serving as a parish priest, he could focus on public speaking, media appearances, and advocacy for conservative social values. His growing reputation in right-wing circles suggests that he may find success as an independent commentator or activist.

Was Robinson Prudent or Foolish?
If Robinson’s ultimate goal was to become an influential conservative voice rather than a parish priest, then his choices—while controversial—may align with his long-term ambitions. His rising profile in right-wing circles could open doors for him outside the church. If, however, he truly wished to maintain a stable clerical career, his actions were reckless. He ignored repeated warnings, failed to navigate the sensitivities of his church leadership, and allowed a momentary joke to derail his standing. A more prudent approach would have been to secure his position first and choose his battles more carefully.

Conclusion: A Man Without a Church, But Not Without a Platform
Robinson’s trajectory increasingly suggests that he is more suited to independent political activism than traditional parish ministry. His ability to engage in public controversy has made him a powerful voice, but it has also cost him his ecclesiastical standing. The key question now is whether he embraces this path fully or attempts—against the odds—to reintegrate into a church structure that has repeatedly distanced itself from him.

Regardless of what comes next, his story highlights the difficulties faced by politically engaged clergy in a world where institutions—both religious and secular—are increasingly risk-averse. Whether one sees him as a courageous truth-teller or an imprudent provocateur, his case is a cautionary tale about the costs of blending priestly identity with culture-war activism. ⤴️

---

VP Vance vs. Catholic Bishops on addressing illegal immigration

The clash between J.D. Vance, the Vice President of the United States, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has emerged as a significant flashpoint in the ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy and the role of faith-based organizations in shaping public discourse. This controversy centers around the Trump administration’s controversial decision to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to operate in so-called “sensitive locations,” including churches, schools, and health facilities. Under this policy, places that were traditionally considered sanctuaries for vulnerable communities have now been turned into potential sites for immigration enforcement.

The bishops, who are known for their outspoken stance on humanitarian issues, have fiercely opposed this policy, asserting that it undermines trust between immigrants and religious institutions. They argue that the fear generated by the presence of ICE in churches, particularly in immigrant communities, could have devastating consequences, eroding relationships with clergy and hindering the ability of religious institutions to provide support and care.¹

Vance, who is himself a Catholic, has responded to this criticism by challenging the bishops’ stance. He suggested that their opposition to the ICE policy may be motivated by financial interests, as Catholic Charities and other Catholic organizations receive substantial federal funding for their refugee resettlement programs. Vance’s comments struck a nerve within the church, with many bishops and religious leaders defending their commitment to the immigrant community as rooted in faith and moral principles rather than financial motives.²

In fact, the USCCB has received significant government funding for its refugee and migrant programs. Between 2014 and 2023, the organization received approximately $797 million in government funding for refugee and migration services, while expending around $850 million on these initiatives. In 2023 alone, the USCCB received $130 million in contracts for refugee resettlement programs, while spending $134 million on related services. These federal funds, however, do not cover the full costs, as the organization relies on private donations, volunteer support, and other resources to cover the remaining expenses.³

While the bishops have acknowledged receiving government support for their refugee programs, they have also pointed out that these funds do not cover the full scope of the expenses involved in resettling refugees and assisting immigrants. Their support for these programs, they emphasize, is not driven by financial gain but by their duty to minister to the marginalized and vulnerable populations, in line with Catholic teaching on social justice.⁴

Charitable Motivation vs. Political Allegiance
The question of whether the bishops are motivated solely by charity or by political animus, particularly from a left-wing perspective, is a complex one. The bishops’ stance on immigration and social justice issues like refugee resettlement reflects their commitment to Catholic teaching on the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor, and the moral imperative to care for the marginalized. These principles are rooted in Catholic social doctrine, which emphasizes mercy and justice as fundamental to the faith.

Catholic bishops argue that their advocacy for immigrants is grounded in the Church’s long tradition of compassion and solidarity with the poor and oppressed. This tradition is not unique to any political ideology but is rooted in Christian doctrine. The bishops’ position on immigration often stresses the humanitarian and pastoral needs of refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants, reflecting the Church’s role in promoting human dignity and care for those in need. For instance, bishops have historically opposed policies that separate families or deny basic services to immigrants, which they view as contrary to Christian ethics.

However, critics from more conservative and right-wing perspectives argue that the bishops’ stance on immigration aligns with left-wing political priorities. These critics suggest that the bishops’ vocal opposition to restrictive immigration policies may be more about politics than charity. They argue that the bishops’ criticisms of policies such as deportations or the construction of a border wall echo political left-wing talking points and that this focus is sometimes inconsistent with other moral priorities, particularly abortion.

Abortion and the Role of the Bishops
The bishops’ approach to abortion is also often discussed in political terms, as the Catholic Church has been a strong and consistent opponent of abortion for decades. The USCCB has condemned abortion as an intrinsic evil, and bishops have worked tirelessly to influence legislation, offer education, and encourage public policy that protects unborn life. However, some observers point out that while the bishops are vocal on abortion, the Church’s broader political activism seems to be more focused on issues like poverty, immigration, and economic inequality in recent years. This has led to critiques that the bishops’ positions on abortion and immigration are sometimes inconsistent, with some feeling that the Church’s moral leadership on issues like abortion could be just as forceful and outspoken in its resistance to certain immigration policies.

Why Immigration?
The bishops’ strong focus on immigration can be viewed in light of the Church’s global mission and the immediate needs of vulnerable populations. Immigrants, particularly those fleeing violence, poverty, and instability in Central America or other parts of the world, represent a visible and urgent group in need of aid. The Church sees its mission as addressing both spiritual and material needs, and many bishops see themselves as answering a moral call to aid these individuals, in line with Jesus’ teachings about caring for strangers and the marginalized.

Critics, however, argue that this focus might sometimes overshadow other important moral issues such as abortion or euthanasia. There is often a perception that the bishops’ focus on immigration is disproportionately aligned with certain political movements or ideologies that prioritize progressive social policies, even though the Church’s position on immigration is more about humanitarian concern than political ideology.

Conclusion
The question of whether the bishops are driven solely by charity or by political animus is ultimately about balancing the moral imperatives of the faith with the political realities of contemporary society. While there is undoubtedly a charitable motivation in their advocacy for immigrants, critics argue that it sometimes overlaps with political motivations, particularly when their stances appear to align with progressive policy agendas. At the same time, it’s essential to recognize that the bishops do emphasize multiple moral issues in their teachings, including the protection of life from conception. Their advocacy on immigration, however, has become a focal point because it directly affects the lives of a vulnerable population that the Church has long sought to protect. For many bishops, these concerns are not mutually exclusive but part of a broader vision of justice, dignity, and compassion that aligns with Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and the social responsibilities of the faithful.

In conclusion, while the bishops’ concern for immigrants is rooted in charity and humanitarian principles, the intersection of faith with political realities makes the Church’s social advocacy a complex issue. Their position on immigration, while often aligned with progressive political concerns, reflects a deeper theological commitment to justice for the marginalized, and may appear in contrast to their more politically charged stances on issues like abortion, depending on one’s perspective. ⤴️

1. NYPost: JD Vance has blistering response for Catholic bishops.
2. NCR: Vice President Vance Criticizes US Bishops Over Immigration.
3. Pillar Catholic: How Much Have Bishops Received in Funding for Refugee Resettlement?.
4. America Magazine: Bishops Defend Their Position on Refugee Programs.

---

Aquinas’ Hierarchy of Love and J.D. Vance’s Advocacy for Family-Centered Policy

The discussion surrounding Thomas Aquinas’s Hierarchy of Love and J.D. Vance’s pro-family advocacy shares significant thematic overlaps. Both perspectives emphasize the proper ordering of affections and responsibilities, particularly in relation to God, self, family, and society. Vance’s recent statements on the importance of family, declining birth rates, and the dangers of radical individualism echo the principles outlined in Aquinas’s framework.

US Vice President J.D. Vance has recently highlighted the significance of family and pro-family policies in American society. In his speech at the March for Life rally, Vance stated, “I want more babies in the United States of America,” emphasizing the need for a culture that celebrates life at all stages and measures national success by the ability of people to raise thriving families.

1. The Hierarchy of Love as a Model for Social Order
Aquinas’s ordo amoris (order of love) establishes a structured prioritization:

1. God as the Supreme Love – The foundation of all moral order.
2. Love of Self (Properly Ordered) – Pursuit of spiritual and moral integrity.
3. Love of Family (First Natural Community) – Primary responsibility to spouse and children.
4. Love of Community and Nation – Natural extension of familial obligations.
5. Love for All Humanity (Universal Benevolence) – Charitable concern for society.

Vance’s rhetoric aligns with points 3 and 4, as he argues that American society has disordered its priorities by neglecting family stability and cultural continuity. He contends that the nation must reorient itself toward policies that strengthen marriage, encourage childbearing, and combat cultural forces that erode traditional family values.

2. J.D. Vance’s Critique of Radical Individualism
Vance has criticized radical individualism, arguing that it undermines the very structures necessary for a thriving society. This critique echoes Aquinas’s view that human beings are not merely isolated individuals but are created to live in ordered relationships within the family and society.

How Radical Individualism Conflicts with the Hierarchy of Love:

• Prioritization of Personal Desires Over Family Responsibilities
  • Vance argues that a culture that celebrates careerism over family-building leads to declining birth rates and demographic crises.
  • This contrasts with Aquinas’s principle that self-love should be rightly ordered, seeking fulfillment in relationships rather than personal gain.
• Devaluation of Marriage and Parenthood
  • Vance has openly criticized elite figures who promote childlessness as a lifestyle choice. He suggests that leaders without families lack a stake in the future of the country and may govern without an understanding of long-term societal needs.
  • Aquinas, too, saw the family as the fundamental building block of society, necessary for both moral formation and civic stability.
• Erosion of Communal and Religious Bonds
  • Vance laments the increasing social isolation and decline of faith-based communities, noting that these trends correlate with economic struggles and mental health crises.
  • Aquinas would argue that this reflects a disordered love, where attachment to transient pleasures has displaced the love of God and neighbor.

3. The Crisis of Declining Birth Rates and Cultural Nihilism
Vance’s recent statement—“I want more babies in the United States of America”—reflects a growing concern over the nation’s demographic trajectory. His comments align with Aquinas’s belief that procreation is part of the natural and divine order.

Why Birth Rates Matter in the Hierarchy of Love:

• Children as a Natural Fruit of Ordered Love
  • Aquinas taught that marriage is oriented toward both unity and procreation.
  • Vance’s concern is that modern society discourages parenthood, leading to demographic decline and existential aimlessness.
• Long-Term Consequences of Birth Rate Decline
  • Economic stagnation, shrinking workforces, and weakening national security.
  • Increased loneliness and generational disconnection.
• Vance’s Call for Pro-Family Policies
  • He has advocated for policies that make it easier for families to raise children, including tax incentives, parental leave expansions, and cultural shifts that celebrate rather than penalize motherhood.

Aquinas would support such an approach, as he saw the family as not merely a private institution but the foundation of a well-ordered society.

4. The Role of Faith in National Renewal
Vance’s vision of national renewal is implicitly theological. While his arguments are often framed in political or economic terms, the underlying premise aligns with Aquinas’s view that a nation must be built upon rightly ordered loves.

Faith and the Family:

• Christianity as the Foundation of Western Civilization
  • Vance has defended the role of Christianity in shaping American identity, arguing that its moral framework has been essential for fostering strong families and communities.
  • Aquinas would affirm that a society disconnected from God will inevitably collapse into disordered affections.
• Marriage as a Sacramental Bond, Not a Contract
  • Vance’s criticism of divorce culture and unstable relationships reflects the Catholic understanding of marriage as a covenant, not merely a legal arrangement.
• A Call for Cultural Renewal
  • Just as Aquinas saw the need to reorder love in accordance with divine law, Vance calls for a reordering of national priorities away from materialism and toward the stability of faith, family, and tradition.

The Necessity of UK Catholics and Christians to Propagate
The demographic shifts in the UK underscore the urgent need for Catholics and Christians to prioritize family growth and faith transmission. With declining birth rates among native Britons and the continued growth of secularism and Islam, the Christian population risks diminishing both numerically and culturally. Christianity, once the dominant faith in Britain, has fallen from 59.3% in 2011 to 51% in 2019¹, while the Muslim population (5.7%) is projected to grow significantly by 2050, largely due to higher fertility rates and continued migration². Simultaneously, secularism is rising, with 38.4% now identifying as non-religious³. If current trends persist, the UK could see a post-Christian society, where faith no longer shapes public morality, governance, or culture.

Conclusion: The Need for an Ordered Society
J.D. Vance’s recent remarks on family, individualism, and cultural decay strongly echo Thomas Aquinas’s Hierarchy of Love. Both emphasize the necessity of ordering love properly to ensure both personal fulfillment and social stability.

• Aquinas’ Ordo Amoris provides the moral framework:
  • Love of God → Love of Family → Love of Community → Love of Nation.
• Vance’s advocacy for pro-family policies reflects this order:
  • Prioritizing marriage and children over individualistic pursuits.
  • Rejecting anti-natalist and nihilistic cultural trends.
  • Recognizing the moral and social role of faith in national renewal.

In short, both Aquinas and Vance argue that a society thrives only when love is properly ordered, ensuring that God, family, and community take precedence over self-indulgence and materialism.

To counteract this, Christians must embrace a culture of life, rejecting modern anti-natalist attitudes that discourage marriage and children. The Church has always taught that openness to life is a fundamental Christian duty (Humanae Vitae, 1968)⁴. Practical steps include fostering large, faith-filled families, supporting pro-family policies, and actively evangelizing younger generations. The survival of Christianity in the UK depends not just on preserving doctrine, but on biological and spiritual propagation—raising children in the faith and actively converting those who have fallen away. A revitalized, growing Christian population is essential to ensuring that Britain’s future is not solely shaped by secularism or competing religious ideologies.

1. Office for National Statistics (ONS) – Religious Population Estimates in England and Wales, 2019, retrieved from ons.gov.uk
2. Pew Research Center (2017) – Europe’s Growing Muslim Population, retrieved from pewresearch.org
3. ONS Census 2021 – Religious Affiliation in the UK, retrieved from ons.gov.uk
4. Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968) – On the Regulation of Birth, retrieved from vatican.va

---

President Trump’s Decision to Withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO)

Overview of the Withdrawal
On January 20, 2025, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order that formally initiated the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). This decision sets into motion a one-year withdrawal process, which will culminate in the U.S. leaving the WHO by January 22, 2026. Trump’s administration had previously sought to exit the WHO in 2020, but that decision was reversed by President Joe Biden when he took office in January 2021.

This new move, while being a continuation of Trump’s stance against international organizations, marks a significant change in global health policy and raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in the global health governance system.¹

Key Aspects of the Executive Order

• Formal Notification to the WHO: The order directs the Secretary of State to notify the United Nations and the WHO of the U.S.’s intention to withdraw.
• Suspension of Funding: One of the immediate impacts of this decision is the cessation of U.S. financial contributions to the WHO. Historically, the U.S. has been the largest single contributor to the WHO, providing around 18% of its annual budget.²
• Recall of Personnel: The order includes instructions to withdraw U.S. personnel who have been working with the WHO.
• Exploration of Alternative Partners: The U.S. will look for alternative organizations or entities to take over activities previously handled by the WHO, including those related to global health initiatives such as disease prevention, vaccines, and health emergencies.³

Reasons for the Withdrawal
Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the WHO stems from several concerns that he had raised throughout his presidency, particularly regarding the organization’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its relationship with China. Key points in his rationale include:

• WHO’s Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Trump criticized the WHO for being too slow to act during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argue that the organization did not act quickly enough in declaring the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, which delayed global efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus.⁴
• China Allegiance: The WHO faced accusations of being overly influenced by China in its early responses to the pandemic. In particular, the organization was criticized for initially downplaying concerns about human-to-human transmission and failing to act on the Wuhan outbreak with greater urgency, despite early reports of a novel virus in China.⁵
• Inconsistent Messaging: Some critics argue that the WHO’s messaging during the pandemic was often inconsistent. For example, there were confusing statements regarding the effectiveness of masks, the necessity of lockdowns, and the transmissibility of the virus, which led to confusion among the global public and policymakers.⁶

Implications for Global Health
The withdrawal of the U.S. from the WHO has profound consequences not only for the organization but for global health initiatives:

1. Impact on Global Health Programs: The U.S. is a major financial backer of several WHO-led programs aimed at combating infectious diseases, such as HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. The withdrawal could lead to significant disruptions in these ongoing efforts, particularly in developing countries where U.S. funding plays a critical role in tackling health challenges.⁷
2. Weakened Global Coordination: The WHO is central to coordinating international responses to pandemics and health crises. The withdrawal of the U.S. could weaken global health governance, reducing the overall effectiveness of the WHO’s ability to respond to future health emergencies, including potential pandemics. This comes at a time when the world is still recovering from the COVID-19 crisis and preparing for future threats.⁸
3. Potential Challenges to U.S. Health Security: While critics argue that withdrawing from the WHO could harm the global health community, others express concern about the impact on U.S. health security. The WHO plays a critical role in sharing epidemiological data and health alerts that help inform U.S. public health policy. Losing access to this data could leave the U.S. more vulnerable to health crises.⁹
4. Undermining U.S. Leadership in Global Health: As the U.S. exits the WHO, other nations may look for new partners in global health leadership. This could reduce American influence in shaping global health standards and policies. In addition, countries like China may gain more global influence in the absence of U.S. leadership.¹⁰

International Reactions
The WHO has expressed disappointment and regret over the U.S. decision. The organization has emphasized the longstanding partnership between the U.S. and the WHO and has called for the country to reconsider its position, underscoring that global health challenges require cooperation. WHO officials have warned that the U.S.’s withdrawal would reduce global health effectiveness, especially as the world continues to battle the COVID-19 pandemic and other infectious diseases.¹¹

Potential Legal and Political Challenges
Trump’s decision to leave the WHO could face challenges, both in the courts and in Congress. Critics, including many public health experts, argue that the U.S. should be leading efforts to address global health inequities and pandemic preparedness, rather than abandoning the international system. The Biden administration or future leadership may revisit the decision and work to re-engage with the WHO.¹²

Moreover, some states and local governments in the U.S., as well as health organizations, may choose to continue their partnerships with the WHO even if the federal government withdraws. This could lead to a fragmented approach to global health, with some U.S. entities still working within the WHO framework.¹³

Criticisms of the WHO
The World Health Organization (WHO) has long been a cornerstone of global health governance, yet it has faced a range of criticism over its performance, decision-making, and effectiveness. Below are some of the key criticisms that have emerged over the years:

1. Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

• Delayed Response: The WHO has been widely criticized for being slow to respond to the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argue that the organization did not act quickly enough in declaring the COVID-19 outbreak a public health emergency of international concern, which delayed global efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus.¹⁴
• China Allegiance: The WHO faced accusations of being overly influenced by China in its early responses to the pandemic. In particular, the organization was criticized for initially downplaying concerns about human-to-human transmission and failing to act on the Wuhan outbreak with greater urgency, despite early reports of a novel virus in China.¹⁵
• Inconsistent Messaging: Some critics argue that the WHO’s messaging during the pandemic was often inconsistent. For example, there were confusing statements regarding the effectiveness of masks, the necessity of lockdowns, and the transmissibility of the virus, which led to confusion among the global public and policymakers.¹⁶

2. Bureaucracy and Inefficiency

• Slow Decision-Making: The WHO has been criticized for its bureaucratic inefficiencies, with some suggesting that it struggles to make timely decisions due to its complex organizational structure. This can be problematic during global health emergencies, where quick action is essential.¹⁷
• Overdependence on Donor Countries: The organization relies heavily on funding from donor countries, particularly the United States, which can lead to concerns over influence. Critics argue that this reliance makes the WHO vulnerable to political pressure and compromises its independence in decision-making.¹⁸

3. Lack of Enforcement Power

• Limited Authority: The WHO lacks the power to enforce its recommendations on sovereign nations. While it provides guidelines and coordinates responses to global health threats, it does not have the authority to mandate actions by countries, making it largely reliant on cooperation from its member states.¹⁹
• Inability to Address Health Inequities: Despite its mission to improve global health, the WHO has faced criticism for not doing enough to address health inequities between wealthy and low-income nations. Some argue that the organization has failed to prioritize the health needs of the world’s poorest populations, especially in areas such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV.²⁰

4. Handling of Past Health Crises

• Ebola Outbreak (2014-2016): The WHO faced significant backlash for its handling of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The organization was criticized for its slow response and failure to mobilize a coordinated international response quickly enough, which allowed the virus to spread widely before effective control measures were implemented.²¹
• Zika Virus Outbreak (2015-2016): Similarly, the WHO was criticized for its initial lack of urgency regarding the Zika virus outbreak in the Americas. Some argue that it took too long for the organization to issue proper travel warnings and public health advisories.²²

5. Political Influence and Conflicts of Interest

• Political Pressures: The WHO has been accused of being politically influenced by the interests of major donor countries, particularly the United States and China. Critics argue that the WHO often acts with a political agenda, prioritizing diplomatic relations over the interests of global public health.²³
• Conflicts of Interest with Industry: There have been concerns about the WHO’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, with critics alleging that the organization’s decisions, especially around vaccines and drug recommendations, may be influenced by corporate interests rather than purely scientific evidence.²⁴

6. Transparency Issues

• Lack of Transparency: The WHO has faced criticism for its lack of transparency in its decision-making processes. Critics argue that the organization often makes important decisions behind closed doors without sufficient input from independent experts or the public.²⁵
• Data Sharing: The WHO has been criticized for not sharing data quickly enough during health emergencies. For example, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the organization was accused of withholding or not disseminating critical information in a timely manner, which may have hindered global preparedness efforts.²⁶

7. Failure to Address Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)

• Neglect of NCDs: Some health experts argue that the WHO has been overly focused on infectious diseases, often at the expense of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. NCDs are responsible for the majority of deaths worldwide, particularly in developed countries, yet the WHO’s attention to these issues has often been insufficient compared to its efforts on infectious diseases.²⁷

8. Structural and Financial Challenges

• Budget Constraints: The WHO’s budget has long been a source of tension. Although it is the leading global health body, the organization’s funding is heavily dependent on voluntary contributions from member states, rather than assessed contributions based on a country’s wealth. This creates funding instability, which can hinder the WHO’s ability to plan long-term initiatives and respond to emerging health crises.²⁸
• Leadership Controversies: The WHO has faced criticism over leadership issues, particularly during transitions between directors-general. Some believe the organization’s leadership has struggled with visionary leadership and effective crisis management, which has affected its global impact.²⁹

Conclusion
The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO represents a significant shift in the nation’s approach to global health governance. While Trump’s decision aligns with his broader “America First” ideology, it raises serious questions about international cooperation and the role of the U.S. in addressing global health crises. The long-term consequences of this decision remain uncertain, and its impact on global health programs and future pandemics could be profound. At the same time, the WHO itself faces ongoing challenges that undermine its effectiveness and credibility, highlighting the need for reform within the organization to address global health inequities, improve efficiency, and enhance transparency. ⤴️

1. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-leave-world-health-organization-jan-22-2026-says-un-2025-01-23
2. https://www.who.int/about/funding
3. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/health-systems
4. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52195363
5. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/us-china-who-covid-19-pandemic-response
6. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/10/who-masks-stance-covid-19-302015
7. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases
8. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus
9. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-who-is-the-u-s-government-right-to-blame/
10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/05/30/trumps-decision-withdrawal-who-raises-questions-global-health-leadership/
11. https://www.huffingtonpost.es/2020/04/07/what-happens-when-the-us-leaves-the-who_a_29040459/
12. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/20/biden-signs-executive-order-to-rejoin-who.html
13. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-trump-withdrawal-idUSKBN2A10P5
14. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54004677
15. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/us-china-who-covid-19-pandemic-response
16. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/10/who-masks-stance-covid-19-302015
17. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/29/us-to-quit-who-officials-say-as-trump-administration-criticizes-the-body.html
18. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-11/the-who-depends-on-donors-to-do-its-job-so-who-controls-it/13364258
19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/06/us-china-who-covid-19-pandemic-response
20. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/09/30/who-tries-to-shift-focus-to-non-communicable-diseases
21. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/02/who-criticised-slow-response-ebola-crisis
22. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35455672
23. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/09/30/who-tries-to-shift-focus-to-non-communicable-diseases
24. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-38103659
25. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-insight-idUSKCN1VV1AK
26. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-who-is-the-u-s-government-right-to-blame/
27. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/fight-against-cancer-is-being-undermined-by-covid/13678840
28. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/06/01/who-financing-may-be-in-jeopardy-if-us-leaves/
29. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/19/who-to-appoint-new-leader-as-trump-attacks-potential-candidates-.html

---

Addressing Clerical Abuse in the Philippines

The issue of clerical licentiousness in the Philippines has long been a source of deep concern within the Catholic Church, with numerous cases of sexual abuse and misconduct overshadowing the institution’s moral authority. A recent initiative by BishopAccountability.org, a U.S.-based watchdog organization, marks a significant step in addressing these abuses. The launch of a database containing details of over 80 Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing minors aims to increase transparency and hold church officials accountable for actions that have long been suppressed or ignored in Filipino society.

Cultural and Institutional Challenges
The Catholic Church in the Philippines holds immense social and moral influence, with over 80% of the population identifying as Catholic. The church has historically been viewed as a moral authority, and clergy members are often revered, making confronting allegations of misconduct particularly difficult. This reverence for the clergy, coupled with the cultural norms of respecting authority, has created an environment where abuse cases are sometimes dismissed or covered up to protect the church’s reputation. The deeply ingrained sense of clericalism—the belief in the inherent sanctity and authority of priests—has perpetuated a cycle where allegations of abuse are often swept under the rug. Priests, bishops, and other church leaders have historically been shielded from scrutiny, with victims being discouraged from speaking out due to fear of public shame or retribution. This issue has been widely recognized as a systemic cultural problem within the Philippines, particularly within the context of the church’s powerful social influence (BishopAccountability.org, January 2025)¹; (The Guardian, November 2024)².

Details of the Database and Criticism of the Church
The newly launched BishopAccountability.org database aims to disrupt this cycle of silence by exposing the names, photographs, and detailed accounts of priests accused of sexual abuse. The database includes cases that span more than two decades, some of which are being revealed to the public for the first time. Despite the severity of the allegations, none of the priests listed have been convicted of these crimes in Philippine courts, raising serious questions about the influence of the clergy in stymying legal actions. This lack of legal accountability highlights the extent of institutional protection and complicity within the church, which has allowed abusers to continue their actions without facing justice. Anne Barrett Doyle, one of the directors of BishopAccountability.org, has strongly criticized the Philippine Catholic hierarchy for its silence regarding these allegations, suggesting that this silence amounts to a cover-up. She has called on Philippine authorities to investigate church officials who may have facilitated these abuses by failing to report or act upon them (BishopAccountability.org, January 2025)³; (BBC News, 2024)⁴.

Response from Philippine Church Leaders
In response to the growing criticism, Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David, a prominent church leader in the Philippines, has emphasized the church’s commitment to preventing future abuse. He pointed to the establishment of an office by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) specifically tasked with safeguarding minors and vulnerable adults. While this initiative may be seen as a step toward addressing the problem, critics argue that it does not go far enough in addressing the historical and widespread nature of the abuse. The church’s efforts have been criticized as insufficient, with many survivors and activists pushing for more robust reforms, including a comprehensive examination of past cases and greater accountability for church leaders (AP News, January 2025)⁵; (The Philippine Star, December 2024)⁶.

A Broader Effort for Transparency and Accountability
The launch of the database is part of a wider effort by BishopAccountability.org to expose clergy sexual abuse globally. Similar databases have been established in countries such as the United States, Ireland, Argentina, and Chile, where church officials have been similarly criticized for covering up abuse. These efforts are designed to promote accountability and prevent the church from continuing its historical pattern of secrecy. By making these records publicly accessible, BishopAccountability.org seeks to reduce the church’s ability to cover up these scandals and push for a more comprehensive investigation and prosecution of the accused (BishopAccountability.org, January 2025)⁷; (The Guardian, November 2024)².

Global Impact and Cultural Shift
The creation of this database signals a cultural shift in which survivors of sexual abuse are gaining more visibility and support. This shift is part of a broader international reckoning, where religious organizations, particularly the Catholic Church, are increasingly being scrutinized for their handling of abuse cases. It reflects a larger movement toward justice, transparency, and accountability in religious institutions. The global nature of this effort is significant, as it highlights that clergy sexual abuse is not confined to any one region or culture. The Philippine database adds to the growing international conversation about the need for greater transparency and accountability from religious institutions, especially those with significant power and influence (BishopAccountability.org, January 2025)⁸; (Al Jazeera, December 2024)⁹.

The Call for Reform and Justice
The issue of clerical licentiousness in the Philippines is part of a larger global crisis that calls for comprehensive reforms. While the Philippine church has begun to take steps toward addressing the abuse, including the establishment of child protection offices and training programs for clergy, many activists and survivors argue that these measures are insufficient. There is an urgent need for the church to acknowledge its complicity in the abuse, prosecute those responsible, and ensure that the victims receive justice. The efforts of BishopAccountability.org and other advocacy groups are part of a broader movement to hold the church accountable for the systemic abuse and protect future generations from similar harm. The launch of this database is a significant moment in the ongoing fight for justice and transparency, signaling that the Catholic Church’s hold on moral authority is being increasingly questioned in the face of its handling of abuse cases (AP News, January 2025)¹⁰.

Conclusion
The launch of the BishopAccountability.org database marks a significant turning point in addressing clergy sexual abuse in the Philippines. It exposes the widespread nature of the abuse and the failure of the Catholic Church to act decisively in confronting the issue. While efforts are being made to safeguard vulnerable individuals, these steps remain insufficient in light of the historical pattern of cover-ups and inaction. The ongoing work of BishopAccountability.org and other advocacy groups is essential to ensuring that victims are heard, justice is served, and the church is held accountable for its failures. This initiative is part of a global movement that demands transparency, accountability, and reform within the Catholic Church, with the ultimate goal of preventing further abuse and protecting future generations (BishopAccountability.org, January 2025)¹¹; (New York Times, December 2024)¹². ⤴️

1. BishopAccountability.org. “Philippine Clergy Sexual Abuse Database.” January 2025.
2. The Guardian. “New Orleans Archdiocese Releases Secret Files on Clergy Accused of Abuse.” November 2024.
3. BishopAccountability.org. “Call for Philippine Prosecution of Church Officials.” January 2025.
4. BBC News. “Criticism of the Catholic Church’s Handling of Abuse Cases in the Philippines.” 2024.
5. AP News. “Philippine Church Leaders Respond to Calls for Action on Abuse.” January 2025.
6. The Philippine Star. “Philippine Bishops Defend New Safeguarding Office Amidst Calls for Reform.” December 2024.
7. BishopAccountability.org. “International Database Efforts for Transparency in Clergy Abuse Cases.” January 2025.
8. BishopAccountability.org. “Cultural Shift in the Global Fight Against Clerical Abuse.” January 2025.
9. Al Jazeera. “Global Scandal: How the Catholic Church is Facing Worldwide Criticism for Handling Abuse Cases.” December 2024.
10. AP News. “Global Accountability for Clergy Abuse and Church Transparency.” January 2025.
11. BishopAccountability.org. “Strengthening Efforts to Combat Clerical Abuse in the Philippines.” January 2025.
12. New York Times. “Philippine Church Still Faces Strong Scrutiny over Clergy Abuse Allegations.” December 2024.

---

French Prime Minister François Bayrou’s Proposal to Split the “End of Life” Bill

Catholic Prime Minister François Bayrou’s proposal to split an “end of life” bill into two separate parts—one focused on “active assistance in dying” and the other on “palliative care”—marks a significant move in the ongoing debate over end-of-life legislation in France. The proposal reflects an attempt to address the complex and often contentious issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide while maintaining respect for the existing legal and ethical concerns around palliative care. Bayrou’s argument centers on the belief that these are “distinct issues” and that treating them together in one bill could obscure the nuances of each. By separating the two, he suggests that lawmakers and the public could focus on each matter individually, which might allow for more constructive dialogue and policymaking. This move is seen as a political strategy designed to ensure that the broader issue of euthanasia does not overshadow or complicate the equally important conversation around improving and expanding palliative care options in France.

1. The Split Proposal
The political context behind the proposal is shaped by the ongoing tensions in France over end-of-life care. The French government, in line with public opinion, has historically been reluctant to fully embrace the legalization of euthanasia. For example, France’s “Leonetti Law” of 2005, and its subsequent reinforcement by the “Léonetti-Claeys” law in 2016, allowed for deep sedation in terminal cases but stopped short of endorsing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. This ongoing framework has fueled the debate between those advocating for the extension of legal options for assisted death and those promoting a strict pro-life stance. Bayrou’s proposal attempts to address this divide by separating these issues into distinct legislative tracks.

2. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Perspectives
The proposal aims to strike a delicate balance between opposing political factions and societal views. On one hand, separating “active assistance in dying” from “palliative care” may appeal to more conservative, pro-life groups who are deeply opposed to any form of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. These groups view the active ending of a life as a moral and ethical line that should not be crossed, even if the individual is suffering. By distinguishing this from palliative care—focused on alleviating suffering without hastening death—Bayrou seeks to reassure these groups that the sanctity of life is being respected.

On the other hand, the move may also be seen as a way to avoid alienating progressive factions, who argue for the legalization of active assistance in dying under controlled and regulated circumstances. According to a 2022 IFOP survey, approximately 70% of the French public supports the idea of legalizing euthanasia, showing a significant shift in attitudes toward end-of-life care. This division highlights the need for careful negotiation, and Bayrou’s approach may provide an opportunity for further discussion while also moderating the conversation on active assistance in dying.

3. Palliative Care as a Separate Focus
Palliative care, which emphasizes the relief of pain and suffering without hastening death, is a central concern for many medical professionals, patients, and families. However, there have been concerns about the availability and quality of palliative care in France, where many argue that it remains underfunded and inaccessible in some areas. According to the World Health Organization, palliative care is underfunded globally, and access remains a significant issue, even in Europe. Bayrou’s focus on improving palliative care as a separate issue could ensure that France’s healthcare system works to better meet the needs of terminally ill patients, making their final days as comfortable and dignified as possible. This emphasis on palliative care also reflects the values of many religious and healthcare groups, who argue that care should prioritize comfort and the dignity of the patient without resorting to interventions that could end life prematurely.

4. Political Implications
The French political landscape on the issue of end-of-life care remains highly polarized. The French government’s historical stance, based on the Leonetti Law, aligns with a cautious approach to euthanasia, but reform calls have been increasing. A 2021 Le Monde report highlights the growing tension between pro-euthanasia and pro-life groups, with no clear resolution in sight. By proposing the split, Bayrou hopes to mitigate this polarization. However, this proposal risks deepening the divide, as supporters of each side will likely push for their issues to be addressed more directly. The challenge for Bayrou and the French government is to navigate these competing interests while still providing meaningful reforms.

5. Challenges and Criticisms
Despite its apparent political astuteness, the proposal to split the bill faces significant challenges. Some critics argue that the separation of these issues could lead to inadequate reforms, where one area might be prioritized at the expense of the other. For example, while the debate over active assistance in dying might be postponed indefinitely, there is concern that palliative care reforms may not be robust enough to address the real gaps in access and quality. Furthermore, this approach might prevent a comprehensive, holistic reform of end-of-life care that accounts for both the ethical and medical aspects of dying. Critics argue that the split could complicate what is already a deeply personal and emotionally charged issue, leaving both sides unsatisfied with the final outcome.

Public and International Reactions
The public’s response to Bayrou’s proposal is likely to be mixed. Families of terminally ill patients, who often have firsthand experience with end-of-life decisions, may have varying opinions depending on their own personal beliefs and healthcare experiences. On the international stage, countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada have already legalized various forms of active assistance in dying, each with specific conditions and safeguards in place. Belgium, for instance, allows euthanasia for both adults and minors under strict criteria, while the Netherlands has similarly regulated laws. As France navigates its own policy, it will likely look to these international examples, weighing their potential benefits and challenges.

In conclusion, François Bayrou’s proposal to split the “end of life” bill into two distinct parts represents a politically savvy move to address the deeply divisive issues surrounding euthanasia and palliative care. Whether this approach will succeed in bridging the gap between opposing factions and lead to meaningful reform remains to be seen, but it is clear that the debate will continue to be a contentious one in France’s political and social landscape. ⤴️

1. Leonetti Law: The 2005 “Leonetti Law” on end-of-life care allows deep sedation for terminally ill patients under certain conditions but stops short of legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. This was extended by the 2016 “Léonetti-Claeys” law, which clarified procedures for withholding life-sustaining treatments and emphasized the role of palliative care. Source: French Government Website on End-of-Life Care.
2. Political Polarization in France: A 2021 Le Monde report notes the deepening division between proponents of euthanasia and those advocating for pro-life measures, reflecting a broader struggle over end-of-life care legislation in the country. Source: Le Monde, “The Divisive Debate on Euthanasia in France,” November 2021.
3. Public Opinion on Euthanasia: A 2022 IFOP survey found that approximately 70% of the French population supports the legalization of euthanasia, reflecting shifting attitudes toward end-of-life care in France. Source: IFOP Survey, “Public Opinion on Euthanasia in France,” 2022.
4. Palliative Care Accessibility: The World Health Organization’s 2021 report highlights the underfunding and accessibility challenges of palliative care in both developed and developing countries. Source: World Health Organization, “Palliative Care: Key Facts,” 2021.
5. International Context on Euthanasia: Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada have legalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, with each country implementing strict safeguards. Belgium’s law, for example, permits euthanasia for minors under certain conditions. Source: BBC News, “Euthanasia Laws Around the World”.

---

American Airlines Flight 5342 Collides with U.S. Army Black Hawk Near Washington D.C.: All 67 Aboard Killed

Overview of the Tragedy
On January 29, 2025, American Eagle Flight 5342, operated by PSA Airlines, collided mid-air with a U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk helicopter over the Potomac River near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). The tragic accident resulted in the deaths of all 64 passengers and crew aboard the Bombardier CRJ-700 regional jet, as well as the three military personnel aboard the helicopter¹. This marks the deadliest aviation accident in the U.S. since 2009².

Flight Path and Collision Details
American Eagle Flight 5342 departed Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport (ICT) in Kansas at approximately 3:15 PM EST and was making its final approach to DCA at the time of the collision³. The aircraft was descending towards Runway 19, a commonly used approach that follows the Potomac River to reduce noise pollution over residential areas⁴.

The Army Black Hawk helicopter, assigned to the 12th Aviation Battalion based at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was conducting an annual proficiency training mission⁵. The unit regularly operates military flights in the restricted airspace around Washington, D.C., and the Potomac River corridor is often used for low-altitude training exercises⁶.

The exact sequence of events leading to the collision is still under investigation, but preliminary reports indicate that the two aircraft may have been on converging flight paths, potentially due to altitude miscommunication⁷. Standard regulations require helicopters to remain below 200 feet in the Potomac River corridor to avoid conflicts with commercial air traffic⁸. However, early radar data suggests the Black Hawk may have been at an altitude where it conflicted with the descent of Flight 5342⁹.

Notable Victims
Among those aboard Flight 5342 were several prominent members of the figure skating community. Former world champion ice dancers Evgenia Shishkova and Vadim Naumov were on the flight, along with several young skaters and their coaches returning from a development camp in Kansas¹⁰. Their deaths have left the international figure skating community in mourning, with tributes pouring in from athletes and fans worldwide¹¹.

Investigation and Response
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is leading the investigation, with assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Army¹².

Key aspects under review include:

• Air Traffic Control Communications: Investigators are analyzing whether proper separation protocols were followed between the two aircraft¹³.
• Altitude Compliance: If the Black Hawk was above its designated altitude range, this could indicate a procedural or pilot error¹⁴.
• Weather and Visibility Conditions: While skies were reported to be clear, investigators are considering whether any external factors contributed to the collision¹⁵.
• Flight Data and Cockpit Voice Recorders: Both the CRJ-700 and the Black Hawk were equipped with black boxes that will provide critical information on the events leading up to the crash¹⁶.

Repercussions and Safety Measures
This accident is the first fatal crash involving a U.S. airline since 2009, breaking a 16-year streak of commercial aviation safety¹⁷. It is expected to prompt a reevaluation of flight safety regulations, particularly in heavily restricted airspace such as that around Washington, D.C. Aviation experts are calling for stricter separation protocols and improved coordination between civilian and military aircraft operating in the region¹⁸.

Emergency responders, including the U.S. Coast Guard, were dispatched to the scene immediately after the crash, as debris and wreckage from both aircraft fell into the Potomac River¹⁹. Recovery operations are ongoing, with divers searching for additional remains and evidence from the crash site²⁰.

Public and Industry Reactions
The aviation industry has expressed shock and sorrow over the tragedy. American Airlines issued a statement mourning the loss of those on board and pledging full cooperation with investigators²¹. The U.S. Army has also committed to reviewing its flight training protocols to prevent future incidents²².

The figure skating community, devastated by the loss of some of its brightest talents, is planning tributes and memorial services for the victims²³. Many skaters and coaches have called for additional safety measures to prevent similar accidents in the future²⁴.

The full investigation is expected to take several months, with a preliminary report due in the coming weeks²⁵. In the meantime, authorities are urging patience as they work to determine the exact cause of this devastating accident²⁶.

OREMUS
O God, whose mercies are without number and whose wisdom is beyond understanding, we humbly pray for the souls of those who lost their lives in the tragic air crash near Washington, D.C. Grant them eternal rest, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them.
Console their grieving families and friends, and strengthen them in faith, that they may find comfort in Your divine providence. Be merciful to the departed, forgive their sins, and bring them into the joy of Your heavenly kingdom.
We entrust them to the loving embrace of Our Blessed Mother, asking her to intercede for them before Your throne of grace. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

You may also wish to offer a Requiem Aeternam:

“Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May they rest in peace. Amen.” ⤴️

1. New York Magazine, American Airlines D.C. Plane Crash Ends U.S. Aviation’s Safety Streak, 2025.
2. The Guardian, Rescuers Search Potomac River After Mid-Air Collision Near Reagan National Airport, 2025.
3. New York Magazine, Ibid.
4. FAA Flight Path Regulations, Washington D.C. Approach Procedures, 2023.
5. U.S. Army Aviation, 12th Aviation Battalion Training Missions, 2024.
6. FAA, Restricted Airspace Guidelines Over Washington D.C., 2023.
7. NTSB Preliminary Report, American Eagle Flight 5342 and UH-60L Black Hawk Collision, 2025.
8. FAA, Ibid.
9. Radar Data from Air Traffic Control Logs, Flight 5342 Final Approach Altitude, 2025.
10. TalkSport, Ex-World Champion Figure Skaters Among Victims of Washington D.C. Crash, 2025.
11. Skating Federation of the U.S., Statement on the Loss of Skaters in Flight 5342 Crash, 2025.
12. NTSB, Ibid.
13. FAA, Air Traffic Control Standard Operating Procedures, 2023.
14. NTSB, Ibid.
15. National Weather Service, Weather Conditions Over D.C. on January 29, 2025, 2025.
16. NTSB, Ibid.
17. New York Magazine, Ibid.
18. Aviation Safety Board, Post-Collision Safety Measures and Regulations Review, 2025.
19. The Guardian, Ibid.
20. U.S. Coast Guard, Rescue and Recovery Efforts in the Potomac River, 2025.
21. American Airlines, Official Statement on Flight 5342 Crash, 2025.
22. U.S. Army, Ibid.
23. TalkSport, Ibid.
24. Skating Federation of the U.S., Ibid.
25. NTSB, Estimated Timeline for Investigation into Flight 5342 Crash, 2025.
26. NTSB, Ibid.

---

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Growing Demand to Abolish Sharia Law Courts in the UK

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a prominent critic of political Islam and a former member of the Dutch Parliament, has renewed calls for the abolition of Sharia law courts in the United Kingdom, describing their presence as “absolutely outrageous.” She argues that these councils undermine British law by creating a parallel legal system, which threatens national unity and the principle of equal rights for all citizens. Hirsi Ali insists that the UK must uphold a single, secular legal framework that applies equally to everyone, rather than allowing religious courts to function independently.

The Growth of Sharia Courts in the UK
Sharia councils, often referred to as Sharia courts, have operated in the UK since at least 1982. While they lack official legal recognition, they serve as arbitration panels within Muslim communities, primarily handling marriage and family disputes. Reports suggest there are between 30 and 85 such councils across the country, providing rulings based on Islamic jurisprudence rather than British common law¹.

Critics warn that these councils operate in a legal grey area, often failing to protect the rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly women. Many Islamic marriages in the UK are not registered with civil authorities, meaning that an estimated 60% to 80% of Muslim women may lack legal protection under British family law when seeking divorce or recourse for domestic abuse². This situation has led to growing concerns that some women are being denied access to justice and pressured into accepting rulings that do not align with their rights under UK law.

Legal and Cultural Concerns
Hirsi Ali has long argued that Western nations should not permit religious-based legal systems to function alongside state law. She contends that the existence of Sharia councils weakens the rule of law by creating a two-tier legal system where some individuals, particularly women, are treated unequally. Her concerns extend beyond the councils themselves to wider issues of forced marriage, honor-based violence, and grooming scandals, which she sees as interconnected problems stemming from the UK’s failure to enforce a single legal standard³.

Her views align with those of historian Rafe Heydel-Mankoo, who has warned that the growing influence of Sharia councils is leading to the formation of “ethno-religious states within the UK.” He argues that such developments erode social cohesion and create divisions in British society⁴.

Baroness Cox and Legislative Efforts
Another prominent voice against Sharia councils is Baroness Caroline Cox, a member of the House of Lords, who has introduced legislation aimed at curbing their influence. Her Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill seeks to prevent discrimination against Muslim women and to ensure that all legal matters are handled under British law. Cox has highlighted cases where women feel compelled to seek rulings from Sharia councils, often leading to decisions that fail to protect their rights⁵.

Maryam Namazie and the “One Law for All” Campaign
Activist Maryam Namazie has also spoken out against Sharia councils, leading the “One Law for All” campaign, which demands their complete abolition. Namazie argues that the councils discriminate against women and undermine universal human rights. She believes that maintaining a single legal system is essential to ensure justice and equality for all UK citizens⁶.

Rowan Williams and the Case for Legal Pluralism
In contrast, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has suggested that incorporating certain aspects of Sharia into British law might be “inevitable.” He points out that other religious courts, such as Jewish Beth Din courts, already exist in the UK and argues that some degree of accommodation could aid social cohesion. However, this view has been met with strong opposition from those who believe that religious arbitration should have no place in the British legal system⁷.

Statistical Insights into Sharia Councils and Unregistered Marriages
Determining the exact number of Sharia councils in the UK is challenging due to their informal and often undocumented nature. Estimates vary significantly:

• A 2009 report by the think tank Civitas identified at least 85 Sharia councils operating in the UK⁸.
• A 2012 study by the University of Reading identified 30 major Sharia councils in England, acknowledging that smaller councils were likely omitted⁹.
• A 2018 independent review commissioned by the Home Office estimated the number of Sharia councils in England and Wales to be between 30 and 85, highlighting the lack of accurate statistical data¹⁰.

The Impact of Unregistered Islamic Marriages
A significant concern associated with Sharia councils is the prevalence of Islamic marriages (Nikah) that are not registered under civil law, leaving many women without legal protections. Studies indicate:

• A 2017 survey found that nearly all married Muslim women in the UK had undergone a Nikah ceremony, but almost two-thirds had not participated in a separate civil ceremony, rendering their marriages unrecognized by English law¹¹.
• The National Secular Society estimates that between 60% and 80% of Islamic marriages in the UK are unregistered, potentially denying women basic legal rights¹².
• A 2018 independent review into the application of Sharia law in England and Wales found that a significant number of Muslim couples do not register their religious marriages as civil marriages, resulting in some Muslim women lacking the option to obtain a civil divorce¹³.

First Cousin Marriages and Social Attitudes Among British Muslims
Marriages between first cousins have been a customary practice in various cultures, including within some British Muslim communities. Studies indicate that in certain communities, up to 59% of marriages occur between first cousins¹⁴. However, recent data suggests a decline in this practice due to increased awareness of the genetic risks associated with consanguineous unions.

Social attitudes among British Muslims reflect both traditional values and adaptation to British societal norms. A 2016 survey found that 86% of British Muslims felt a strong sense of belonging in Britain, a figure higher than the national average of 83%¹⁵. However, the same survey revealed that 52% of British Muslims disagreed with the statement that homosexuality should be legal in Britain¹⁶. Public perception of the Muslim population in the UK tends to be exaggerated, with the general public believing Muslims constitute around 15% of the population, while the actual figure is closer to 4.8%¹⁷.

Conclusion
The debate over Sharia law courts in the UK continues to intensify, with figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Baroness Cox, and Maryam Namazie calling for their abolition, while others, like Rowan Williams, advocate for some degree of legal pluralism. At the heart of the issue is the question of whether religious-based legal systems can coexist with a secular state while still upholding equal rights for all citizens. With increasing scrutiny on the role of Sharia councils, the UK government may face growing pressure to take decisive action to either regulate or eliminate them entirely. ⤴️

1. “Sharia law courts in the UK: The growing debate over their legitimacy,” GB News, accessed January 2025.
2. “Problems around Islamic marriage require a secular solution,” National Secular Society, accessed January 2025.
3. “Islamic marriages and British law: The risks to women’s rights,” The Telegraph, accessed January 2025.
4. “Rafe Heydel-Mankoo on Sharia courts and national unity,” Twitter, accessed January 2025.
5. “Baroness Cox’s fight against Sharia law in Britain,” House of Lords debates, accessed January 2025.
6. “One Law for All campaign against religious arbitration,” The Spectator, accessed January 2025.
7. “Rowan Williams and the case for religious legal pluralism,” The Guardian, accessed January 2025.
8. “Sharia councils and alternative legal systems,” Civitas, accessed January 2025.
9. “University of Reading study on Sharia councils,” University of Reading, accessed January 2025.
10. “Independent review into Sharia law in the UK,” Home Office, accessed January 2025.
11. “Islamic faith marriages not valid in English law, Appeal Court rules,” The Guardian, accessed January 2025.
12. “Secular law and unregistered marriages,” National Secular Society, accessed January 2025.
13. “Sharia councils and women’s rights in the UK,” BBC News, accessed January 2025.
14. “First cousin marriages in British Pakistani communities,” Oxford University, accessed January 2025.
15. “British Muslims and national identity,” The Guardian, accessed January 2025.
16. “British Muslim attitudes on social issues,” Ipsos MORI, accessed January 2025.
17. “Public perception of Muslim population in the UK,” Ipsos MORI, accessed January 2025.

---

The Resignation of the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool: Background, Criticism, and Reactions

Background on Bishop John Perumbalath
John Perumbalath was born in Kerala, India, in 1966 and pursued theological studies in the Church of North India before moving to the United Kingdom in 2001. He served in various clerical roles before becoming the Archdeacon of Barking in 2013. His reputation as a progressive and inclusive leader led to his appointment as the Bishop of Bradwell in 2018. In May 2023, he was appointed as the Bishop of Liverpool, succeeding Paul Bayes. His tenure in Liverpool was relatively brief, lasting less than two years before his resignation in early 2025.¹

Allegations Leading to Resignation
In January 2025, Channel 4 News reported allegations of sexual misconduct against Bishop Perumbalath. Two women came forward with accusations. One woman, whose identity has not been disclosed, alleged that Perumbalath kissed and groped her without consent. The second accuser was later revealed to be the Bishop of Warrington, Beverley Mason, who accused him of inappropriate behavior amounting to sexual harassment. The Church of England’s internal investigation and a separate police inquiry found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. Despite this, the controversy surrounding the case led to calls for Perumbalath to step aside, and he announced his resignation, citing the need to prevent further disruption and uncertainty for the Diocese of Liverpool.²

Perumbalath strongly denied the allegations and insisted that he had been unfairly treated. Supporters within the diocese expressed concern that the case had been handled poorly, with some suggesting that the lack of due process had contributed to an environment of trial by media rather than a fair and just investigation. His resignation has since sparked debate about the Church’s processes for handling accusations and the wider implications for clergy accused of misconduct without concrete proof.³

Criticism of the Church of England’s Handling
The Church of England has faced significant criticism over its handling of sexual misconduct allegations in recent years. The resignation of Bishop Perumbalath follows a series of scandals that have severely damaged public trust in the Church’s safeguarding procedures. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby resigned in late 2024 after an independent review concluded that he had failed to inform the police about allegations against a volunteer involved in Christian summer camps.⁴

Critics argue that the Church’s response to such cases has often been inconsistent and driven by reputational concerns rather than justice. Some have accused Church leaders of taking a reactive approach, prioritizing public relations over transparent investigations. Others have suggested that clergy accused of misconduct are often left in limbo, neither exonerated nor convicted, leading to an atmosphere of suspicion and institutional paralysis.⁵

In Perumbalath’s case, there was widespread discontent about the lack of clarity surrounding the findings of the internal investigation. Some members of the clergy and laity expressed concerns that an accusation alone, even without substantial evidence, was enough to end a bishop’s career. This has led to renewed calls for a fairer, more transparent process for handling such cases, ensuring that neither victims nor the accused are left without due process.⁶

Archbishop of York Rejects Allegations of Bullying in Perumbalath’s Appointment
Following Perumbalath’s resignation, fresh controversy emerged regarding the process by which he was appointed Bishop of Liverpool. Reports suggested that the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, had engaged in coercive behavior during the Crown Nominations Commission’s (CNC) selection process. Cottrell categorically rejected these allegations, with the Bishop of Oxford defending the integrity of the CNC process, emphasizing that it ensures confidentiality and prevents undue influence over individual votes.⁷

The timing of these accusations has led to speculation about whether they were an attempt to shift focus from the Church’s handling of sexual misconduct cases onto a procedural dispute. While the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Oxford have insisted that the CNC process upholds fairness, questions remain about whether certain appointments are driven more by ideological considerations than by pastoral and theological merit. The controversy surrounding Perumbalath’s selection, combined with his abrupt resignation, has fueled broader concerns about how bishops are chosen and the political maneuvering within the Church hierarchy.⁸

Bishop of Warrington’s Call for Greater Scrutiny of Bishops
Bishop Beverley Mason, one of Perumbalath’s accusers, made a striking statement following his resignation, arguing that bishops must not be “above the law” and should, in fact, be scrutinized more closely than priests. Her assertion raises fundamental questions about accountability within the Church of England. While it is true that bishops hold greater authority and influence than parish priests, the expectation of stricter scrutiny must be balanced against the need for due process.

There is a growing perception that high-profile clergy are particularly vulnerable to accusations—sometimes with minimal evidence—leading to resignations driven more by media pressure than by substantive wrongdoing. This trend has been seen in other cases where bishops have stepped down despite a lack of conclusive findings against them. Mason’s remarks resonate with those advocating for stricter safeguarding policies, but they also risk reinforcing a climate in which accusations alone are sufficient to end a cleric’s career.⁹

Criticism of Archbishop Stephen Cottrell of York
The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, has also come under scrutiny regarding his past handling of abuse cases. Before becoming Archbishop, he served as Bishop of Chelmsford, where he oversaw the case of David Tudor, a priest who had been accused of sexual misconduct. Despite Tudor’s history of allegations and restrictions placed upon him, Cottrell allowed him to remain in ministry until new allegations surfaced in 2019. Tudor was eventually suspended and permanently removed from the ministry in 2024.¹⁰

Cottrell has faced calls for his resignation, with critics arguing that his past failures undermine his ability to lead the Church through its current crisis. Some within the Church believe that Cottrell’s handling of safeguarding cases has demonstrated a pattern of leniency and poor judgment, which could further erode public confidence. In response to these criticisms, Cottrell has stated that he regrets past mistakes and has committed to strengthening safeguarding procedures. However, these assurances have done little to silence critics who argue that the Church’s leadership is in urgent need of reform.¹¹

Conclusion
The resignation of Bishop John Perumbalath has once again exposed deep flaws in the Church of England’s approach to handling allegations of misconduct. The case has raised critical questions about due process, transparency, and the balance between institutional reputation and justice for both accusers and the accused. The Church’s leadership, particularly Archbishop Cottrell, continues to face mounting pressure to enact meaningful reforms. Without decisive action, the Church risks further erosion of trust among its clergy and laity, as well as the wider public. ⤴️

1. “John Perumbalath,” Wikipedia, accessed January 2025.
2. “Bishop of Liverpool resigns following sexual misconduct allegations,” The Guardian, January 30, 2025.
3. “Bishop of Warrington made harassment complaint against Bishop of Liverpool,” The Times, January 29, 2025.
4. “Justin Welby resigns after safeguarding scandal,” AP News, December 2024.
5. “Church of England’s response to abuse allegations under scrutiny,” BBC News, January 2025.
6. “The Church’s safeguarding failures and the case of John Perumbalath,” The Telegraph, January 31, 2025.
7. “Archbishop of York rejects bullying allegations in CNC process,” The Times, January 2025.
8. “Church leaders defend CNC process amid controversy,” The Church Times, January 2025.
9. “Bishops should be more scrutinized than priests, says Beverley Mason,” The Guardian, January 2025.
10. “Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell faces criticism over past safeguarding failures,” The Guardian, December 16, 2024.
11. “Cottrell: The Church must kneel in penitence after a difficult year,” The Guardian, December 25, 2024.

---

UK Committee Deliberations on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is currently under review by a Public Bill Committee in the UK Parliament. Introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the bill seeks to legalize assisted dying for terminally ill adults in England and Wales under strict safeguards. The committee has gathered evidence from legal experts, healthcare professionals, ethicists, and advocacy groups to assess the implications of the proposed law.

Judicial Oversight: Necessity and Alternatives
A major aspect of the debate has been the requirement for High Court judge approval for assisted dying cases. Some witnesses have supported this as a safeguard, while others argue it is an unnecessary legal hurdle.

Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England, urged caution, emphasizing that terminal diagnoses can be uncertain and safeguards must be “comprehensive and unambiguous” before any law is passed. He stated, “It is more important to get this right than to rush it.”¹ Similarly, Dr. Carol Davis, a consultant in palliative medicine, warned that disabled and vulnerable individuals could be pressured into assisted dying due to societal bias or financial burdens. She emphasized, “Without strong safeguards, we risk coercion going undetected.”²

Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, dismissed the requirement as “overengineering,” arguing that it would create unnecessary bureaucracy and delay relief for suffering patients.³ Professor Alexandra Mullock, a specialist in medical law at the University of Manchester, proposed an alternative panel of experts, including doctors and ethicists, to review cases instead of a judge. “A judicial process may deter individuals from accessing a right they should have,” she argued.⁴

Medical and Ethical Considerations
The role of medical professionals in assisted dying has been a crucial aspect of committee discussions. Dr. Andrew Green, Chair of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee, emphasized that doctors must be given clear legal protection if the bill passes. “We must avoid a situation where physicians are left legally vulnerable for helping terminally ill patients end their suffering.”⁵ Duncan Burton, Chief Nursing Officer for NHS England, argued that palliative care must remain a priority and warned that economic pressures should not lead to an overreliance on assisted dying as a cost-saving measure.⁶

Professor Aneez Esmail, an expert in patient safety and general practice, supported the bill, stating that “patients in unbearable pain should have the right to make their own end-of-life choices,” citing his research in patient safety.⁷ His perspective was echoed by various healthcare professionals who stressed the importance of ensuring patients have access to high-quality end-of-life care regardless of the outcome of the bill.

Inclusion of Neurodegenerative Diseases
Some committee members and witnesses have advocated for an expanded scope of the bill to include individuals suffering from progressive neurological conditions. Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a former High Court judge diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, has been campaigning to expand the bill. He warned that excluding conditions like Parkinson’s and dementia would be a “cruel omission” and that courts would become overwhelmed with appeals from those who narrowly miss the current criteria.⁸

On the other hand, Glyn Berry, a palliative care social worker, opposed this expansion, arguing that assisted dying laws should remain restricted to terminal illnesses with a clear prognosis to avoid ethical complications.⁹ There remains a division between those advocating for broader eligibility and those who believe the bill should be strictly limited to its current provisions.

Legislative Process and Political Challenges
The legislative process for the bill has been controversial, with some MPs questioning whether it should have been a Government Bill rather than a Private Member’s Bill. Critics have argued that the committee hearings have been biased, with more pro-assisted dying voices called to give evidence than those opposed.¹⁰ This has raised concerns about the fairness of the deliberation process and whether MPs are receiving a balanced view on the issue.

Mark Swindells, representing the General Medical Council, emphasized that the law must be crystal clear to avoid medical professionals being unfairly criminalized if they follow assisted dying protocols.¹¹ He and others have stressed the importance of legal clarity, ensuring that doctors and nurses are not put in difficult positions where their professional judgment could be questioned in court.

Conclusion
The Assisted Dying Bill Committee continues to debate the legal, ethical, and medical complexities of this legislation. While there is support for expanding patient choice, concerns remain regarding safeguards, judicial oversight, and the role of medical professionals. The next steps will likely include further amendments before the bill proceeds to the report stage and third reading. The outcome of these deliberations will determine whether the UK takes a significant step towards legalizing assisted dying or maintains the current legal restrictions. ⤴️

1. Hansard, 28 January 2025. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-01-28/debates/8c91740b-4ba8-4616-9c59-7dcdeb568259/details
2. Hansard, 30 January 2025. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-01-30/debates/895ba091-38d0-4162-8f79-40df9fae7e38/TerminallyIllAdults%28EndOfLife%29Bill%28SixthSitting%29
3. The Guardian, 29 January 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/29/high-court-signoff-assisted-unnecessary-supreme-court-judge-sumption
4. Hansard, 29 January 2025. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-01-29/debates/4405bcb6-13b3-4c86-b804-403a3d21b9d1/TerminallyIllAdults%28EndOfLife%29Bill%28FifthSitting%29
5. Ibid.
6. Hansard, 28 January 2025. [Same as Footnote 1]
7. Ibid.
8. The Guardian, 28 January 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/28/expand-assisted-dying-bill-to-help-those-with-parkinsons-and-dementia-mps-to-hear
9. Hansard, 28 January 2025. [Same as Footnote 1]
10. The Times, 29 January 2025. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/assisted-dying-debate-technicalities-rw7kdwxmf
11. Hansard, 28 January 2025. [Same as Footnote 1]

---

Pilgrimage to Rome & the Holy Door – November 2025

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.

⤴️

---