Nuntiatoria LI: Dominica in Passionis

w/c 06/04/25

ORDO

Dies	06 SUN	07 MON	08 TUE	09 WED	10 THU	11 FRI	12 SAT	13 SUN
Officium	Dominica de Passione	Feria II infra Hebd Passionis	Feria III infra Hebd Passionis	Feria IV infra Hebd Passionis	*Feria V* infra Hebd Passionis	Septem Dolorum Beatæ Mariæ Virginis	Sabbato infra Hebd Passionis	Dominica in Palmis
CLASSIS	Semiduplex Dominica I	Feria major	Feria major	Feria major	Feria major	Duplex major	Feria major	Semiduplex Dominica I
Color*	Purpura	Purpura	Purpura	Purpura	Purpura	Albus	Purpura	Purpura
MISSA	Júdica me	Miserére mihi	Exspécta Dóminum	Liberátor meus	Omnia, quæ	Stabant juxta	Miserére mihi	Dómine, ne
Orationes	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae	2a. Feria VI infra Hebd IV Passionis 3a. S. Leonis I Papæ Conf. et Eccle. Doc.	2a. Contra persecutores Ecclesiae	NA
NOTAE	no Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	no Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	Gl. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	no Gl. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	Gl. Cr. Pref. BMV	Gl. Pref. de Sancta Cruce	no Gl. Cr. Pref. de Sancta Cruce
Nota Bene						Proprium Ultimum Evangelium**

* Color: Albus = White; Rubeum = Red; Viridis = Green; Purpura = Purple; Niger = Black
**Nota Bene: the Ferias of Lent take precedence save for feasts of Double rank or higher; when a higher feast takes precedence, the Lenten Feria is always commemorated by its Collect, Secret and Post-communion prayers, and it’s gospel becomes the Last Gospel instead of that of the Prologue of St John.🔝

Velata Gloria

Velata Gloria (Veiled Glory) perfectly expresses the mystery of Passiontide, when the Church veils sacred images and the liturgy turns toward the hidden sorrow and majesty of Christ’s suffering. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

As we enter the solemn days of Passiontide, our eyes are drawn to the veiled crucifixes and shrouded images in our chapels. This visual silence of the sacred is no mere aesthetic; it is a profound catechesis. The Church, with maternal wisdom, withdraws the visible signs of Christ’s glory that we might search more deeply for His presence in suffering, contradiction, and apparent defeat. The motto we meditate on this Passiontide is taken from this sacred logic: Velata Gloria — Veiled Glory.

It is a motto that must shape not only our interior disposition during these two weeks, but also our entire Christian discipleship—especially in the present darkness.

A Church Under Judgment, a Faithful Under Trial
The visible Church is undergoing a painful humiliation. The faithful cannot help but observe with dismay the continued inconsistencies in the exercise of justice and governance in the Holy See: sweeping canonical actions against traditional communities while open dissent and scandal flourish unchecked. The Vatican’s silence in the face of open Eucharistic sacrilege by high-profile political leaders, or the scandalous involvement of bishops in political manipulations, disorients many souls. As shepherds, we must not fail to acknowledge this pain. The Church is being purified—not in abstract spiritual generalities, but in very real ecclesial humiliations.

Here too, velata gloria is at work. We must see this not as abandonment, but as Christ permitting the pruning of His vine, as in Gethsemane. Dom Guéranger, writing of Passiontide, reminds us that the Church “enters with her Spouse into the garden of agony.” She must suffer in Him and with Him, even in the face of betrayal from within.

Moral Madness and the Scandal of the Innocents
In the secular realm, we see ever more clearly the face of a culture that has lost its grasp on reason and nature. The case of the British toddler reportedly suspended from nursery for “transphobia” is only the most absurd sign of a wider pathology: an ideology that has turned against reality and now punishes even the innocence of children when it does not conform.

We are seeing, too, the failure of state institutions to protect the young from real predators—most grievously in the case of Stephen Ireland, where convicted sex offenders were allowed school access in the name of “inclusive education.” When children are exposed to perversion in the name of tolerance, but punished for innocence in the name of “anti-discrimination,” the culture has reached a moral inversion crying out to heaven.

Threats to the Domestic Church
The domestic sphere, once considered sacred and private, is now under suspicion. Parents are increasingly vilified for teaching the natural law in their homes. Labour-led councils in the UK have already signaled their willingness to limit religious education or family autonomy when it conflicts with state ideology. Christian households may soon be challenged not only in the public square, but in their own living rooms.

In all this, the Christian must not despair. The veiling of glory is not its absence.

Faithful Response: Interior Fortitude and the Glory of Hidden Holiness
Now is the time for clarity, not compromise; for recollection, not reaction. The Cross is our lens. The Church was born not in imperial palaces but in catacombs. The faith was handed on not through mass media but in whispered catechesis and family fidelity. We may be entering such times again.

Let us then do what the Church has always done when the glory of Christ is hidden:

Sanctify the Home: Make the home a visible sanctuary. Pray daily as a family. Use visible signs—icons, crucifixes, the rosary, sacred images—to surround your children with truth. If society shames the home, let us glorify it.
Strengthen the Will: Teach your children not merely what to believe, but why it is good to suffer for the truth. Christ is our model: not triumphant by force, but faithful unto death.
Study and Speak: Equip yourself to speak clearly and courageously in the public forum and in your personal circles. Learn the perennial teaching of the Church and communicate it with charity and clarity.
Suffer Well: Offer up your trials for the purification of the Church and the conversion of the world. Christ’s glory was veiled on Good Friday—but His obedience changed history.

Conclusion: Awaiting the Unveiling
The veils will be lifted. Perhaps not by political victory, nor by hierarchical reform, nor even by cultural awakening. But they will be lifted in the soul of every Christian who perseveres in fidelity and faith. The unveiled Cross on Good Friday is not only a liturgical gesture—it is the Church’s pledge that the hidden glory will be revealed.

Until that day, dear faithful, do not be afraid. The darkness is not final. The silence is not abandonment. The Cross is not defeat.

Velata Gloria. The glory is veiled, but it is not gone.

Semper in Christo. 🔝

Recent Epistles & Conferences

Liturgical Notes

In the traditional Roman Rite, the last two weeks of Lent form a distinct liturgical season called Passiontide (Tempus Passionis), beginning with Passion Sunday. During this time, the Church turns her full attention to the sufferings of Christ, preparing us for the Sacred Triduum.

Key features of Passiontide in the Tridentine liturgy include:

Veiling of crosses and sacred images, recalling how Christ “hid Himself” (John 8:59). This visual silence heightens our longing to behold Him anew on Good Friday.

Omission of joyful elements like the Gloria Patri and Judica me, reflecting the growing sorrow of the Church.

A shift in tone from general penitence to intense focus on the Passion of Christ as High Priest and Victim, especially in the prayers and readings (e.g., Hebrews 9; John 8).

A stronger call to interior union with the suffering Christ, not merely through emotion, but through participation in the sacred drama of the liturgy.

Passiontide teaches that God’s glory is hidden beneath suffering. It invites us to walk silently with Christ toward Calvary, trusting that what is veiled now will be revealed in glory. 🔝

The Fifth Sunday of Lent: Passion Sunday

The Veiled Glory of the Cross: Passion Sunday and the Turning Toward Calvary
With Passion Sunday, the Church enters a period of intensified sobriety and mystic preparation. The final two weeks of Lent, traditionally known as Tempus Passionis, mark a clear shift in the liturgical psyche: from penitence to Passion, from the desert to the threshold of Calvary. The gradual veiling of crosses and images in the churches—a custom rooted in medieval piety and codified in the Tridentine Missal—signals a new stage in our pilgrimage: Christ begins to hide Himself, even as He presses closer to His supreme manifestation of love.

Dom Prosper Guéranger observes that “the holy Church now veils the image of her divine Spouse,” as if to echo the Gospel’s haunting words: “Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:59)¹. This concealment is not merely visual but spiritual; it is the liturgy’s way of entering into the mystery of Christ’s growing solitude, the mounting resistance of the world to His presence, and the deliberate movement toward the Cross.

Fr. Leonard Goffine explains the meaning of the veils in his Instruction on the Church Year: “The veiling of the crucifix expresses the sorrow of the Church over the Passion and death of Jesus, and her mourning for the sins of men which were the cause of such suffering.”² This visual silence, so to speak, brings the faithful into a deeper interior recollection. The Bridegroom withdraws His countenance, that we might follow Him with longing to the heights of Golgotha.

The Gospel of Opposition: The Liturgical Combat
The Gospel appointed for this Sunday—John 8:46–59—is a confrontation. Christ declares His divinity, and the Jews, scandalized, take up stones to kill Him. This moment, says Dom Benedict Baur, is a decisive unveiling of the true cause of the Passion: “the hatred of divine truth by the powers of darkness.”³ Here the liturgy reveals the cosmic dimension of Christ’s sufferings—not as a tragic accident, but as the collision of truth and lies, of love and hatred.

As Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen notes in his spiritual classic Divine Intimacy, “This Gospel places before our eyes the immediate cause of the Passion of Jesus: the hatred of His enemies, which reached its climax when Jesus solemnly affirmed His divinity.”⁴ He continues: “In the face of such hostility, Jesus did not escape from death but went toward it, offering Himself with perfect obedience to the will of the Father.”

The great Dominican liturgist Fr. Pius Parsch sees in this Sunday’s Collect and Epistle the interior logic of Passiontide: the Collect begs that we may be “taught by Thy Passion,” while the Epistle (Hebrews 9:11–15) speaks of Christ as the High Priest who, entering not the earthly temple but the heavenly sanctuary, offers not the blood of goats, but His own Precious Blood.⁵ Thus, the liturgy is not merely preparing us to witness the Passion; it is preparing us to be instructed by it, to enter into it through interior participation.

Veiling the Cross to Reveal the Mystery
The paradox of Passiontide is that the Cross is veiled just as the Church begins to speak of it more intensely. This is no contradiction. As Guéranger teaches, “The Church is wise and deep in her pedagogy: she veils the Cross so that our hearts may burn with desire to see it unveiled on Good Friday, when the full drama of salvation is presented.”⁶

Kwasniewski himself, in commenting on this practice, remarks: “The veiling intensifies the unveiling. The removal of sacred images from our sight—briefly, poignantly—allows the icon to regain its force by reminding us of what it means to not see, to not understand, to be veiled ourselves. And it prepares us to lift our gaze again on Good Friday with purified eyes.”⁷

It is this pedagogy of desire—so absent in modern liturgy—that characterizes Passiontide. The faithful must walk in darkness, in anticipation, through the narrowing hallway of Holy Week toward the resplendent brightness of Easter. The veils are not denial but invitation.

The Priesthood and the Altar: Culmination in the High Priest
Hebrews 9, read in today’s Epistle, speaks of Christ as “the High Priest of the good things to come,” entering “by His own blood” into the sanctuary. The liturgical climax of Passion Sunday is not only the veiling of the Cross but the lifting up of Christ as Priest and Victim. As Fr. Gabriel notes, “He is both the Lamb and the High Priest: He offers, and He is offered.”⁸

This mystery is incarnated at the altar each day in the traditional Mass, where the priest, clothed in violet vestments, takes on the very character of the Mediator. As Dom Baur writes: “The priest stands at the threshold of eternity, repeating the one eternal sacrifice; the Mass during Passiontide is the visible unfolding of the invisible love that will soon be nailed to the Cross.”⁹

In this sense, every gesture of the traditional liturgy—its silences, its genuflections, its veiling—becomes prophetic. The Mass becomes the Mount of Calvary, and Passion Sunday becomes the first lifting of the curtain.

Conclusion: Preparing the Heart to See
Thus, Passion Sunday is the beginning of the great unveiling through veiling. The liturgy withdraws signs in order to deepen our hunger for the Sign of Signs—the Crucified Christ. We are called to enter more profoundly into His loneliness, His rejection, and His priesthood.

As Guéranger reminds us in his meditations for Passiontide: “The time is short. Let us be serious and prepare. Calvary is not far. Let us run to it, not as spectators, but as disciples. The Cross is veiled today, but soon it will be raised. And when it is raised, let it find us kneeling.” 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume VI: Passiontide and Holy Week (Dublin: James Duffy, 1870), p. 163.
² Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1880), p. 266.
³ Dom Benedict Baur, The Light of the World: Reflections on the Sunday Gospels (Herder, 1953), Passion Sunday chapter.
⁴ Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, Divine Intimacy, trans. Discalced Carmelite Nuns (TAN Books), Passion Sunday meditation.
⁵ Fr. Pius Parsch, The Church’s Year of Grace, Volume II (Liturgical Press, 1957), p. 194–195.
⁶ Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, p. 165.
⁷ Peter Kwasniewski, Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico Press, 2020), p. 184.
⁸ Fr. Gabriel, Divine Intimacy, Passion Sunday.
⁹ Dom Benedict Baur, The Light of the World, Passion Sunday reflection.

Missalettes (Dominica de Passionis)

Latin/English

PassionSundayMissalette Download

Latin/Español

domingo_de_pasion (1)Download

“Velata Gloria” a Motto for the fifth week of Lent

Velata Gloria – Veiled Glory
A Passiontide Reflection

With the Fifth Sunday of Lent, the Church enters the solemn heart of the Lenten journey—Passiontide, the fortnight of deeper withdrawal, silence, and spiritual intensity. The motto Velata Gloria, meaning Veiled Glory, captures with stark beauty the mystery that unfolds in these days: a mystery hidden, yet more fully revealed; a glory concealed, yet more deeply present.

In the liturgy, the glory is veiled. From Passion Sunday onwards, the crucifixes and sacred images are covered, and the Alleluia has long since fallen silent. This is not an absence but a preparation. The veils do not remove beauty; they heighten it. They teach the heart to hunger, to remember that we see now only through a glass, darkly (1 Cor 13:12), and that the revelation of divine glory is always preceded by concealment.

Dom Prosper Guéranger writes: “The Church veils the image of her divine Spouse, that our hearts may burn with greater longing for the moment when He is revealed on the Cross.” Here, glory is not denied but deferred—delayed in time so as to be more deeply received in the soul. The veil, like the parables, is mercy in mystery.

In the Passion of Christ, the glory is veiled. The Eternal Word, through whom all things were made, is rejected, insulted, spat upon. The One who raised the dead is hunted by the living. The King of Glory is silenced by His people. And yet—this is precisely where His glory is most fully manifest. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself” (John 12:32). The Cross is not only a throne of suffering—it is the throne of glory, shrouded in the appearance of defeat.

St. Augustine declared: “He conquered not by fighting, but by suffering.” In this paradox—where humiliation becomes exaltation—we glimpse what velata gloria truly means. The glory of God is hidden in the weakness of the Cross, and we must learn to recognize it not by sight, but by faith.

In the Christian soul, the glory is veiled. Passiontide is not only a liturgical observance; it is a personal invitation. The veiled images are mirrors of the veiled interior: we do not always see the work of grace in our lives. Our virtues are imperfect. Our prayers feel weak. Our penance may seem fruitless. Yet precisely here—in the struggle, in the silence, in the hiddenness—glory is at work.

St. Paul teaches that we carry this treasure in earthen vessels (2 Cor 4:7). The Christian life is not a constant ascent of visible holiness, but a continual deepening of hidden surrender. The more the soul conforms itself to Christ crucified, the more it is clothed in the veil of Passiontide. And beneath that veil, the glory of divine charity burns, unseen but eternal.

Velata Gloria thus becomes both a motto and a mirror. It tells us what to expect in the Church, in Christ, and in ourselves during these days. Expect concealment. Expect contradiction. Expect silence. But believe—firmly—that beneath the veil, glory is present. That in Christ’s Passion, the Father is glorified. That in our trials, grace is at work.

When the veils are lifted on Good Friday, it will not be to show us what we already knew. It will be to unveil what we never imagined: that glory is not only beyond suffering, but within it. 🔝

Spiritual Reflection for the Fifth Sunday in Lent

With Passion Sunday, the Church enters the sacred period of Passiontide, the final fortnight of Lent. The mood of the liturgy changes perceptibly: the focus narrows from general penance to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. The crucifixes are veiled, the Gloria Patri is suppressed in the Mass and Office, and the Psalm Judica me is omitted from the prayers at the foot of the altar. These omissions are not liturgical minimalism—they are purposeful silences, evoking the growing mystery of Christ’s suffering and the world’s rejection of Him.

Veiling the Cross: A Call to Deeper Faith
The veiling of images is rooted in the Gospel of the day: “Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:59). This gesture is a visual meditation. As Dom Guéranger writes, “The Church veils the image of her divine Spouse so that the faithful may yearn more deeply to behold Him in the glory of His Passion.”

We are reminded that the glory of the Cross is not always apparent. It is often hidden, just as Christ’s divinity was veiled beneath His suffering humanity. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explains that Christ’s Passion was not only an act of redemption but a lesson in humility and obedience:

“In His Passion, Christ wished to endure every suffering to teach us obedience, humility, patience, and the contempt of earthly things.” (Roman Catechism, I, 5, 13)

The Gospel: Conflict with Truth
The Gospel (John 8:46–59) presents Christ in open conflict with His enemies. He declares, “Before Abraham was made, I AM”—a clear affirmation of His eternal divine nature. The Jews respond with violence, preparing to stone Him. Here we witness the beginning of the outward rejection of the Incarnate Word.

The Penny Catechism teaches:

Q. 348. Why did the Jews put Jesus Christ to death?
A. Because they would not believe that He was the Son of God.

This Sunday, we are confronted with that same challenge: Do we truly believe in Christ’s divinity—not only in comfort, but in suffering?

Interior Application: The Cross in the Christian Soul
In Passiontide, the Church invites each soul to take on the form of the Crucified. The veiled cross is not absent; it is simply hidden. So too, the grace at work in our lives is often concealed beneath trials, silence, or apparent failure.

The Roman Catechism reminds us: “The faithful should be taught that the Passion of Christ is not only the principal mystery of our redemption, but also the model of the Christian life.” (Roman Catechism, II, 5, 17)

This is echoed by St. Paul: “If we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him” (Romans 8:17). Passiontide urges us to embrace suffering as a participation in the redemptive love of Christ. The Christian must learn to see hidden glory—Velata Gloria—in daily crosses.

Silence, Sorrow, and Expectation
The suppression of the Gloria Patri during Passiontide is liturgical sorrow, not despair. It is the sorrow of a Bride mourning the sufferings of her Bridegroom. Yet even in this, hope is present. The silence prepares us for the great unveiling on Good Friday, when the crucifix is lifted high and adored. The veiled glory of Christ’s Passion becomes the revealed glory of our salvation.

Let us walk these final steps of Lent with Christ, carrying our own crosses with faith. The world may mock the Cross or turn away from its demands, but we, like Our Lady at the foot of Calvary, remain steadfast. For it is written:
“The message of the Cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who are saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Examination for Passiontide:

Do I meditate daily on the Passion of Christ with love and gratitude?
Do I reject suffering, or do I unite it with Christ’s Cross?
Have I accepted interior silence, detachment, and repentance during Lent?

Conclusion
The Fifth Sunday of Lent marks a holy concealment. The Cross is veiled, but not absent. Christ is hidden, but not gone. The Passion is near. Let us prepare to stand with Him, not only in word, but in heart—so that when the veil is lifted, we may behold His glory not as strangers, but as faithful disciples who have walked with Him to the foot of the Cross. 🔝

A sermon for Sunday

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

Passion Sunday

Christ being come, a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation: neither by the blood of goats or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats or of oxen, or the ashes of an heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost, offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?

Today is Passion Sunday, in which we mark the approach of Holy Week and Easter and enter into the most solemn part of this season of Lent. It is therefore appropriate that we hear today from the Epistle to the Hebrews of how Christ has fulfilled in his own person the hope of the old covenant for atonement for sin, through the perfect sacrifice of himself on our behalf.

But what does it mean to speak of Christ as the fulfilment of the sacrificial system of the old testament? In order to answer this question we need to first understand how the Jewish sacrificial system worked. This is not easy for us to do because the offering of animal sacrifices to God seems perhaps the part of the old testament that is most remote from our understanding of worship today. The sacrificial system and the Holiness code of the Book of Leviticus seems to us to be hard to comprehend so we are apt to pass it over and focus on other books of the Old Testament. While this may be true for us today it was very different for the ancient world. Whereas we find the sacrificial system the strangest aspect of the religion of Israel, to the ancient world it would have seemed the easiest part of the faith of Israel to understand. Sacrifice was part of the worship of the ancient world. The peculiarity of the religion of Israel was not that it involved sacrifice, but that the Israelites worshipped only one God, rather than the plurality of gods and goddesses that other ancient peoples worshipped. The desire to achieve atonement through animal sacrifice was itself quite familiar.

But how did the sacrificial system work in practice? There were burnt offerings and peace offerings and sin offerings. The sacrifices were performed in the Temple in Jerusalem by priests who were sons of Aaron. The specifically priestly action was not the death of the victim (although that was obviously part of the sacrificial process) but the offering of the blood of the victim upon the altar (the blood symbolised life- hence the prohibition of drinking blood). The most solemn day of the year was the Day of Atonement, when the high priest offered sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, and then entered into the Holy of Holies (the most sacred part of the Temple) and offered the blood of the victim upon the altar.

But there was one crucial problem. Though they offered the sacrifices as a means of atonement for the sins of the people the priests, including the high priest, were themselves sinners and needed atonement as much as anybody else. That was why this act of ceremonial cleansing by means of blood happened every year. The people therefore hoped for a new covenant in which sins would finally be forgiven and communion between God and his people restored permanently.

What the Epistle to the Hebrews is saying is that this hope has now been fulfilled in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. He has offered himself as both priest and victim. He did not, like the high priest on the Day of Atonement, need to offer sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. He is the true high priest and by a greater and more perfect tabernacle and not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood, has entered into the true holy of holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us. “And therefore he is mediator of the new testament: that by means of his death, for the redemption of those transgressions which were under the former testament, they that are called may receive the promise of an eternal inheritance, in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Now that he is risen, ascended and glorified, he is able to intercede on our behalf, our true high priest and the true propitiation for our sins until the end of time. Even priests could not eat the sin offering on the Day of Atonement, but we now have an altar in which those who under the old covenant ministered in the tabernacle had no right to eat. This is the Christian Eucharist, the Mass, in which the sacrifice which Christ offered once for all in time and history and now pleads before God in the heavenly sanctuary is made present to us. We no longer need different sacrifices, but receive atonement for our sins from the one perfect sacrifice.

St. John Chrysostom states “What then? Do we not offer daily? Certainly we offer thus, making a memorial of his death. How is it one and not many? But it was offered once, like that which was carried into the holy of holies… For we ever offer the same person, not today one sheep, and next day a different one, but ever the same offering. Therefore the sacrifice is one. By this argument then, since the offering is made in many places, does it follow that there are many Christs? Not at all, for Christ is everywhere one, complete here and complete there, a single body. Thus, as when offered in many places he is one body and not many bodies, so also there is one sacrifice. One high priest is he who offers the sacrifice which cleanses us. We offer even now that which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done for memorial of that which was then done, for “Do this” said he for the remembrance of me. We do not offer a different sacrifice like the high priest of old, but we ever offer the same. Or rather we offer the memorial of the sacrifice.”

In the words of William Bright’s great hymn,

“Once, only once, and once for all,
His precious life he gave;
Before the Cross in faith we fall,
And own it strong to save.

One offering, single and complete,
With lips and heart we say;
And what he never can repeat
He shows forth day by day.

For as the priest of Aaron’s line
Within the holiest stood,
And sprinkled all the mercy shrine
With sacrificial blood;

So he, who once atonement wrought,
Our Priest of endless power,
Presents himself for those he bought
In that dark noontide hour.

His Manhood pleads where now it lives
On heaven’s eternal throne,
And where in mystic rite he gives
Its presence to his own.

And so we show thy death, O Lord,
Till thou again appear,
And feel, when we approach thy board,
We have an altar here. 🔝

The Desirability of Experiencing Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum in a State of Grace

To participate fruitfully in the liturgies of Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum, the faithful should strive to be in a state of grace—that is, free from mortal sin and united to God through sanctifying grace. This is not merely an ideal, but a spiritual necessity for those who desire to receive the interior fruits of these most sacred days.

Why the State of Grace Matters
The liturgies of Passiontide and the Triduum are not mere religious ceremonies or historical remembrances. They are living mysteries. Through them, the Church enters into the very events of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection—not as spectators, but as participants. But to truly participate in these mysteries, we must be spiritually disposed.

Mortal sin severs our communion with God. It deadens the soul. While one may still be present physically at the liturgy, the soul remains unreceptive, like stony ground that cannot receive the seed. To approach the Cross with a deadened conscience is to risk becoming like those who stood nearby on Calvary, yet remained unmoved.

The Sacred Triduum Demands a Living Faith
These liturgies—especially the Adoration of the Cross on Good Friday and the renewal of baptismal vows at the Easter Vigil—are most powerful when undertaken by those who are alive in grace. The Triduum is not only a commemoration of Christ’s saving work; it is also a time for our renewal. But how can we be renewed if we are not first reconciled?

It is a tragic contradiction to venerate the Cross while still embracing the very sins for which Christ died. And it is a grave danger to receive Holy Communion at the Easter Vigil or on Easter Sunday while knowingly in mortal sin—for such an act is itself a sacrilege (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29).

Confession: The Door to Grace and Participation
Therefore, the Church urges all the faithful to make a good confession during Lent, especially before Holy Week begins. The confessional is the gateway to the Upper Room, the Garden of Gethsemane, and the foot of the Cross. In Confession, we die with Christ so that we may rise with Him.

Do not delay. Do not treat this as a formality. Go to confession with a contrite heart, confess sincerely, receive absolution with gratitude—and then approach the Sacred Triduum with clean hands and a pure heart.

What Grace Enables
A soul in grace is not only free from the burden of mortal sin; it is alive. It can weep at the Passion, rejoice at the Resurrection, and receive graces that transform. In grace, we are no longer passive observers of salvation, but true heirs of the promises won for us on the Cross.

To experience Passiontide and the Triduum in grace is to enter into Christ’s death with Him, and to rise again in Him. This is the heart of the Christian life.

“Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” (2 Cor 6:2)

Guidance For Examination and Confession

A guide to examining your conscience: recognising venial sin and repenting of it
A guide to examining your conscience: recognising mortal sin and returning to God
A Primer on Venial and Mortal Sins
The Sacrament of Confession Admonitions from the Saints and Theologians
The Healing Power of Confession a Remedy for the Soul Mind and Heart
How to Make a Good Confession: A Primer for Traditional Catholics

🔝

A Primer for the Laity on Devotional Participation in Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum

Approach: Entering into the Mystery
Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum are not merely commemorations of past events but liturgical participation in the saving mysteries of Christ’s Passion, Death, and Resurrection. These are the holiest days of the Church’s year, in which the faithful are invited not simply to remember, but to enter into the mystery of redemption. The proper approach is one of reverent attentiveness, interior silence, and spiritual readiness.

As the veiled crosses and images signal, the Church invites us to withdraw from distractions and fix our gaze inward, toward the Cross. This is not a time for routine attendance, but for deep intentionality. Come to the liturgy as to Calvary: with humility, with sorrow for sin, with love for Christ who suffers for you.

Attitude: Contrition, Contemplation, Confidence

Contrition: Passiontide and the Triduum call for true repentance. Christ’s sufferings were borne out of love for sinners. Let every liturgical word and gesture move you to sorrow for your sins and those of the world.
Contemplation: Attend with a quiet heart. Avoid idle chatter before and after the liturgies. Read the texts beforehand. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you see and hear with the eyes and ears of faith.
Confidence: Christ did not suffer in vain. These are not mournful rituals of defeat, but solemn entrances into the hour of triumph. Participate in confidence that His victory is yours, if you abide in Him.

Intention: Unite Your Heart to the Liturgical Action
The priest ascends the altar; you ascend interiorly. His prayers are your prayers. When the liturgy pauses, do not drift—pray. When the priest bows, bow interiorly. When the Passion is proclaimed, stand at the foot of the Cross in your heart. Your intention must be to unite your life—your trials, sorrows, sins, hopes—with Christ crucified.

Offer the liturgy for your own sanctification and for others: the conversion of sinners, the comfort of the suffering, the repose of souls. These days are powerful times for intercessory prayer.

Attention: Be Present to What Is Present
Avoid the temptation to treat these days as symbolic pageantry. What is re-presented here is real. The same sacrifice of Calvary is mystically renewed. Christ is present. Attend with the senses of faith sharpened:

At Palm Sunday, see yourself among the crowd: will you shout “Hosanna” or “Crucify”?
At Tenebrae, enter into the deepening darkness with the Church’s cries from the Psalms.
At Holy Thursday, adore the priesthood and the Eucharist with gratitude; remain with Christ in the garden.
At Good Friday, kneel with sorrow at the Cross and let it crucify your pride, sins, and coldness.
At the Easter Vigil, feel the darkness pierced by the Light; listen attentively to the readings; renew your baptism with full assent.

Practical Tips for Participation

Fast and abstain in spirit, not merely in body. Offer these mortifications for a deeper union with Christ.
Prepare ahead by reading the Passion narratives and liturgical texts. Familiarity allows deeper prayer.
Come early, sit in silence, and interiorly place yourself in God’s presence.
Stay after to give thanks, especially on Holy Thursday and Good Friday.
Participate fully: respond, kneel, listen—let every movement be prayer.
Make spiritual communions when sacramental communion is not possible.

Final Disposition: From Contemplation to Transformation
The purpose of Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum is not only to honour what Christ has done, but to be changed by it. If you keep watch with Him, die with Him, and rise with Him, then you will live differently.

Let these holy days pierce your heart. Let them reorder your loves. Let them rekindle hope. And above all, let them lead you to love Christ more, and to love as He loved. 🔝

Guidance for attending and facilitating Mass

Hosting Mass at home
Guidance on attire
Catechesis for hosts of Domestic and Chapel Masses
Chapel Welcome Team Sheet

A Practical Primer for Catholics Entering Passiontide

As the final two weeks of Lent begin, Passiontide invites us into the very heart of Christ’s suffering and the mystery of our redemption. Traditionally marked by the veiling of statues and crucifixes, this solemn time shifts the Church’s gaze directly to the Passion of Our Lord. Here’s how Catholics can enter more deeply and fruitfully into Passiontide.

Understand the Spirit of Passiontide
Passiontide comprises the last two weeks of Lent. The first week is often called “Passion Week,” culminating in Palm Sunday; the second is “Holy Week,” leading to the Sacred Triduum. While all of Lent is penitential, Passiontide intensifies our contemplation of the Cross and prepares us to accompany Christ through His final days.

From this point on, the liturgy becomes more sombre. The Gloria Patri is omitted in the Divine Office, and crosses and sacred images are veiled in violet. These signs invite the faithful to interior silence, to “hide” in the wounds of Christ, and to walk with Him toward Calvary.

What You Should Be Doing

Deepen Your Penances
If your Lenten practices have become lax, now is the time to renew them with earnestness. Consider:
- Adding a fast day or two beyond the minimum
- Giving up conversation or entertainment for a portion of the day
- Taking on a hidden act of service or mortification
Go to Confession
Resolve to make a thorough and sincere confession before Holy Week. Use an extended examination of conscience, especially focusing on sins against charity, purity, and prayer.
Attend Daily Mass if Possible
The readings during Passiontide are profoundly rich—full of typology, fulfilled prophecy, and intense moments in Christ’s life. If daily Mass is not possible, read the readings and collect prayers at home.
Pray the Stations of the Cross Regularly
Meditating on the Stations during Passiontide is a powerful way to enter into the sufferings of Christ. Do them slowly, preferably on Fridays, and linger in silence between each station.
Engage with the Passion Narratives
Read and reread the Passion accounts from the Gospels (especially John 18–19 and Matthew 26–27). Read them prayerfully and slowly, perhaps aloud. Place yourself in the scenes.
Veil or Remove Decorations at Home
If you are able, veil crucifixes and sacred images in your home. This ancient custom heightens the dramatic unveiling of Christ crucified on Good Friday and the resurrection joy of Easter.

What You Should Be Thinking

Christ’s Suffering is Personal
Passiontide invites you to recognize that Christ suffered for you. Not in a vague sense, but in the concrete reality of your sins, your salvation, and your need for His mercy.
We Are Called to Die With Christ
The Christian life is not about self-improvement—it is about crucifixion and resurrection. What must die in your soul? What remains un-surrendered?
God’s Justice and Mercy Meet at the Cross
The Cross is where sin is truly judged and truly forgiven. Let this shape your understanding of God’s holiness and love—He neither overlooks sin nor abandons sinners.
The Passion Reveals the True Nature of Love
“Greater love hath no man than this…” (John 15:13). Let Passiontide renew your understanding of love as sacrifice, not sentiment.

What You Should Be Praying

The Seven Penitential Psalms
These ancient psalms express the heart of repentance and sorrow. Consider praying one each day of Passion Week.
The Litany of the Passion
Or any litany that draws you into the sufferings of Christ—His wounds, His Precious Blood, His Sorrows.
The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary
Pray them slowly, with intentional meditation on each scene. Consider praying the Rosary daily during Passiontide.
Stabat Mater Dolorosa
This hymn places you beside Our Lady at the foot of the Cross. A powerful Passiontide devotion, especially when prayed alongside the Stations.
Jesus Prayer or Acts of Contrition Throughout the Day
Keep short prayers on your lips:
“Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
“O my Jesus, mercy!”
“We adore Thee, O Christ, and we bless Thee, because by Thy holy Cross Thou hast redeemed the world.”

What You Should Be Anticipating
Holy Week is not a mere liturgical event—it is the holiest week of the year. Prepare now to clear your schedule, reduce distractions, and enter deeply into the Triduum.
Be ready to fast more strictly on Good Friday and Holy Saturday.
Pray to be present at the Cross like St. John and Our Lady, not hiding like the others.
Offer up these last two weeks for others, especially those most in need of mercy, those suffering, or those dying.

Final Word: Keep Watch With Him
As Passiontide begins, Our Lord enters His final hours. He turns to His disciples and says, “Could you not watch with Me one hour?” (Matthew 26:40). Passiontide is your time to respond—not merely with sentiment, but with prayer, penance, and love. Walk with Christ, stand beside His Mother, and prepare your soul for the glory of the Resurrection.

Let Passiontide begin. 🔝

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Liturgical Lawfare: How Modernists Weaponised Canon Law to Impose a Revolution

The Vindication of Fr. Gregory Hesse and the Justified Distance of Tradition-Keeping Catholics

Expanded and adapted from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s article, “Does a priest need permission to offer the Traditional Latin Mass?”, published April 3, 2025, on his Substack, Tradition and Sanity.

A Language of Control
In recent decades, a quiet but devastating weapon has been deployed against the Church’s liturgical tradition: the bureaucratic distortion of canon law. Today, bishops routinely declare that priests must seek their permission to offer the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). Priests themselves often echo this claim, believing they lack the faculties to celebrate the old rite unless explicitly granted. But as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski’s article published today makes clear, this juridical framework is a fiction—a modernist illusion used to suppress the Church’s own venerable liturgy.

This strategy is best understood as lawfare: the manipulation of legal language and hierarchical authority to impose an ideological revolution under the guise of obedience and discipline. It is a system built not on true law but on administrative overreach and theological rupture. And it is precisely the scenario foreseen and denounced decades ago by the late Rev. Dr. Gregory Hesse, whose prophetic warnings now stand fully vindicated.

Quo Primum: Binding and Perpetual
Fr. Gregory Hesse, a canon lawyer and former theological secretary to Cardinal Stickler, consistently taught that Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum (1570) was not a mere disciplinary act, but a binding legal and liturgical norm issued in perpetuum—for all time. In numerous lectures and interviews, Fr. Hesse argued that this bull established the Tridentine Mass as the standard liturgy of the Roman Rite and explicitly prohibited anyone, including future popes, from altering or forbidding its use¹.

He often quoted the critical language of Quo Primum:

“No one whosoever is forced or coerced into altering this Missal… We declare and ordain that nothing must be added to, omitted from, or changed about this Missal…”

Fr. Hesse maintained that the rite codified by Pius V was not a novelty, but the organic development of the Roman Rite going back to the time of Pope Gregory the Great and beyond. Any attempt to replace or suppress it—such as that undertaken after Vatican II—was, in his view, not only theologically reckless but juridically invalid.

Paul VI and the Great Ambiguity
The cornerstone of the modernist legal illusion is Missale Romanum (1969), in which Pope Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo Missae. For decades it was widely presumed that this apostolic constitution abrogated the traditional Mass and mandated the new one. But the Latin text of the document does no such thing.

Paul VI writes only that the new Missal is published (“in lucem edimus”) and hopes it will be gradually introduced (“sperantes fore ut… inducatur”). It lacks the mandatory legal formulae necessary for abrogation or imposition of universal obligation. As canonists John Salza and Robert Siscoe demonstrate in True or False Pope? (pp. 493–524), there is no juridical act of suppression, nor any replacement of the existing law established by Quo Primum².

The Congregation for Divine Worship, not the Pope himself, issued implementation documents such as Celebrationes Eucharisticae in 1970. These administrative acts attempted to restrict the older rite without the force of law. The confusion was compounded by mistranslations and a general unwillingness to confront the legal vacuum at the heart of the reform.

Fr. Hesse anticipated this precise problem. He repeatedly warned that modern hierarchs were relying on rhetorical force, not juridical authority, to push through the most radical liturgical rupture in Church history.

The 1986 Commission and Summorum Pontificum
In 1986, Pope John Paul II convened a secret commission of nine cardinals to address two key questions:

Was the traditional Roman Rite ever juridically suppressed?
May any priest in good standing offer it without special permission?

The answer, eight to one, was clear: the Tridentine Mass was never suppressed, and priests may offer it freely. Cardinal Alfons Stickler, a member of the commission and close friend of Fr. Hesse, later confirmed in an interview:

“No bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. The Mass of St. Pius V has never been suppressed.”³

This hidden truth was publicly acknowledged by Pope Benedict XVI in Summorum Pontificum (2007), which declared:

“This Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.”⁴

Traditionis Custodes and Canonical Shell Games
Despite this clarity, Pope Francis issued Traditionis Custodes (2021), reversing the juridical presumptions of Summorum Pontificum by claiming that the Novus Ordo is now the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite. Yet, as Fr. Réginald-Marie Rivoire, FSVF, demonstrates in his tract Does “Traditionis Custodes” Pass the Juridical Rationality Test?, this motu proprio rests on a false premise: that the old Mass was ever abrogated⁵.

Traditionis Custodes does not contain the juridical language necessary to suppress an existing liturgical law. It asserts episcopal control but fails to establish new law. Its effect is administrative, not legislative—yet it is being wielded as if it had the force to erase the Roman Rite’s own sacred history.

Here, again, Fr. Hesse’s analysis proves prescient: the document governs not by law but by pressure. It is modernist lawfare—confuse, restrict, isolate—without ever directly confronting the enduring rights of priests and faithful.

The Justified Distance of Traditional Catholics
This ecclesiastical campaign of misinformation and intimidation explains why traditionalist Catholics—such as those of the Old Roman Apostolate—maintain a prudent distance from the postconciliar regime. That distance is not rooted in pride or disobedience, but in fidelity to the truth. When bishops act ultra vires, exceeding their lawful powers, and when priests internalize obligations that do not exist, resistance becomes a moral obligation.

The right to the Traditional Latin Mass is not a concession; it is a patrimony. It is not a privilege of the few, but the inheritance of the many. And it was never, in law or doctrine, taken away.

Conclusion: The Restoration Begins with Truth
Fr. Gregory Hesse warned that the modernist establishment within the Church would use the appearance of authority to overturn tradition, knowing that most would be too confused—or too obedient—to resist. His arguments, long dismissed by the mainstream, are now vindicated by canonists, commissions, and even popes.

The Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated. It remains licit. It cannot be forbidden. Those who claim otherwise perpetuate a lie—one which must be named, exposed, and rejected.

The work of restoration begins not with negotiation, but with clarity. 🔝

¹ Gregory Hesse, interviews and lectures, The Catholic Restoration and The Remnant, archived online; cf. Super Flumina Babylonis.
² John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? (St. Augustine Press, 2015), Chapter 16.
³ Interview with Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Latin Mass Magazine, Spring 1995.
⁴ Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum, 2007, Art. 1.
⁵ Fr. Réginald-Marie Rivoire, FSVF, Does “Traditionis Custodes” Pass the Juridical Rationality Test? (2022), FSVF Publications.

A Church on the Brink? Synodality, Decentralization, and the Risk of Schism

As Pope Francis’s pontificate enters what many see as its final chapter, the Catholic Church finds itself walking a theological and pastoral tightrope. Under the banner of synodality and pastoral accompaniment, the Holy Father has initiated a series of reforms intended to make the Church more responsive, inclusive, and context-sensitive. But critics, including respected ethicists and senior clergy, warn that these reforms—particularly the drive for decentralization and regional doctrinal variation—may risk sowing division rather than unity.

The Rise of Synodality
The concept of synodality, central to Francis’s ecclesiology, means “journeying together”—bishops, clergy, religious, and laity listening to each other under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The recent Synod on Synodality (2021–2024), formally titled For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission, sought to embody this process through local, continental, and universal phases of consultation and discernment¹.

For the first time in history, lay people and women were granted voting rights at a Synod of Bishops, signaling a significant shift in ecclesial participation. The synod’s final report called for greater transparency, decentralization, and lay involvement while affirming communion with the Petrine office². Still, many contentious issues—women’s ordination, the role of LGBTQ+ Catholics, and the authority of episcopal conferences—were deferred for future discussion, indicating unresolved tensions in the Church’s attempt to balance tradition with reform.

Doctrinal Regionalization: A Step Too Far?
One of the most hotly debated outcomes of the synodal process is the push for “doctrinal regionalization.” Ethicist Fr. Andrzej Kobyliński has warned that allowing bishops’ conferences to diverge on doctrinal matters risks fracturing the Church along ideological lines³. While the decentralization of governance—such as decisions on liturgical translations via Magnum Principium (2017)—has been welcomed by some as overdue subsidiarity, the prospect of decentralized doctrine has provoked alarm.

During the Synod’s October 2024 assembly, proposals to grant doctrinal authority to bishops’ conferences were met with major resistance. Opponents feared that what is intended as pastoral flexibility could evolve into a de facto theological pluralism⁴. The result would be a Church where moral teachings vary by geography, eroding the universality of Catholic doctrine.

The Amazonian Synod and the Limits of Reform
These fears are not theoretical. The 2019 Synod for the Pan-Amazon Region proposed ordaining viri probati (mature married men) and called for greater recognition of women’s ministry. Environmental concerns and the rights of indigenous peoples also featured prominently. Yet in his apostolic exhortation Querida Amazonia (2020), Pope Francis declined to authorize married priesthood or the female diaconate, opting instead to emphasize lay leadership and cultural sensitivity⁵.

Reactions were mixed. While some saw this as prudent restraint, others interpreted it as a retreat from reform under pressure from conservative critics. Nevertheless, the Amazonian Synod cemented the pattern: bold synodal proposals followed by measured papal responses—reforms tempered by Rome’s concern for unity.

Traditionis Custodes and Liturgical Tensions
Meanwhile, Francis’s 2021 motu proprio Traditionis custodes curtailed the use of the Traditional Latin Mass, reversing Benedict XVI’s broader permissions. Francis asserted that the post-Vatican II liturgy is the “unique expression” of the Roman Rite, framing traditional liturgical attachment as a threat to unity⁶. Cardinal Raymond Burke and other prelates challenged the move, warning it would alienate faithful Catholics and exacerbate liturgical and ideological fault lines within the Church.

This liturgical centralization stands in stark contrast to the decentralizing trend elsewhere, revealing an inconsistency in Rome’s approach to governance. For many traditional Catholics, Traditionis custodes signaled not unity but suppression.

The Fiducia Supplicans Crisis
Perhaps the most dramatic rupture came with Fiducia supplicans (2023), a document approved by Pope Francis permitting non-liturgical blessings of same-sex couples. Although the Vatican insisted this did not equate to approval of same-sex marriage, the backlash was swift. Cardinal Gerhard Müller condemned the document as “sacrilegious and blasphemous,” and numerous episcopal conferences, particularly in Africa, refused to implement it⁷.

In effect, Fiducia supplicans introduced doctrinal regionalization through praxis. Though the teaching on marriage remained intact formally, the pastoral application now varies by continent. This episode exemplifies how ambiguity, even when intended pastorally, can functionally fracture Church teaching and discipline.

Unity in Diversity—or Disunity in Disguise?
Supporters of synodality argue that these reforms aim to retrieve the early Church’s participatory ethos and reimagine ecclesial governance for a global age. Yet the consistent absence of theological clarity—combined with de facto doctrinal divergence—risks eroding the integrity of the magisterium.

The essential paradox remains: How can the Church maintain universal communion if its regions teach and practice the faith differently? For critics like Kobyliński, synodality is no longer just a method—it is becoming a battleground. “If we don’t find a common language and preserve doctrinal unity,” he warns, “we risk seeing the Church split into conservative and progressive branches, each with its own theology and praxis”³.

Conclusion
The Church today stands at a crossroads. Pope Francis has opened space for dialogue and discernment unprecedented in recent memory. But unless this dialogue is rooted in clarity and continuity with the perennial Magisterium, it risks becoming a solvent rather than a catalyst of unity. Reform is not schism—but reform without boundaries can become its forerunner.

The challenge ahead is immense: to build a truly synodal Church without compromising Catholic truth. If the reform process continues to drift from doctrinal cohesion, the much-feared specter of schism may not remain hypothetical. 🔝

¹ Synod on Synodality, Vatican Synod Office. See: https://www.synod.va/en/the-synod-on-synodality/what-is-the-synod-about.html
² Final Document of the 2023 Synod Assembly, October 2023.
³ Fr. Andrzej Kobyliński, cited in Essanews, “Pope’s Reforms Spark Fears of Schism,” March 2025.
⁴ National Catholic Register, “Synod Proposal to Decentralize Doctrinal Authority Met with Major Pushback,” October 2024.
⁵ Pope Francis, Querida Amazonia, February 2020.
⁶ Traditionis custodes, Apostolic Letter, July 2021.
⁷ Fiducia supplicans, Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 2023.

The Turning Tide in the Rupnik Case: From Papal Rehabilitation to Lourdes’s Response

Background: A Celebrated Artist, A Hidden Scandal
Fr. Marko Rupnik, a Slovenian Jesuit until 2023, rose to global prominence as a religious artist. His mosaics adorn major Catholic landmarks, from the Vatican’s Redemptoris Mater chapel to the Basilica of the Rosary at Lourdes. But his legacy has come under intense scrutiny following allegations of sexual, psychological, and spiritual abuse, particularly targeting women in consecrated life and collaborators in his artistic circle. These allegations span over three decades.

While the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) initially declined to prosecute due to the statute of limitations under canon law, public outcry and further revelations prompted broader ecclesial action. In 2023, the Society of Jesus expelled Rupnik, citing disobedience and lack of remorse. However, the case took a surprising turn later that year.

Papal Intervention and Rehabilitation
Despite his expulsion from the Jesuits and the serious nature of the allegations, Pope Francis personally intervened. In what many critics have called a “rehabilitation,” Francis permitted Rupnik’s incardination into the Diocese of Koper, Slovenia, effectively restoring him to active ministry. This move bypassed standard canonical vetting procedures and raised serious concerns about transparency and the Church’s willingness to hold prominent figures accountable¹.

The Pope later defended his decision, stating that Rupnik’s request for incardination was handled “normally,” and claiming that the case had been reconsidered. Yet no new exonerating evidence was produced publicly, and the original victims were never consulted. This decision deeply undermined the credibility of institutional reform efforts and sent a chilling message to survivors and reform advocates alike².

Lourdes: A Pastoral Response of Moral Weight
In stark contrast to the Vatican’s equivocation, the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes—one of the most visited Catholic shrines in the world—has taken decisive action. On March 31, 2025, the shrine began covering Rupnik’s mosaics on the doors of the Rosary Basilica.

The decision was made by Bishop Jean-Marc Micas, who stated that Lourdes must be a place of healing “for all,” including those hurt by clerical abuse. The coverings bear the motto of the Jubilee Year: “With Mary, Pilgrims of Hope 2025.” Far from a mere cosmetic adjustment, this is a public rejection of complicity in the face of scandal and a concrete act of solidarity with victims³.

Micas emphasized that the Church must not “pretend nothing happened.” This marks the first major public sanctuary to visibly distance itself from Rupnik’s artistic legacy—a precedent that could influence other institutions with his mosaics.

Victim Reparations and Vatican Delay
In parallel, the Jesuit order has offered reparations to approximately 20 victims. These gestures, communicated by Father Johan Verschueren, range from psychological and spiritual support to financial aid—tailored individually to the needs of each woman. While limited in scope, the reparations are a long-overdue recognition of harm⁴.

Meanwhile, the DDF has concluded its investigation and is working to appoint external judges for a full canonical trial. But the delay has raised concerns about justice deferred. Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the DDF, has acknowledged the difficulties in assembling a tribunal—though observers note that similar hurdles did not prevent Rupnik’s rapid incardination.

Toward a Reckoning
These developments underscore an internal divide in the Church’s response to abuse: between a curial reluctance to act decisively against prominent insiders and local episcopal courage, as seen at Lourdes. They also highlight how the cult of artistic prestige and spiritual authority can be manipulated to shield abusers.

The Rupnik case also reopens theological questions: Can sacred art be separated from the sins of its creator? Should beauty created through coercion be retained in places of worship? And most pressing: Is the institutional Church prepared to choose truth and healing over reputation and convenience?

Lourdes has answered—quietly, but clearly. 🔝

¹ Pope Francis’s intervention was confirmed by the Diocese of Koper in October 2023. Despite allegations, he was accepted as a diocesan priest with Rome’s blessing.
² Victims’ groups and canon lawyers criticized the move as inconsistent with Pope Francis’s stated commitment to accountability, particularly after the McCarrick reforms.
³ Reuters, Catholic shrine in Lourdes covers artwork by priest accused of abuse, 31 March 2025.
⁴ Associated Press, Jesuits offer reparations to women who accuse artist-priest Rupnik of abuse, 28 March 2025.

When Justice Is Gagged: The Libero Milone Case and the Crisis of Vatican Transparency

The Vatican’s ongoing legal entanglement with its former auditor general, Libero Milone, has taken a grim and revealing turn. In March 2025, the Vatican tribunal ordered Milone to excise approximately 25 pages of documentation from his appeal—a move framed as a safeguard against “immoral and indecent” material that could damage the “good name” of high-ranking officials¹. What emerges from this episode is not merely a legal dispute, but a deeper ecclesial and moral crisis: a Church hierarchy struggling to live up to its own professed standards of justice, transparency, and reform.

The Silencing of a Watchdog
Libero Milone was appointed by Pope Francis in 2015 as the Holy See’s first-ever auditor general, a cornerstone of the Vatican’s much-publicized financial reform. His mandate was clear: to audit and investigate internal finances across departments, rooting out inefficiencies and corruption. Yet by 2017, Milone was forced to resign under what he described as duress, accused of having “exceeded his mandate”². He now contends that his ousting was orchestrated after he uncovered serious financial mismanagement at the highest levels of the Curia.

His appeal for wrongful dismissal is scheduled for May 2025. However, the court’s recent order forbids the inclusion of critical evidence—testimonies, documents, and financial records—which allegedly point to grave misconduct. According to the judges, these materials could harm the reputations of certain unnamed officials and are therefore “inadmissible”³.

Romano Vaccarella, Milone’s lead attorney and a former judge on Italy’s constitutional court, resigned in protest. He characterized the court’s decision as a “violation of fundamental legal principles,” arguing that shielding reputations at the expense of truth makes a mockery of justice⁴.

What the Vatican Doesn’t Want You to See
The redacted portions of Milone’s filing reportedly detail a catalogue of internal obstruction, financial misappropriation, and institutional negligence. One particularly damning claim involves the Vatican-run Bambino Gesù Hospital, where over €2.5 million in donations earmarked for a new pediatric oncology ward disappeared⁵. Another case involves the illegal involvement of the Vatican in the acquisition of two failing Italian hospitals—a financial disaster tied to both the Secretariat of State and APSA (the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See)⁶.

In his public statements, Milone has likened his experience to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, lamenting a culture of elite impunity: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”⁷ This Orwellian sentiment now appears prophetic as Vatican justice seems to function less as an impartial system and more as a shield for the powerful.

From Financial Reform to Farce
The Vatican’s treatment of Milone cannot be dismissed as an isolated procedural quirk. It must be read in the context of years of scandal, including the Cardinal Becciu affair, the London property debacle, and the financial mismanagement tied to the IDI hospital bailout⁸. Time and again, whistleblowers and auditors have been suppressed while those implicated in wrongdoing are quietly retired, reassigned, or protected behind walls of institutional secrecy.

Indeed, Pope Francis’s much-lauded reforms have often faltered precisely because the mechanisms of transparency—auditors, external agencies, lay experts—are neutered once they come too close to revealing systemic rot. In the Milone case, the optics are devastating: the Vatican, with one hand, claims a commitment to reform, and with the other, forbids those pursuing reform from naming names or presenting evidence.

A Judicial System in Crisis
The Vatican tribunal’s directive, in effect, elevates reputation above justice, protecting institutional interests rather than upholding due process. This sets a perilous precedent: that in the world’s smallest but most symbolically significant state, legal action may proceed only if it does not discomfort the powerful.

Such an approach makes a mockery of both canon and civil law, and risks transforming the Vatican legal system into an ecclesiastical version of a show trial—where the verdict is preordained and the facts are filtered through bureaucratic censors. As Vaccarella rightly noted, justice cannot flourish where truth is selectively excluded.

The Deeper Cost
For the Catholic faithful, this is more than an internal Vatican squabble. It is a matter of witness. The Church teaches that truth is not merely a value among others but the very foundation of moral life. When the Church cannot bear to hear the truth about itself, it ceases to be credible as a moral voice in the world.

The suppression of Milone’s evidence is, in effect, a suppression of accountability. It undermines the very reform Pope Francis claimed to champion, and it signals to would-be whistleblowers that their courage will be punished, not honored.

What Must Be Done
The Holy See must allow Milone to present his full case. The Vatican’s judicial process must be independent, transparent, and open to scrutiny—not beholden to curial politics or reputational management. True reform demands humility: the willingness to admit wrongdoing, to expose failure, and to endure scandal in the name of truth.

The Church cannot afford to sacrifice justice for expediency, or transparency for decorum. If the Vatican fears what Milone knows, it is not his fault—it is its own.

“He who does evil hates the light,” said our Lord (John 3:20). The Church must not join the evildoers in fearing exposure. It must choose the light. 🔝

¹ Vatican judges ruled Milone’s appeal must exclude “immoral and indecent” evidence to protect reputations. See Pillar Catholic, March 2025.
² Milone claims he was forced out after uncovering internal financial misconduct. Complicit Clergy, March 24, 2025.
³ The tribunal ordered removal of 25 pages of documents from Milone’s filing. National Catholic Register, March 2025.
⁴ Romano Vaccarella resigned as Milone’s counsel, citing judicial bias. National Catholic Register, ibid.
⁵ Disappearance of €2.5 million in hospital donations was one incident cited. Complicit Clergy, ibid.
⁶ The Vatican’s illegal involvement in hospital acquisitions was detailed in Milone’s evidence. National Catholic Register, ibid.
⁷ Milone compared Vatican justice to Animal Farm. See The Australian, March 2025.
⁸ Cardinal Becciu’s 2020 resignation followed allegations of embezzlement and nepotism. See Wikipedia: Giovanni Angelo Becciu.

A Frail Pontiff and a Paralyzed Vatican: Who Governs the Church Now?

As Pope Francis continues to recover from a grave respiratory illness, growing concerns are being voiced about the governance of the Catholic Church during a period many now describe as one of unprecedented papal fragility and institutional drift. The question looms large: in a Vatican where power is increasingly centralized in one man, what happens when that man is too sick to govern?

Ailing Shepherd
On February 14, 2025, Pope Francis was admitted to hospital with what Vatican sources initially described as “a mild flu.” In reality, the pontiff was suffering from acute double pneumonia and polymicrobial respiratory infection, later compounded by early-stage kidney failure¹. Over the following five weeks, he remained largely out of sight, receiving treatment that included high-flow oxygen and non-invasive mechanical ventilation. He was discharged only on March 23, under strict medical instructions to rest for at least two months at the Casa Santa Marta.

Despite ongoing fatigue and a fungal infection of the airways, the Pope has made selective appearances, concelebrating Mass in his private chapel and authorizing a few key decisions, such as the canonization of new saints from Venezuela and Papua New Guinea². Yet his frailty is evident. During a recent Palm Sunday liturgy, Francis delegated the entire liturgy to Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti, choosing only to offer a brief homily from a seated position. According to Italian medical commentators, such behavior is consistent with an ongoing convalescence and continued reliance on oxygen therapy³.

A Paralysed Vatican
While Pope Francis’s illness invites sympathy, it also raises uncomfortable institutional questions. The governance of the Church—already marked by ambiguities surrounding the role of the Pope Emeritus and an aging College of Cardinals—now faces an added uncertainty: a Pope who is mentally alert but physically incapacitated, reluctant to delegate but unable to act fully.

In theory, the Secretariat of State, led by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, oversees daily operations⁴. Yet Vatican watchers describe an atmosphere of hesitation and informal power vacuums. One source close to the Curia noted, “Nobody knows whether to wait for a papal decision or act in his name. The whole machine slows down.” Others point to the lack of a functioning vicegerent or clear constitutional provision for the Pope’s temporary incapacity.

Critics of Centralization
This moment has emboldened longstanding critics of Pope Francis’s governance style. Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has warned that the papacy under Francis has “exceeded the limits of doctrinal development,” referring pointedly to synodal processes and ambiguities surrounding same-sex blessings. “He has already uttered plenty of material heresies,” Müller said in a 2023 interview⁵, highlighting the risk of unchecked papalism when the Pope is both powerful and unwell.

Author H.J.A. Sire, in his controversial 2017 book The Dictator Pope, characterized Francis’s rule as “government by fear,” in which ideological allies are promoted while dissenting voices are marginalized⁶. “What happens when the dictator is bedridden?” Sire asks in a recent Substack column. “You are left with the same climate of fear—only now with no one at the helm.”⁷

A Crisis Foretold
For many traditionalists, the current malaise exposes the theological deficiencies of a hyper-personalized papacy. The Second Vatican Council’s elevation of collegiality has, ironically, led to a papacy more centralized than ever before. Synods are announced as democratic but choreographed from above. Bishops’ conferences await Rome’s signal before acting. Now, with Rome silent, paralysis sets in.

Some theologians are calling for reforms—not of the perennial magisterium, but of the canonical framework governing the papal office. Suggestions include the introduction of a temporary regency in cases of incapacity or even a constitutional mechanism for declaring sede impedita, a status in which the Pope is recognized as unable to govern without formally abdicating⁸.

The Way Forward
Pope Francis has previously indicated that he would resign if he became too ill to fulfill his office, but he has also expressed skepticism about repeating the precedent set by Benedict XVI⁹. Meanwhile, speculation swirls about possible successors and the shape of the next conclave.

In this moment of uncertainty, the faithful are called not only to prayer for the Pope’s recovery but also to sober reflection on the structures of ecclesial governance. A Church that professes her head to be Christ cannot permit her human head to become a bottleneck—or worse, a cipher—when action is most needed.

For now, the Church watches, waits, and prays. But the questions raised by this moment will not fade quietly with Francis’s recovery or demise. They cut to the heart of how the Petrine office is understood—and how it must be preserved for the sake of unity and truth. 🔝

¹ AP News, “Pope Francis Released from Hospital after Pneumonia,” March 23, 2025.
² Vatican News, “Francis Approves Canonizations from Venezuela and Papua New Guinea,” March 2025.
³ Il Messaggero, “Medici: Il Papa sta migliorando ma serve cautela,” March 2025.
⁴ Holy See Press Office, “Daily Bulletin of the Vatican Secretariat of State,” February–March 2025.
⁵ Die Tagespost, Interview with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, July 2023.
⁶ H.J.A. Sire, The Dictator Pope (Regnery, 2017).
⁷ H.J.A. Sire, “Rome Without a Rudder,” Sire Substack, March 2025.
⁸ La Civiltà Cattolica, “Il Governo della Chiesa in Situazioni Straordinarie,” February 2024.
⁹ Corriere della Sera, Interview with Pope Francis, December 2022.

The Death of Catholic Spain: Secularisation, Disaffiliation, and the Mission Ahead

In a stark intervention reported by The Catholic Herald, Archbishop Luis Argüello declared that “Catholic Spain no longer exists.” The statement, delivered at the opening of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference’s 127th plenary assembly, is no rhetorical exaggeration. It is a sober acknowledgment of a nation once evangelised by saints, now swept by secularism—and increasingly post-Christian in both culture and identity¹.

The Baptismal Font Runs Dry
Argüello, the Archbishop of Valladolid and current president of the Spanish Episcopal Conference, admitted that the centuries-long assumption—“I’m Catholic because I was born in Spain”—has collapsed. Catholicism can no longer rely on cultural momentum.

He noted that of Spain’s 22,921 parishes, some 23,000 baptismal fonts stand as silent witnesses to a spiritual desert. Many “have no water,” not due to infrastructure failure, but due to the lack of a living Christian community able to bring forth new believers. In cities, baptism is reduced to a social rite. In rural villages, the Sunday Eucharist is no longer possible.

He also warned that Catholic charities risk becoming mere NGOs, beholden to state funding and bureaucratic regulations, their distinctive witness to Christian charity growing faint.

Spain Tops the Global Disaffiliation Charts
The Archbishop’s warning is dramatically reinforced by data from the Pew Research Center’s March 2024 report, Around the World, Many People Are Leaving Their Childhood Religions². Pew’s global survey of nearly 80,000 adults across 36 countries reveals that Spain leads Europe in the loss of Christian affiliation:

35% of adults raised Christian in Spain now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated—the highest in Europe.
40% of all Spanish adults have switched from their childhood religion entirely³.
The vast majority are not converting to other religions, but entering a state of spiritual disaffiliation, relativism, or agnosticism.

Other Western nations show similar patterns: Sweden and Germany (29% disaffiliation), the Netherlands (28%), Canada and the UK (26%), and the United States (19%). In stark contrast, nations like the Philippines, Nigeria, and Hungary show high Christian retention rates.

The Age Divide and Latin America’s Warning
The generational gap is clear. In thirteen countries—particularly across Latin America and Europe—adults under 35 are significantly more likely to have left religion than those over 50⁴. The effects of secularisation and poor catechesis are now cascading into full apostasy among younger generations.

Commentary: The Spirit of Vatican II and the Collapse of Cultural Catholicism
The cultural death of Catholic Spain did not begin in secular legislation or media influence alone. It began within the Church, in a self-inflicted wound. The decades-long capitulation to “the spirit of Vatican II”—a nebulous mandate for doctrinal ambiguity, liturgical innovation, and moral minimalism—has borne bitter fruit.

Spain, like much of post-conciliar Europe, embraced the illusion that the Church must modernise to survive. In practice, this meant sacrificing Tradition to fashion, catechesis to consensus, and witness to worldly acceptance. The Mass was de-sacralised, religious education reduced to values-talk, and the missionary impulse replaced by “accompaniment”—often with no clear destination.

The Church in Spain failed to form disciples and instead fostered religious consumers, whose faith evaporated once Catholicism ceased to offer anything distinct from the surrounding culture. The result? Dry fonts. Empty pews. Disoriented youth.

From Christendom to Mission
Archbishop Argüello’s remarks—and the Pew findings—only confirm what Pope Benedict XVI foresaw: the Church is now a missionary remnant in lands once called Catholic. We must act accordingly.

This means re-evangelising not only the public square but the very structures of the Church. Parishes must stop functioning like service stations and rediscover the ancient model of intentional Christian communities. Bishops must preach Christ with clarity, not as a lifestyle choice, but as the crucified and risen Lord. Charity must flow from the altar, not the tax office.

Most of all, the Church must recover her liturgical and doctrinal soul. The spiritual waters will not return unless the fonts are restored to their rightful place: not as cultural artifacts, but as gates to eternal life. 🔝

¹ The Catholic Herald, “Catholic Spain No Longer Exists, Says Archbishop,” March 2024.
² Pew Research Center, Around the World, Many People Are Leaving Their Childhood Religions, March 2024.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.

The Desecration at Topeka: What the Kansas Black Mass Tells Us About Modern America

On March 28, 2025, a grotesque parody of Catholic worship was enacted on the steps of the Kansas State Capitol. A self-described “Black Mass,” performed by a Satanist group called the Satanic Grotto, culminated in the public desecration of what was alleged to be a consecrated Eucharistic host—an act that would have once stirred entire nations to grief or penance. But in Topeka, this vile display occurred under the protection of the law, with only a remnant of faithful Catholics gathered across the street in prayer¹.

A Black Mass is not merely a Satanist ritual. It is a deliberate inversion and mockery of the Catholic Mass, typically involving profane language, blasphemous imagery, and the desecration of the Eucharist. Traditionally, it was intended to ridicule the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to offer offense to God as a form of spiritual rebellion². The central feature of a full Black Mass is the profanation of a consecrated host—though in many modern cases, this is symbolic or simulated rather than actual. In Topeka, the host used was identified as a priest’s host, larger and thinner than those typically distributed to the laity. Such hosts are normally either consumed immediately by the priest during Mass or reserved securely in the tabernacle. It is therefore unlikely—though not impossible—that the host used in the ritual had been validly consecrated³.

The event turned violent when an unnamed Catholic man, witnessing the desecration, rushed forward and consumed the host in an attempt to safeguard its sanctity. He was assaulted by the leader of the ritual, Michael Stewart, who was later arrested after punching another counter-protester inside the Capitol rotunda⁴. The scene was caught on video and has since been widely shared online⁵. But beneath the viral outrage lies a deeper question: how did we arrive at a moment where a Black Mass could be publicly staged at a state capitol?

Who Is Behind the Black Mass?
The Satanic Grotto is a relatively obscure offshoot of the broader modern Satanist movement. Unlike the Church of Satan founded by Anton LaVey in the 1960s—which is atheistic and largely performative—groups like the Satanic Grotto often include elements of occult practice and spiritualized rebellion⁶. Stewart, the group’s founder, is a flamboyant and confrontational figure who has made a name for himself by appropriating Christian symbols to provoke controversy and assert what he calls “freedom from religious tyranny.”⁷

In practice, the Grotto’s activism follows the template established by the Satanic Temple, a separate and more media-savvy organization known for installing mock religious monuments to protest public displays of the Ten Commandments or nativity scenes. Both movements cloak themselves in the language of civil liberties, but their real target is not religion in general—it is Christianity, and above all, Catholicism⁸.

A Public Desecration with Public Approval
In the past, Satanic rituals of this kind were hidden affairs—private provocations carried out by fringe cultists. The shift toward public “Black Masses” began in earnest a decade ago, with high-profile events in Oklahoma City (2014) and Houston (2021), both met by massive Catholic opposition⁹. What changed in Kansas is the normalization. The Topeka event was permitted by the state, held on public grounds, and reported in some corners of the media with neutral or even favorable framing. It was no longer a fringe outburst but a tolerated, even protected, expression of “religious pluralism.”¹⁰

The irony, of course, is that the Satanic Grotto owes its very right to gather in protest to the Christian civilization it seeks to invert. The constitutional protections they appeal to are themselves the fruits of a culture shaped by the Church. And yet, that culture is now so hollowed out that it cannot muster the moral clarity to say: this is wrong.

The Catholic Response—and the Man Who Acted
In the face of this desecration, the Catholic response was at once heroic and humble. Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City called on the faithful to gather in reparation and led a Eucharistic Holy Hour at Assumption Church, directly opposite the Capitol¹¹. Hundreds attended. Organizations such as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) organized public rosaries¹². Their witness was peaceful, prayerful, and powerfully countercultural.

But the most arresting image of the day was the lone man who rushed to recover the Eucharist from desecration—an act of profound courage and faith. In the face of mockery, in full view of cameras and police, he bore personal risk to defend the Body of Christ. His name remains unknown, and perhaps rightly so. His act was not for fame but for the Lord.

A Mirror to Our Times
What happened in Topeka is a mirror held up to modern America. It reveals a spiritual vacuum, a collapse of moral seriousness, and the triumph of spectacle over sanctity. It also reveals the resilience of the faithful remnant—those who still believe that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ and who are willing to suffer for that belief.

There is an urgent need for Catholics to wake up to the cultural and spiritual battlefield we now inhabit. The public square is no longer neutral; it is contested ground. And while legal protections may still exist, cultural legitimacy is rapidly eroding. We must respond not with fear or bitterness, but with clarity, courage, and unwavering fidelity.

If the world stages its blasphemies in the open, then let us proclaim Christ in the open too—more boldly, more visibly, and with the holiness that alone can conquer the darkness. 🔝

¹ Our Sunday Visitor, “As Kansas Catholics Pray, a Satanic Group’s Black Mass Turns Violent With Arrests,” 28 March 2025.
² Fr. Herbert Thurston, The History of the Black Mass, The Month, 1912.
³ Based on public commentary and visual analysis, including remarks by Dr. Taylor Marshall and Eucharistic ministers; see also Canon 934 §1–2.
⁴ Catholic News Agency, “Leader of Black Mass Arrested at Kansas Capitol After Punching Protester,” 28 March 2025.
⁵ YouTube, “Catholic Hero Saves Eucharist from Desecration – Dr. Taylor Marshall,” 29 March 2025.
⁶ Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible, Avon Books, 1969.
⁷ Kansas Reflector, “Loud, Boisterous Rival Protests of Religious Freedom Among Catholics and Satanists Turn Violent,” 28 March 2025.
⁸ Lucien Greaves (The Satanic Temple), interviews and press releases, 2013–2023.
⁹ National Catholic Register, “Thousands Protest Satanic Black Mass in Oklahoma City,” 2014; LifeSiteNews, “Houston Archbishop Condemns Satanic Event at Brash Brewery,” 2021.
¹⁰ KCUR, “Black Mass at Kansas Capitol Ends with Arrests, Protesters and a Punch to the Face,” 28 March 2025.
¹¹ Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas, Public Statement, 27 March 2025.
¹² America Needs Fatima, “Protest Report: Black Mass in Topeka, Kansas,” 29 March 2025.

A Sign from Arizona? The Alleged Miracle Attributed to Cardinal Pell

After a life marked by courage, controversy, and fidelity to the Church, the name of Cardinal George Pell is now being spoken in connection with a possible miracle—an event that may herald the beginning of his path toward canonization.

A Drowning, a Prayer, a Recovery
In June 2023, 18-month-old Vincent Robinson of Phoenix, Arizona, suffered a near-fatal accident. The toddler fell into a backyard swimming pool and was submerged long enough to stop breathing. By the time emergency services arrived and revived him, he had been without a pulse for approximately 52 minutes¹. The prognosis was grim: prolonged cardiac arrest, lung trauma, and the high likelihood of severe brain damage or death.

Faced with this crisis, Vincent’s parents turned to prayer. They had met Cardinal George Pell during a visit to Sydney in 2021 and were deeply moved by his spiritual strength and suffering. With their child’s life hanging in the balance, they asked for Pell’s intercession—imploring the late cardinal to pray for their son’s recovery².

Astonishingly, Vincent not only survived but was discharged from hospital with no neurological impairment, no organ damage, and no lingering complications. Medical professionals were left without a scientific explanation. Some described the recovery as “miraculous”³.

The Road to Sainthood
This extraordinary case has prompted growing discussion about Cardinal Pell’s possible cause for canonization. According to the norms of the Catholic Church, a verified miracle—typically an inexplicable healing—is required for beatification, and a second for canonization⁴. The criteria are rigorous: the event must be instantaneous, complete, lasting, and defy all scientific explanation.

While the Vatican has made no official statement, Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP of Sydney publicly mentioned the incident in a speech at Campion College, drawing attention to the family’s prayers to Pell and the outcome⁵. If formally submitted and approved, this event could serve as the first miracle in a future cause for Cardinal Pell’s sainthood.

By custom, a five-year waiting period must elapse after a candidate’s death before a cause may be introduced⁶. Exceptions have occurred—Pope John Paul II waived the period for Mother Teresa⁷, and Pope Benedict XVI did the same for John Paul II himself⁸. Cardinal Pell died in January 2023, so the earliest his cause could be opened under ordinary procedure is 2028.

Faith, Suffering, and Fidelity
Cardinal Pell was no stranger to suffering. His unjust imprisonment, subsequent acquittal, and public vilification marked him as a modern confessor—one who bore reproach not for wrongdoing but for his fidelity to Catholic truth. His support for liturgical tradition, his firm defence of the Magisterium, and his criticism of doctrinal confusion made him both respected and reviled.

He upheld the post-Vatican II Magisterium while affirming the legitimacy and value of the Traditional Latin Mass⁹. At the same time, he distanced himself from traditionalist groups like the Society of St. Pius X, maintaining that full communion with Rome and acceptance of the Council were essential to Catholic fidelity¹⁰.

Now, if the Arizona healing is formally recognized, it may cast his witness in a new light—not only as a courageous bishop and faithful servant, but as an intercessor in heaven.

Toward the Altar?
The Church, ever cautious in these matters, will take time to investigate. But among the faithful—particularly those inspired by Pell’s integrity and endurance—the news from Arizona has sparked hope and anticipation. The image of a confessing cardinal becoming a conduit of divine healing would be a fitting vindication for a life lived in service of truth.

Whatever comes of the formal process, this event invites the Church to reflect more deeply on the fruit borne of suffering accepted in union with Christ. As the case unfolds, many will be watching—not just for Rome’s decision, but for signs of grace that continue to flow from the life and witness of George Cardinal Pell. 🔝

¹ The Australian, “US toddler’s miraculous survival after prayers to George Pell,” March 2024.
² Catholic News Agency, “Archbishop credits Cardinal Pell’s intercession for miraculous survival of Arizona toddler,” March 2024.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Sanctorum Mater (2007), norms 38–43.
⁵ Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP, address at Campion College, cited in The Australian, March 2024.
⁶ Sanctorum Mater, norm 9.
⁷ Pope John Paul II, decree waiving waiting period for Mother Teresa, 1999.
⁸ Pope Benedict XVI, decree waiving waiting period for John Paul II, 2005.
⁹ Cardinal George Pell, homily at Ss. Trinità dei Pellegrini, Rome, October 2014.
¹⁰ Catholic World Report, “Cardinal Pell defends Pope Francis, criticizes SSPX,” November 2013.

The Truth Behind the CRS Basket: Catholics Deserve Accountability

As the USCCB invites the faithful once again to support Catholic Relief Services (CRS) through the annual Lenten appeal, a sobering question must be asked: What, exactly, are we being asked to support? For nearly two decades, CRS has faced credible accusations of undermining Catholic teaching while trading on the Church’s name. The faithful deserve full transparency before placing their widow’s mite in the basket.

The 2008 Flipchart Scandal
A pivotal, though often overlooked, moment in this pattern of misconduct occurred in 2008, when the esteemed moral theologian Dr. Germain Grisez publicly exposed a CRS-produced and distributed flipchart in Africa that promoted condom use. This was not merely a partnership gone awry or a case of poor oversight. The material bore CRS’s logo and was used in field operations funded and managed by the agency itself¹.

In correspondence with then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who chaired the CRS board at the time, Grisez warned that the flipchart was contrary to Catholic moral teaching. Dolan thanked him for raising the issue and promised a review by the USCCB’s doctrinal committees, asking Grisez to withhold publication. But Grisez, already at press, proceeded—deeply concerned that CRS’s behavior revealed a disturbing contradiction: the agency judged the material unworthy of bearing its logo, yet claimed it did not violate Church teaching².

The CRS response was a masterclass in obfuscation. Ownership of the material was denied. Responsibility was redirected to local partners. The scandal, they insisted, was a misunderstanding. But the evidence showed CRS’s own staff had produced and distributed the flipchart, which openly instructed users in condom use³.

A Pattern of Deception
This was not an isolated incident. In the years since, multiple investigations by watchdog organizations—most notably the Lepanto Institute—have documented CRS partnerships with NGOs promoting contraception, abortion, and sterilization. CRS has repeatedly claimed these partnerships are necessary to secure funding or achieve development goals. But moral compromise cannot be baptized as pragmatic charity.

Each time a new scandal arises, CRS falls back on the same playbook: deny involvement, invoke bureaucratic complexity, and appeal to the USCCB’s oversight. Yet the pattern is unmistakable. The original sin of the 2008 flipchart was not the worst offense—it was the beginning of a systemic posture of evasion, in which faithful Catholics are misled in order to protect institutional reputation and funding streams.

Entanglement with Secular Power
CRS’s entanglement with USAID and other secular funding bodies has raised persistent concerns. With billions in U.S. tax dollars funneled through CRS over the years, critics argue that the agency has become more accountable to Washington bureaucracies than to Catholic bishops or lay donors. Reports have shown that a significant percentage of CRS’s income derives not from pews, but from federal grants—grants often conditioned on cooperation with “comprehensive” sexual health programs that contradict Catholic teaching⁴.

The Bishops’ Burden
To be clear: the laity are not attacking the bishops by raising these concerns. On the contrary, they are appealing to their shepherds. The bishops have a sacred duty to guard the deposit of faith, and to ensure that charitable arms operating in the Church’s name reflect her moral vision. When oversight fails, the result is not merely scandal—it is complicity.

It is no longer sufficient to claim that CRS “does not directly fund” immoral programs. Catholic teaching does not permit material cooperation in evil simply because intermediaries are used. And faithful Catholics should not be asked to entrust their donations to an agency whose public record includes misrepresentation, moral compromise, and disdain for accountability.

A Call for Reform—or Withholding Support
Until Catholic Relief Services undergoes serious reform—rooted not in public relations but in repentance and doctrinal fidelity—Catholics of good conscience may be justified in withholding their donations and directing them to alternative organizations that uphold the fullness of Catholic teaching. As stewards of God’s gifts, we are not only responsible for generosity, but for discernment.

It is no act of rebellion to ask hard questions. It is an act of fidelity to the Gospel. 🔝

¹ Grisez, Germain. Letter to Archbishop Timothy Dolan, 2008. Accessed via Lepanto Institute archives.
² Dolan, Timothy. Response to Dr. Grisez, 2008. USCCB internal correspondence. Grisez published the exchange with permission.
³ Lepanto Institute. “The Condom Chart: CRS in Africa”, 2014. Documented materials and field reports show CRS production and deployment of the flipchart.
⁴ Population Research Institute. “CRS and USAID: Following the Money”, 2020. Analysis shows that CRS received over $1.2 billion in federal grants over a ten-year period, with numerous programmatic overlaps with reproductive health initiatives.

Sanctuary or Subversion? A Catholic Critique of “Know Your Rights” Immigration Workshops

Catholic charitable organizations in the United States have increasingly offered “Know Your Rights” workshops to undocumented immigrants. These sessions, often portrayed as acts of compassion, aim to teach immigrants how to respond during encounters with law enforcement—what to say, how to resist removal, and how to avoid self-incrimination. While they claim to defend human dignity, such programs frequently cross a critical line: they undermine legitimate civil authority, encourage disobedience, and compromise the Church’s witness to truth and justice.

The Church Must Defend Both Justice and Charity
Catholic social doctrine upholds the inviolable dignity of every human being, regardless of legal status. But this truth must not be used to excuse the flouting of just laws. St. Paul’s warning is unambiguous: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God” (Rom. 13:1). Immigration enforcement, carried out within lawful and reasonable bounds, is a proper expression of God-ordained civic authority.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good… may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.”¹

This aligns with Pope Leo XIII’s affirmation that civil society must be governed by justice: “Rights must be religiously respected, and every man must be maintained in that state of life in which the law, either of nature or of the land, has placed him.”²

Programs that educate undocumented persons on how to resist or evade lawful enforcement risk transforming pastoral accompaniment into active subversion. This is not mercy—it is moral confusion.

False Mercy Undermines the Moral Order
Charity without truth is sentimentality. When Catholic organizations focus solely on the rights of migrants—without calling them to responsibility, restitution, and moral accountability—they risk deforming conscience and neglecting the virtue of justice, which demands giving each his due: to God, to neighbor, and to society.³

Pope Pius XI warned: “Justice is the very foundation of all government. To render to each what is his own is a rule of strictest justice.”⁴

To aid someone in resisting lawful authority or concealing their legal status—without any intention of resolving that condition—may constitute material cooperation with injustice. It fosters disorder both in society and in the moral life of the individual.

The Politicization of Charity
Catholic institutions should never become proxies for political ideology. And yet, some charities seem more committed to activist goals than to the formation of Christian conscience. In doing so, they instrumentalize the poor and undocumented, turning them into symbols in a broader ideological conflict.

Pope Benedict XVI reminded us: “Charity must be rooted in truth, which is the light that gives meaning and value to charity.”⁵

Likewise, Pius XII cautioned: “The Church’s social doctrine is not a program of subversion… It is a call to the moral law and justice, not to the slogans of the moment.”⁶

Programs that sidestep legal obligations while presenting the Church as a sanctuary from lawful accountability compromise ecclesial credibility and cause scandal among the faithful.

Toward a Just and Catholic Response
The Church can and must accompany undocumented immigrants—but that accompaniment must be ordered toward conversion, resolution, and truth. A properly Catholic approach would:

Teach not only rights, but moral duties and civic responsibility
Assist immigrants in pursuing legal regularization or, when necessary, voluntary repatriation
Emphasize personal conversion and integrity, not resistance
Provide support in ways that are lawful, pastoral, and faithful to the Church’s moral teaching

Pope Pius XII wrote: “It is not enough to help the poor materially; their souls must also be led to the knowledge of divine truth and their lives conformed to the demands of justice and morality.”⁷

Mercy must be married to mission. Compassion must be disciplined by conscience.

Restoring Ecclesial Integrity
The Church’s mission is not to offer asylum from justice, but to proclaim the Gospel—which calls all, including immigrants, to live in truth. While the State must avoid cruelty and injustice, the Church must avoid giving the impression that civil law is a matter of personal preference.

Pope John Paul II summarized the balance best: “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but the dignity of every human person must always be respected.”⁸

In this light, “Know Your Rights” workshops must be reevaluated. If they promote evasion, resistance, or refusal to regularize one’s status, they risk becoming a betrayal of both justice and mercy. Catholic charity must be orderly, moral, and directed to the eternal good of those it serves. 🔝

¹ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2241
² Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891), §29
³ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II–II, q. 58–59
⁴ Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris (1937), §51
⁵ Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (2009), §3
⁶ Pius XII, Natalis Trecenti Exeunte (1944), Address to the Catholic Association of Italian Workers
⁷ Pius XII, Evangelii Praecones (1951), §53
⁸ John Paul II, Ecclesia in America (1999), §65

A Tale of Two Funds: What the Government’s Budget Says About the Soul of the Nation

This spring, as cathedrals echoed with the music of Lent and minarets filled with the calls of Ramadan, a quiet line in the UK’s budget sparked an unexpected national controversy. On the one hand, the government announced it would halve the funding for the maintenance of historic places of worship—cutting the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme from £42 million to £23 million, and introducing, for the first time in its history, a cap on how much a single building can reclaim¹. On the other hand, it unveiled a £117 million package for mosque security, to be spent over the next four years².

To the casual observer, these might appear to be unrelated budget items. One deals with the bricks and mortar of centuries-old religious buildings; the other with physical safety in the face of contemporary threats. But juxtaposed as they now are—one a cut, the other a cash injection—they have become lightning rods for a deeper unease about national priorities, cultural memory, and the future of faith in Britain.

The Church Left in the Cold
The backlash was swift. Church leaders warned that up to 1,000 historic churches could face closure, particularly in rural communities where congregations are small and fundraising capacity limited³. Critics noted that while grand cathedrals may survive, it is the parish church—at the heart of village life for centuries—that now faces an existential threat.

The pain is not just financial. For many, it signals something more profound: a retreat from the Christian identity woven into the fabric of British life. The Listed Places of Worship scheme is technically open to all faith groups, but in practice, over 90% of the buildings that benefit are Christian churches⁴, the majority of them Anglican or Catholic. These are not marginal institutions—they are the very stones of national memory. That the government would slash support for them while simultaneously expanding protections for mosques struck many as evidence of an ideological shift, or at least a failure to honour the foundations of its own civilisation.

Mosque Protection: A Different Category?
Supporters of the mosque funding were quick to point out that the threat to Muslim communities is very real. In the wake of global tensions and domestic incidents of Islamophobic abuse, Muslim leaders have reported a surge in threats to safety. The security funding is intended not to signal cultural preference, but to respond to tangible risk. Reinforced doors and CCTV systems are a matter of public order, not theology.

But the symmetry—or asymmetry—remains troubling to many. A Church of England that once crowned monarchs and shaped law now finds itself lobbying for survival in the Treasury spreadsheet. It receives less than half the amount granted to protect mosque buildings from potential attacks—despite representing the overwhelming majority of listed religious structures, and being the only church officially established under the Crown.

The Heritage–Security Divide
And what of the argument that church maintenance is “heritage,” while mosque security is “safeguarding”? It’s a distinction with real consequences. If churches are seen as mere relics of the past, they may not be deemed worthy of serious investment, especially by secular governments or those with an eye to multicultural credentials. Yet church buildings are not simply museums of faith; they are the heartbeat of many communities, hosting everything from food banks and youth outreach to weddings, funerals, and Christmas carols.

The government, perhaps unintentionally, has shone a light on a deeper national question: What does Britain want to preserve? What does it believe is worth protecting?

A Question of Identity
There is no denying that Muslim communities have a right to safety and dignity in worship. The issue is not about denying them that right—but rather, asking why the Christian legacy of the nation seems to be treated as optional, even expendable. That a £117 million security fund is politically uncontroversial, while a £19 million cut to church maintenance passes with barely a shrug from most media outlets, tells us something sobering about where the cultural winds are blowing.

Britain is not just losing churches; it may be losing the memory of why they mattered in the first place. 🔝

¹ UK Treasury Budget 2025/26; scheme changes announced in March 2025. The cap of £25,000 per building marks the first limitation since the scheme’s inception in 2001.
² UK Home Office, “Protecting Places of Worship Scheme”, March 2025. £117 million committed over four years for Muslim institutions.
³ Church of England Buildings Division, statement to Sky News, March 2025.
⁴ Reuters Fact Check, February 2025: over 90% of claims made under the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme are by Christian churches, primarily Anglican and Roman Catholic.

The Sacrifice of Innocence: When Ideology Suspends a Toddler

In the twilight of a civilization that once venerated truth and protected childhood, Britain has reached a new nadir. According to recently released data from the Department for Education, a child no older than four has been suspended from a state nursery for “abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity.”¹ What in previous ages would have been cause for disbelief is now state policy. A toddler—likely incapable of abstract reasoning, much less malice—is declared an offender against the spirit of the age.

This is not an isolated case. During the 2022–23 academic year, 94 pupils in English primary schools, including children in Year 1 (ages 5–6) and Year 2 (ages 6–7), were suspended or permanently excluded for similar alleged offences.² In certain local authorities—Essex, Birmingham, Bradford—the numbers reached double digits.³ The allegations remain vague, as do the supposed infractions. One need not stretch the imagination to suppose that a child may have said “boys can’t be girls” or used the “wrong” pronoun. In saner times, this would prompt a gentle correction or a redirection toward kindness. In ours, it leads to formal exclusion.

What we are witnessing is not discipline, but doctrine enforcement. A regime that disavows metaphysical truth has nevertheless birthed its own creed—and demands its imposition, even upon children barely past the age of reason. The state, once the guarantor of basic order, now appoints itself as high priest of the new religion, punishing even toddlers who fail to genuflect before its idols.

“It’s unforgivable,” said Helen Joyce of the advocacy group Sex Matters, “for children’s vital early education to be so traumatically disrupted by school leaders who prioritise activists’ demands over their charges’ wellbeing.”⁴ One can hardly disagree. But more than educational malpractice, this is a moral inversion. It punishes the innocent to placate the powerful. It is the sacrifice of the child on the altar of ideology.

St. Paul saw this with prophetic clarity: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… God gave them up to a reprobate mind”⁵—a mind that cannot distinguish between natural innocence and ideological guilt. The ideology now animating Britain’s educational elite claims to be liberating, but it is in fact enslaving: it binds children to a false anthropology and punishes those who—by the very simplicity of their nature—resist it.

What then must we do?
First, we must name the lie. A three-year-old cannot be “homophobic.” A child who blurts out that “girls are girls and boys are boys” is not an oppressor, but a signpost to the truth that modern man has forgotten. The Catholic tradition does not fear this truth; it celebrates it as the work of God, who made man male and female. The innocence of a child is not a blank canvas for postmodern experimentation—it is a sacred trust, one that bears within it the image of the Creator.

Second, we must prepare to resist. Schools that once formed citizens now initiate novices into a cult of unreality. Catholic parents and teachers must be ready to suffer for refusing to bow to this cult. For it is better to be punished with Christ than to be praised by the world for abandoning His little ones.

Finally, we must recover our sense of spiritual gravity. Our Lord did not mince words: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.”⁶ This is not sentimentalism—it is the terrible mercy of God, who takes the innocence of children with utmost seriousness, and expects us to do likewise.

In a time when suspension replaces shepherding, and ideology trumps innocence, we are called to a holy defiance—not of authority per se, but of the counterfeit authority that has lost its way. We are not revolutionaries. We are restorers. And we will begin, as all true renewal begins: by protecting the child. 🔝

Footnotes
¹ Department for Education data, 2022–23 academic year, cited in Daniel Martin, “Toddler Suspended for ‘Transphobia’,” The Telegraph, 31 March 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Helen Joyce, quoted in The Telegraph, 31 March 2025.
⁵ Romans 1:22, 28.
⁶ Luke 17:2.

Faith in the Dock: What the Glawdys Leger Judgment Means for Religious Education in England

The recent High Court ruling in R (Glawdys Leger) v Secretary of State for Education [2025] EWHC 665 (Admin) marks a critical moment in the evolving relationship between religious freedom, education, and state oversight. At the heart of the case lies a tension that strikes to the core of modern liberal democracies: can a teacher in a faith-based school articulate traditional religious beliefs on moral issues without running afoul of equality legislation or professional disciplinary codes?

Glawdys Leger, a Religious Education teacher at a Church of England secondary school, responded to a student’s question in class by explaining that, according to Christian teaching, homosexual acts are considered sinful. This answer, rooted in centuries of Christian doctrine, resulted in a referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency. Although she was not barred from teaching, the Professional Conduct Panel found her guilty of “unacceptable professional conduct” and published that finding online¹. Leger sought judicial review, arguing that the publication infringed on her rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the freedoms of religion and expression².

The High Court dismissed her claim. While the judge acknowledged that Leger’s remarks were sincere and made within a Church of England context, the court nonetheless concluded that her words had the potential to cause “distress” to pupils, particularly LGBTQ+ students. It held that the interference with her rights was lawful, proportionate, and justified in order to uphold confidence in the teaching profession and protect vulnerable students³.

Doctrine or Discrimination?
At first glance, the judgment may appear balanced. It affirms the legitimacy of both religious belief and the state’s interest in safeguarding children. But on closer inspection, it raises urgent questions about the future of religious education in England—and especially the freedom of teachers within faith-based schools to faithfully represent their tradition’s moral teachings.

It is worth asking: what exactly is a Church of England school, or any faith-based institution, if its staff cannot express what the Church teaches? The notion that a Christian educator might be penalised for explaining Christianity’s position on sexual ethics—within a Religious Education class, no less—would have seemed unthinkable a generation ago. The ruling sets a troubling precedent. It implies that even within religious institutions, doctrinal fidelity must bow to the shifting moral consensus of the secular state⁴.

A Narrowing Space for Faith
The court emphasised the need to provide a “broad and balanced” curriculum. But is that balance truly achieved when one worldview—progressive secularism—is treated as normative, and religious perspectives are only permitted to the extent that they do not conflict with the dominant ideology? In practice, this means that Christian ethics must be framed apologetically, or in the past tense, as though they no longer apply. Any suggestion of ongoing moral relevance—especially regarding contested matters like sexuality—is treated as harmful or discriminatory⁵.

To be clear, no one disputes that schools must be safe and respectful places for all pupils. But this principle must not be wielded as a blunt instrument to silence religious conviction. A mature and pluralistic society should be able to distinguish between hateful conduct and the sincere expression of deeply held beliefs. The judgment in Leger blurs that distinction, effectively equating the articulation of traditional Christian morality with professional misconduct.

Theological and Ecclesial Ramifications
Moreover, the decision reveals an increasingly narrow view of the role of faith in public life. Teachers in faith schools are not mere civil servants delivering content; they are meant to bear witness to a living tradition. That tradition has the right to speak in its own voice, not merely echo state-mandated platitudes. If religious educators must now preface every doctrinal statement with a disclaimer—or worse, avoid such topics altogether—what is left of religious freedom in education?

This case also raises theological concerns. It is not simply about free speech or employment law. It strikes at the mission of the Church to teach the truth in season and out of season (cf. 2 Timothy 4:2). If Christian teachers are forbidden from teaching Christianity faithfully, we are witnessing not neutrality but an inversion: secular dogma replacing religious truth, under the guise of safeguarding and inclusion⁶.

A Call to Clarity and Courage
In the end, the judgment in Glawdys Leger is not just a legal decision—it is a cultural watershed. It tells religious believers, especially educators, that their convictions are tolerable only insofar as they are silent or self-censored. It tells parents that faith-based schooling may no longer guarantee faith-based formation. And it tells the Church that its voice, even within its own institutions, is conditional.

It is time for Christian communities to respond—not with outrage, but with clarity and courage. We must insist that faith-based education be genuinely faith-based. We must advocate for legal protections that safeguard religious teaching and conscience. And above all, we must form educators who are not only faithful to their vocation, but also ready to face the pressures that come with speaking the truth in a culture increasingly hostile to it. 🔝

¹ R (Glawdys Leger) v Secretary of State for Education [2025] EWHC 665 (Admin), available at crimeline.co.uk.
² See Articles 9 and 10, European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated via the Human Rights Act 1998.
³ The court found the interference “prescribed by law,” “in pursuit of a legitimate aim,” and “necessary in a democratic society,” fulfilling the standard test under ECHR jurisprudence.
⁴ The Church of England affirms marriage as between a man and a woman and regards homosexual acts as inconsistent with biblical teaching, though recent synodical debates have caused confusion about public messaging.
⁵ This echoes concerns raised by the Catholic Education Service and the Christian Institute regarding the chilling effect of “inclusivity” measures when applied without religious literacy.
⁶ See Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia, December 22, 2008: “In the name of tolerance, tolerance is being abolished.” Also cf. Dignitatis Humanae (1965), which defends religious liberty within limits compatible with public order.

The Hidden Playbook: How Trans Lobbyists Quietly Redefined Childhood

In 2019, a little-known document titled Only Adults? Good Practices in Legal Gender Recognition for Youth quietly made its way into the hands of activist groups across the globe. Co-authored by international law firm Dentons, the Thomson Reuters Foundation, and the youth-focused LGBTQ+ network IGLYO, the document was never intended for wide public readership. But it deserves one—because it offers a rare look behind the curtain at how a radical transformation of law, childhood, and family life has been orchestrated in stealth.

Far from being a neutral piece of legal analysis, Only Adults? functions as a political strategy manual. It outlines concrete, step-by-step tactics for how to advance laws allowing children to change their legal gender, even without parental consent, and how to do so with minimal public scrutiny. It is, in effect, a blueprint for institutional capture, written not by fringe activists, but under the banners of some of the most powerful legal and media institutions in the Western world.

How to Change a Country Without Telling It
Among the most disturbing admissions in the document is its advice to “avoid excessive press coverage” when campaigning for legal gender recognition for minors¹. In other words, keep the public in the dark until it’s too late to object. It recommends tying these efforts to more broadly accepted reforms like same-sex marriage in order to obscure their real focus³. This is not democratic persuasion—it is quiet revolution.

Such tactics may explain why changes to school guidance, medical policies, and even national laws have accelerated in recent years with little debate and less resistance. The aim is clear: avoid a culture war by never letting one begin. What results is not peace, but deception.

The Family as an Obstacle
The document is equally candid about its treatment of parents as adversaries. It explicitly criticises jurisdictions that require parental consent for a minor’s legal gender change, and praises systems that allow children to bypass their families². In this worldview, a child’s desire to transition is presumed valid and urgent, while parental caution or disagreement is cast as oppressive. There is no room for discernment, no protection for natural authority, and no recognition that children are, by their very nature, not autonomous adults.

For Christians, this is an assault not only on parental rights but on the very anthropology of the family. Children are not the property of the state, nor pawns in ideological campaigns. They are persons-in-formation, entrusted to parents—not politicians, lobbyists, or lawyers—for their moral and spiritual development.

The Institutional Strategy
The report doesn’t limit itself to legislative lobbying. It openly advises that activists focus their efforts on “professional associations, medical institutions, and education systems”, where ideological change can be embedded long before the public notices⁴. This is the so-called “long march through the institutions”: train the teachers, rewrite the school policies, issue the new healthcare guidelines—and by the time any democratic scrutiny arrives, the new regime is already installed.

These tactics have borne fruit. In Britain, schools have adopted “affirmation” policies without parliamentary oversight. Medical bodies have rewritten protocols to facilitate transition for children, even as whistleblowers raise concerns about long-term harm. And most worryingly, public discourse has been so tightly policed that parents and professionals fear even to question the direction of travel.

The Respectable Face of Radicalism
That Only Adults? was published with the endorsement of Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation adds another layer of concern. These are not fringe organisations. Dentons is one of the largest and most powerful law firms in the world. Thomson Reuters is widely seen as a standard-bearer of journalistic professionalism. When such institutions lend their credibility to campaigns that subvert transparency, marginalize parents, and reshape legal definitions of personhood, we are no longer witnessing grassroots reform—we are witnessing the consolidation of elite ideological control.

Why This Matters Now
Five years later, the effects of this strategy are everywhere. Safeguarding failures, rising rates of adolescent gender confusion, the chilling of professional dissent—all are downstream of a movement that has deliberately avoided democratic consent. The report’s methods have gone mainstream, and yet the public remains largely unaware of their origin.

The Christian response cannot be passive. We are called not only to charity, but to truth in charity. To speak clearly, to act protectively, and to uphold the God-given structures of creation and family. As Catholic social teaching insists, the state exists to serve the family, not to replace it. Any law, policy, or campaign that undermines this natural order must be named—and resisted.

This is not just about “trans rights.” It is about who gets to define reality, especially for the most vulnerable. And if we do not confront that question head-on, we will find ourselves living under answers we never agreed to. 🔝

¹ Only Adults? Good Practices in Legal Gender Recognition for Youth, p. 20.
² Ibid., p. 16–17.
³ Ibid., p. 14.
⁴ Ibid., p. 19.

The Tin Ear of Justin Welby: Abuse, Accountability, and the Crisis of the Established Church

On 31 March 2025, Justin Welby gave his first major interview since stepping down as Archbishop of Canterbury in November 2024. Speaking to Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC, Welby broke months of silence following the publication of the Makin Report—a devastating independent review into the Church of England’s handling of abuse perpetrated by the late John Smyth QC. Yet rather than offering clarity, healing, or accountability, Welby’s remarks, particularly his suggestion that he would have forgiven Smyth if the latter were still alive, have reignited fury from survivors and further scandalised the Church’s moral credibility.

A Decade of Mishandling and Misdirection
John Smyth, a prominent evangelical barrister and once chair of the Iwerne Trust, was revealed to have perpetrated horrifying abuse on an estimated 115–130 boys and young men, primarily in elite Christian summer camps during the 1970s and 1980s. The abuse was brutal and ritualistic—beatings administered in the name of spiritual discipline. Despite multiple complaints and internal reports, Smyth was allowed to continue his activities largely unimpeded, including overseas where further abuse occurred in Zimbabwe and South Africa. He died in 2018 without facing justice.

The Church of England, including senior bishops, repeatedly failed to intervene. Though Welby had worked with Smyth in the late 1970s at the Iwerne camps, he has maintained that he knew nothing of the abuse until decades later. However, the Makin Report, published in November 2024, raised serious questions about institutional knowledge and deliberate inaction. It described the Church’s handling of the case as an “active cover-up,” accusing it of protecting reputations rather than children. Ten clergy members now face disciplinary action in light of the findings.

Forgiveness Without Repentance?
Welby’s BBC interview was widely anticipated, expected to be a moment of reckoning. Instead, it became a flashpoint for renewed outrage. His claim that he would have forgiven Smyth, though presented within a theological framework of divine mercy, appeared gravely out of touch given the Church’s decades-long failure to protect victims or deliver justice. Survivors’ groups described the remark as “deeply insulting,” accusing Welby of centering the abuser rather than the abused. The comment has been interpreted not as an act of pastoral generosity, but as a continuation of the institutional impulse to smooth things over with spiritual platitudes.

Moreover, Welby admitted he was “overwhelmed” by the scale of abuse and failed to act effectively. While an honest acknowledgment of weakness, it underscores what many see as a fundamental abdication of moral leadership. One survivor commented, “We were overwhelmed too—but no one was listening.”

Clericalism and the Crisis of the Established Church
Welby’s remarks reflect deeper pathologies within the Church of England: clericalism, evasion, and a faltering grasp of public moral authority. His tone in the Kuenssberg interview was described by Damian Thompson and Rev. Fergus Butler-Gallie on The Spectator’s Holy Smoke podcast as that of “a man still more concerned with ecclesial optics than with truth and justice.” The scandal has drawn unfavourable comparisons with the Catholic Church’s own failures, but also highlighted how the Church of England—despite its national establishment—has avoided some of the reforms forced upon Rome.

Unlike the Catholic Church, which has begun to implement worldwide safeguarding norms under pontifical mandate, the Church of England remains resistant to external accountability. Efforts to establish an independent safeguarding body were defeated at General Synod earlier this year, sparking outrage among survivors and reform advocates. Welby had previously pledged his support for such reforms, but critics allege that he failed to back them when it counted.

Succession and the Future of Anglican Leadership
Welby’s resignation, though long expected, has left the Church in a precarious position. The Crown Nominations Commission, tasked with selecting his successor, is now under intense scrutiny. Will it opt for another technocratic figure, shaped more by managerialism than by pastoral depth? Or will this crisis finally prompt a return to prophetic leadership—willing to confront the Church’s sins rather than conceal them?

As Welby exits public office, his legacy remains contested. To some, he is a sincere and spiritually-minded leader overwhelmed by the weight of modern ecclesial crises. To others, he epitomises the Church’s inability to reckon with evil in its midst. What is clear is that his parting interview has not offered closure, but a renewed call for justice—one the Church of England can no longer afford to ignore. 🔝

¹ The Makin Report (2024), Independent Review into the Church of England’s response to John Smyth QC.
² BBC Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, 31 March 2025.
³ The Guardian, “Justin Welby says he forgives serial abuser John Smyth,” 30 March 2025.
⁴ The Times, “Justin Welby: I failed to tackle overwhelming abuse in Church,” 30 March 2025.
⁵ The Spectator, Holy Smoke podcast: “The Tin Ear of Justin Welby,” 1 April 2025.
⁶ General Synod vote on independent safeguarding body, February 2025.
⁷ Living Church, “Makin Report leads to charges against 10 clergy,” February 2025.

Labour Council Moves to Criminalise Street Preachers — A Warning for All Who Cherish Liberty

The Labour-run Rushmoor Borough Council in Hampshire has launched what some legal experts are calling the most sweeping attempt in modern British history to criminalise Christian street preaching. The council’s proposed injunction would have made it a criminal offence to engage in long-standing public Christian practices such as prayer, hymn-singing, and evangelisation in the town centres of Aldershot and Farnborough.

The justification? Complaints from local businesses and residents that the preachers were noisy, “hostile,” or distressing. The council, citing the Public Order Act 1986, claimed that religious speech in public spaces could constitute harassment or alarm—regardless of intent or traditional protections for religious liberty¹. The move set alarm bells ringing not just among Christians, but among free speech advocates of all political stripes.

What the Injunction Proposed
The draft injunction sought to criminalise:

Praying for or laying hands on individuals in public (even with consent);
Distributing religious leaflets or Bibles without prior permission;
Approaching individuals to discuss religion or belief;
Preaching any message deemed “hostile” to protected characteristics such as sex, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, or religion².

Violations could have led to unlimited fines and up to two years in prison³.

One local preacher, stunned by the language of the injunction, remarked:
“When I first read it I thought: ‘They must have made a mistake.’ I felt complete unbelief that it was saying you can’t have religious discussions, you can’t pray or sing, and people have to come to you, you can’t go to them and share the gospel, which Christians have done freely in this country for centuries.”

A Legal Line Crossed
The Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting the preachers in court, noted that the council had been developing this policy for two years in near-total secrecy. Andrea Williams, CEO of the Centre, warned that this is not merely about local nuisances:
*”We stand with the Christian preachers in Aldershot and Farnborough. The proposed injunction is disproportionate and unlawful, and we will challenge any other legislation the council tries to bring in which attempts to silence and criminalise the Christian faith.”*⁴

This echoes the 1999 Redmond-Bate v DPP decision, in which the High Court ruled that free speech includes the right to offend. As Lord Justice Sedley stated: *“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative.”*⁵

Temporary Climbdown, Long-Term Implications
Following mounting pressure—including from local Conservative councillors, Christian organisations, and civil liberties advocates—the council has temporarily withdrawn the injunction and pledged to consult further⁶. However, the fact that it advanced so far reveals the fragility of freedoms many take for granted.

If Christians praying in public can be treated as a public order offence today, what will tomorrow bring?

A Broader Cultural Shift
What Rushmoor Council’s actions reveal is not merely political overreach but a cultural animus toward Christianity itself. The belief that public proclamation of the Gospel must be curbed for the comfort of secular sensibilities is fast becoming bureaucratic orthodoxy. This is not neutral governance—it is ideological policing.

In a society where Drag Queen Story Hour is publicly funded but street preaching is criminalised, we must ask: which worldview is truly being “imposed”?

The Council’s move should be a warning to all who value liberty. Christians should not be treated as a problem to be managed. They are citizens with constitutional rights and an ancient mission. Whether the Gospel is welcomed or rejected, it must remain free to be proclaimed.

As the Apostle Peter declared before the Sanhedrin, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) 🔝

¹ Public Order Act 1986, Part 1 – Offences Relating to Public Order.² Draft Injunction text, Rushmoor Borough Council (2025), as published by Christian Concern.
³ Christian Post, UK Labour Council Seeks to Imprison Street Preachers, March 2025.
⁴ Statement from Christian Legal Centre, March 2025.
⁵ Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733.
⁶ Rushmoor Borough Council press release, 29 March 2025.

Police Raid Quaker Meeting House: An Unprecedented Violation of Conscience and Sacred Space

A police raid on the Westminster Quaker Meeting House has drawn widespread criticism from civil liberty advocates, religious leaders, and legal observers, who warn that the incident marks a dangerous escalation in the criminalisation of conscience and the breakdown of respect for religious spaces in the United Kingdom.

At approximately 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday evening, between 20 and 30 officers of the Metropolitan Police, some reportedly armed with tasers, forcibly entered the Quaker building without prior notice. They arrested six young women attending a welcome meeting hosted by Youth Demand, a campaign group known for its calls for climate action and an arms embargo on Israel.

Eyewitness accounts and media reports state that the attendees were unarmed and seated, eating breadsticks and hummus while discussing Gaza and environmental concerns¹.

Pattern of pre-emptive enforcement
This incident is not without precedent. Days earlier, six police officers arrested two parents in their home for messages critical of their daughter’s school, shared in a private WhatsApp group². Both cases have prompted concern over what critics describe as “pre-emptive enforcement”—arresting individuals not for actions, but for perceived intent under broad protest legislation.

The young women were charged with “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance,” a charge made possible by laws introduced in recent years that significantly expanded police powers to respond to protest-related activities before they occur.

No crime had been committed. No property was damaged. No disruption was underway. This is not due process. It is thought crime dressed as public order.

The target: a Christian space
The raid took place inside a building used for decades by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). While not consecrated in the Roman Catholic sense, the Westminster Meeting House functions as a recognised place of Christian worship and reflection. The building also hosts community activities, including counselling, art classes, and quiet worship.

“This kind of raid has not occurred in a Quaker meeting house since the persecutions of the 17th century,” said Paul Parker, Recording Clerk for Quakers in Britain³.

Observers say the raid raises significant questions about the status of religious sanctuaries in modern Britain, especially in light of the long-standing cultural and legal tradition of treating places of worship with deference and restraint—even after the abolition of formal sanctuary rights in 1623⁴.

Historical memory: Friends and Recusants
The Quakers, emerging in the 17th century during England’s Civil War, were among the earliest religious groups to be imprisoned, fined, and publicly punished for their beliefs. Their witness to peace and spiritual inwardness often drew the suspicion of civil authorities. That such a group would again be treated as a security threat is deeply telling.

For Catholics, the episode evokes an even longer memory. Under England’s penal laws, Catholics were barred from public office, fined for non-attendance at Anglican services, and forbidden from celebrating or attending Mass. Priests were hunted and executed. Laypeople were punished simply for offering them hospitality.

These were not isolated abuses, but a coherent and sustained effort to criminalise Christian fidelity when it conflicted with state power. The danger lies not only in the act of repression itself, but in forgetting that it has happened before.

Political response divided
Baroness Natalie Bennett, former leader of the Green Party, publicly condemned the raid, comparing it to “smashing into Westminster Abbey.” She called the police action “absolutely dreadful” and criticised the “extremely repressive” protest laws introduced under the previous Conservative government. She further criticised the Labour Party for failing to repeal those laws while in power⁵.

Paul Scully MP offered a more cautious defence of the police response, suggesting the action was likely based on intelligence. However, he conceded that the approach appeared “disproportionate” and admitted that the image of six women peacefully assembled in a Quaker space was difficult to reconcile with allegations of mass disruption⁶.

A shifting standard of enforcement
Civil liberties organisations and faith leaders have raised concerns about what appears to be a double standard in the enforcement of law. While Christian spaces and individuals are increasingly subjected to police scrutiny—even for silent prayer or street preaching—other religious venues, despite credible evidence of hate speech, extremist preaching, or security service concerns, remain untouched.

There are buildings in this country where sermons calling for violence have been delivered. Places where national intelligence agencies have flagged potential radicalisation. Yet those doors are not broken down. Their leaders are not arrested without warning. Their sacred spaces are left intact.

What is being punished is not violence, but conviction. Not criminality, but moral clarity.

Catholic implications
Catholic teaching on marriage, family, life, and the nature of man is already viewed with hostility in many sectors of public life. There is no reason to believe the Church will be spared future targeting under similar pretexts. The charge will not be “heresy,” but “hate.” The method will not be inquisitorial, but administrative.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom… He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience”⁷. Yet it is precisely this right—long assumed in post-war democracies—that is now under sustained pressure.

If Catholics do not defend it—first for others, and then for themselves—they will soon find they have lost it altogether.

A nation on trial
Reflecting on the events, Archbishop Jerome of Selsey remarked, “The police may have broken down the door of a meeting house. But it is not the Quakers who are on trial. It is the moral order of the nation.”

He continued, “Let us remember. Let us speak. Let us stand. Because the man who kneels only to God—will never kneel to tyranny.” 🔝

¹ The Sunday Times, 30 March 2025, “Met Police raid Quaker meeting house.”
² TalkTV, 28 March 2025, “Parents arrested over school criticism in private group chat.”
³ Paul Parker, Quakers in Britain, press comments, 30 March 2025.
⁴ Sanctuary as a legal right was abolished under King James I in 1623, though its cultural significance endured for centuries.
⁵ Baroness Natalie Bennett, TalkTV panel, 30 March 2025.
⁶ Paul Scully MP, interview on TalkTV, 30 March 2025.
⁷ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1782.

A Light in the Darkness: Why Rupert Lowe’s Grooming Gang Inquiry Matters

In a country battered by institutional cowardice, the courage to confront painful truths is a rare thing. This month, that courage came not from government, but from a private citizen: former Reform UK MEP Rupert Lowe, who has launched an independent national inquiry into the rape gang scandal—a systemic and decades-long failure to protect vulnerable girls, many of them white and working class, from organised sexual exploitation by gangs composed largely of Pakistani Muslim men.

Lowe’s inquiry aims to answer three essential questions: what happened, how did it happen, and why was it allowed to happen? It is an indictment of the British political class that such an initiative had to be privately crowdfunded. Yet, tellingly, the public response has been overwhelming. The initial funding goal of £100,000 was surpassed within hours, with over 2,000 individual donors contributing—proof that the British people have not forgotten what their leaders want them to ignore.

Structure and Integrity
The inquiry will proceed in three phases: (1) evidence collection; (2) public hearings; and (3) the publication of a report with a public Q&A session. A qualified panel will oversee proceedings, supported by a legal advisory team. Witnesses will be offered safeguarding and anonymity protections, and the process of evidence submission will be secured. Hearings will be livestreamed, and all expenditure will be transparently reported. Surplus funds will be donated to charities supporting victims of child sexual exploitation¹.

In his announcement, Lowe expressed public regret for the failure of his former party to act:

“Promises were made by my former party about holding an inquiry, and those promises were not kept… I tried to push behind the scenes but evidently I did not go far enough, and for that I am sorry.”²

Who Failed?
The inquiry is not simply about the perpetrators—it is about those who failed to act, denied the abuse, or even shut down inquiries into it. Political commentator Connor Tomlinson, who has contributed to research efforts, identified several key public figures whose roles deserve scrutiny:

Sean Davies, Labour MP for Telford and former leader of Telford Town Council, which in 2016 stated: “We do not feel at this time that a further inquiry is necessary.”
Shan Wright, Rotherham councillor responsible for children’s services (2005–2010), later South Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.
Helen Briley, who claimed the focus on Asian grooming gangs was too narrow. She is now Deputy Director for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children at the Home Office.
Tom Harding, West Mercia Police Superintendent in 2018, dismissed the Telford grooming gang scandal as “sensationalised.” He now works as Director of Operational Standards at the College of Policing.
Jim McMahon, former leader of Oldham Council, where a grooming inquiry was shut down. He now serves as Deputy to Angela Rayner, the Labour Deputy Leader³.

This is a scandal not merely of abuse, but of advancement—failing upwards—with those responsible continuing to hold positions of power and influence in the very institutions that abandoned the victims.

A Political Vacuum
Both major parties have refused to confront the grooming gang scandal. Labour MPs were recently whipped by Keir Starmer to vote against a new national inquiry, arguing that previous investigations were sufficient⁴. But as survivors like Sammy Woodhouse and Samantha Smith have testified, justice remains undelivered. Woodhouse, who voted for Reform UK and offered to help the party free of charge, said only Lowe reached out to her.

Reform UK, meanwhile, stands accused of weaponising the issue for political gain without follow-through. Nigel Farage, long vocal on the matter, has yet to endorse Lowe’s inquiry. While some hope he will offer support at future events, the silence has already cost him politically and morally.

As Tomlinson notes, this failure is strategic as well as moral. “The votes are all to the right,” he argues, pointing to the public appetite for deporting foreign criminals, including grooming gang members. Reform, he says, codes as the anti-woke, tough-on-migration party—but to retain that perception, it must act, not merely talk⁵.

From Online Pressure to Real Change
Dismissive references to the “very online right” betray a lack of understanding about how public consciousness is now shaped. It was through interactions on Twitter/X—between anonymous accounts, researchers like Max Tempest, and public figures like Elon Musk—that the grooming gang scandal returned to national prominence. Without that viral pressure, this inquiry would not be happening. To mock these online voices is to ignore the mechanism through which truth has once again forced itself into the public square.

A Conscience for the Nation
Lowe’s inquiry will not deliver complete justice. It cannot imprison the perpetrators or force guilty officials to testify. But it can document, expose, and mobilise. It can bring light to the darkness of wilful neglect. Most importantly, it can show the girls and families affected that they have not been forgotten.

This is a national moral obligation. Those who care about truth, justice, and the protection of the innocent must get behind it—financially, publicly, and prayerfully. As Lowe himself said:

“We shouldn’t have to do this. It should be the government. But as we know, that is not happening. So that responsibility now lies with us.”⁶ 🔝

¹ Rupert Lowe, “The Rape Gang Inquiry,” Crowdfunder UK, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Connor Tomlinson, remarks on Dan Wootton Outspoken, March 2025.
⁴ The Sun, “Keir Starmer will order Labour MPs to vote against new national inquiry into Asian rape grooming gangs,” March 2025.
⁵ Dan Wootton Outspoken, March 2025 episode.
⁶ Rupert Lowe, public statement, March 2025.

DONATE

Pilgrimage to Rome & the Holy Door – November 2025

Join the Titular Archbishop of Selsey on a deeply spiritual pilgrimage to Rome in the Jubilee Year 2025. This five-day journey will offer pilgrims the opportunity to deepen their faith, visit some of the most sacred sites of Christendom, and participate in the graces of the Holy Year, including the passing through the Holy Door at St. Peter’s Basilica.

What to Expect

🛐 Daily Mass & Spiritual Reflection
Each day will begin with the celebration of Holy Mass in the Eternal City, surrounded by the legacy of the early Christian martyrs and the countless Saints who sanctified its streets. This will be followed by opportunities for prayer, reflection, and spiritual direction.

🏛 Visits to the Major Basilicas
Pilgrims will visit the four Papal Basilicas, each housing a Holy Door for the Jubilee Year:

St. Peter’s Basilica – The heart of Christendom and the site of St. Peter’s tomb.
St. John Lateran – The cathedral of the Pope, often called the “Mother of all Churches.”
St. Mary Major – The oldest church in the West dedicated to Our Lady.
St. Paul Outside the Walls – Housing the tomb of St. Paul the Apostle.

⛪ Pilgrimage to Other Sacred Sites

The Catacombs – Early Christian burial sites and places of refuge.
The Holy Stairs (Scala Sancta) – Believed to be the steps Jesus climbed before Pilate.
The Church of the Gesù & the tomb of St. Ignatius of Loyola.
The Church of St. Philip Neri, renowned for his joyful holiness.

🌍 Exploring the Eternal City
The pilgrimage will include guided sightseeing to some of Rome’s historic and cultural treasures, such as:

The Colosseum and the memories of the early Christian martyrs.
The Roman Forum and the heart of ancient Rome.
The Pantheon and its Christian transformation.
Piazza Navona, the Trevi Fountain, and other landmarks.

🍽 Time for Fellowship & Reflection
Pilgrims will have opportunities to enjoy the unique culture and cuisine of Rome, with time set aside for fellowship, discussion, and personal devotion.

Practical Information

Estimated Cost: Up to €15000-2000, covering accommodation, guided visits, and entry to sites.
Travel Arrangements: Pilgrims must arrange their own flights or transport to and from Rome.
Limited Spaces Available – Those interested should register their interest early to receive further details.

📩 If you are interested in joining this sacred journey, express your interest today!

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

🔝

Practical Guidance for Observing the Traditional Catholic Fast

The Purpose of Fasting
The discipline of fasting is not merely a historical curiosity or an obsolete practice from a bygone era. It is, rather, an essential element of the Christian life, a means of mastering the passions, atoning for sin, and disposing the soul to deeper prayer and contemplation. Our Lord Himself declared that certain evils can only be overcome through “prayer and fasting” (Matt. 17:20), and the saints throughout history have attested to its spiritual efficacy. The traditional Lenten fast, practiced for well over a thousand years, offers a concrete framework for bodily discipline that strengthens the soul in its pursuit of holiness.

For those who wish to restore this ancient practice in their own lives, careful preparation is essential. The transition from modern eating habits to the rigor of traditional fasting requires both a proper mindset and practical strategies. What follows is a detailed guide to implementing the traditional fast in daily life.

Gradual Preparation: The Gesima Transition
Because fasting is a discipline that affects both body and soul, it should not be undertaken in an abrupt or careless manner. The Church, in Her wisdom, historically provided a preparatory period—the Gesima Sundays—to ease the faithful into the rigors of Lent. One should begin by reducing food intake incrementally, avoiding excessive indulgence in the days leading up to Ash Wednesday. Practical steps include:

Eliminating snacks and unnecessary meals. The traditional fast allows for only one full meal and two collations; therefore, reducing unnecessary eating before Lent will make the transition smoother.
Adopting abstinence on Wednesdays and Fridays. Since Lent requires full abstinence from meat (except in later mitigations), one can begin this practice in the Gesima period.
Removing rich foods from the diet. Abstaining from desserts, alcohol, and processed foods before Lent helps lessen the shock of fasting.

This period of preparation ensures that Ash Wednesday does not arrive as an unbearable burden but as the natural intensification of a practice already underway.

The Structure of the Traditional Lenten Fast
The classical discipline of Lent consists of the following:

One principal meal per day, traditionally taken after noon but later permitted at midday.
Two smaller collations, which together may not equal the main meal in quantity.
Complete abstinence from meat throughout Lent, with possible exceptions on Sundays in certain historical periods.
No consumption of eggs, dairy, or animal fats in stricter observances, though later dispensations allowed for their use.
Fish and shellfish permitted, along with olive oil and, in some traditions, wine in moderation.

Practical Implementation: Meal Planning and Diet Adjustments
Because the traditional fast imposes serious dietary restrictions, advance planning is necessary to ensure both sustenance and adherence to the discipline.

1. Meal Composition
The principal meal should be simple but nutritious, avoiding excessive seasoning or luxury. Traditional Lenten foods include:

Legumes (lentils, beans, chickpeas) provide essential protein.
Whole grains (rice, oats, barley, bread) offer sustenance.
Vegetables (cabbage, carrots, onions, potatoes) supply necessary vitamins.
Fish and seafood, when permitted, add variety without breaking the fast.
Nuts and seeds (almonds, walnuts, flaxseed) are useful for maintaining energy levels.

For collations, small portions of bread, fruit, or broth are ideal, ensuring sustenance without violating the spirit of fasting.

2. Avoiding Accidental Violations
Modern food production has made it increasingly difficult to avoid animal products. Many processed foods contain hidden dairy or meat derivatives. One should carefully read labels and, where possible, opt for homemade meals using traditional ingredients. In households with children, ensuring that the pantry is stocked with fasting-friendly foods will reduce the temptation to break discipline.

3. Drinking and Hydration
Water should remain the primary beverage. Herbal teas and, in some traditions, a moderate amount of wine are permitted. Caffeinated drinks such as coffee should be taken in moderation, if at all, as they can stimulate appetite and interfere with the mortifying aspect of fasting.

Managing Fasting While Working or Studying
One of the most common objections to fasting is the difficulty of maintaining energy levels while engaged in work or study. It is true that physical and mental exertion require sustenance, but experience shows that the body adjusts over time. A few considerations can make the practice more manageable:

Consuming high-protein foods (such as lentils or nuts) during the principal meal will sustain energy levels.
Drinking plenty of water prevents fatigue caused by dehydration.
Avoiding overindulgence in carbohydrates reduces the risk of energy crashes.
Getting sufficient sleep aids in maintaining stamina during fasting.

For those engaged in manual labor, the Church has always permitted dispensations. In such cases, fasting should be adapted according to necessity, maintaining a spirit of penance even if the full observance is impractical.

Spiritual Accompaniment: Fasting with Prayer and Almsgiving
Fasting is never a merely external practice. It must be accompanied by increased prayer and works of charity, lest it become an empty ritual. The saints consistently warn against a legalistic approach to fasting, urging instead a focus on spiritual renewal. St. John Chrysostom teaches that true fasting is not merely abstinence from food but the mortification of the will, the subjugation of sinful tendencies, and the cultivation of virtue¹.

During Lent, one should:

Increase prayer, particularly meditation on the Passion. The Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, and the Imitation of Christ provide fruitful meditations.
Practice silence and recollection. Avoiding unnecessary distractions, reducing time spent on entertainment, and fostering an atmosphere of prayer at home contribute to the penitential spirit.
Give alms. The money saved from fasting should be used to help the poor or support worthy causes. Almsgiving is the natural fruit of fasting, turning personal sacrifice into concrete charity.

Restoring the Traditional Fast in the Modern World
The near-total abandonment of traditional fasting disciplines in the postconciliar Church has resulted in a weakening of Catholic identity and asceticism. In previous centuries, fasting was understood as an act of communal obedience to divine law, binding the entire Church together in a common effort of penance. Today, it has become a personal option, often neglected or reduced to trivial acts of self-denial.

Those who wish to reclaim the traditional fast must do so intentionally, understanding that they are participating in a venerable practice that sanctified generations of Catholics before them. This will require discipline, perseverance, and a willingness to embrace the discomforts that fasting entails. Yet the fruits of this effort are abundant: greater interior peace, mastery over the passions, and a deeper union with Christ Crucified.

Let the faithful, then, take up again the ancient observance, not as a mere historical curiosity, but as a living discipline that strengthens the soul, purifies the heart, and prepares us for the glory of Easter. 🔝

St. Basil the Great, On Fasting, Homily I: “Do you fast? Give me proof of it by your works. If you see a poor man, have mercy on him. If you see an enemy, be reconciled with him. If you see a friend receiving honors, do not envy him. Let not only the mouth fast, but also the eye, the ear, the feet, and the hands, and all the members of our bodies.”
Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 4, Septuagesima: “The Church, with maternal solicitude, prepares her children for the rigors of Lent by a gradual ascent. She strips away the alleluia, clothes herself in violet, and marks the passage from the joy of Epiphany to the penance of Ash Wednesday.”
Code of Canon Law 1917, Can. 1252 §2: “The law of fasting prescribes that only one full meal a day be taken, but it does not forbid a small amount of food in the morning and in the evening, observing the approved customs of the place.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 147, a. 8: “Abstinence from flesh meat and from all things that come from flesh is part of the Church’s fast, as being more conducive to the suppression of lust.”
Dom Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol. 5, Lent: “The relaxation of the ancient fast to include a morning and evening collation was granted out of necessity for those who could not endure the full rigor of the old discipline.”
Rouen Cathedral archives, La Tour de Beurre: “The indulgences granted for the use of butter during Lent funded the construction of the famous ‘Butter Tower,’ a monument to both devotion and the pragmatic concessions of ecclesiastical discipline.”
Pope Paul VI, Paenitemini (1966), III.III: “The obligation of fasting is reduced to Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. The faithful are encouraged to undertake voluntary acts of penance beyond these prescribed days.”
Code of Canon Law 1917, Can. 1254: “All the faithful who have completed their twenty-first year are bound to observe fasting days, unless excused by illness or other grave cause.”
St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 57: “What good is it if we abstain from eating birds and fish, but devour our brothers?”

Join the Old Roman Apostolate Forum!

🔹 Faithful. Traditional. Uncompromising. 🔹

Looking for a place to discuss, learn, and live out the Catholic Faith as handed down through Sacred Tradition? www.oldroman.live is the official discussion forum of the Old Roman Apostolate, bringing together clergy, religious, and laity committed to preserving the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in its unchanging truth.

Why Join?

📜 Engage in Catholic Discussion📜
Explore doctrine, moral theology, liturgy, and history
from a fully traditional perspective.
✝️ Grow in Faith & Spirituality✝️
Participate in prayer threads, catechesis,
and reflections on Catholic life.
📢 Stay Updated📢
Get the latest Apostolate news, clergy announcements,
and mission updates.
🗣 Fraternal Community🗣
Connect with like-minded Catholics who uphold the
Traditional Latin Mass and perennial teachings.

Whether you’re a longtime traditional Catholic or just discovering the beauty of authentic Catholicism, this forum is your home.

🌍 Be part of the Old Roman Apostolate today!🌍
Sign up now at www.oldroman.live and join the conversation!

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

🔝

Old Roman TV

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

1044

The Daily Mass: St Justin Martyr 📱

The Daily Mass: St Justin Martyr

The Daily Mass: St John of Damascus 📱

The Daily Mass: St John of Damascus

Regina Caeli

✠Challoner Meditation: Low Tuesday

Regina Caeli

Today's homily: St Justin Martyr (2026)

Regina Caeli

The Daily Mass: St Hermenegild, Martyr

The Daily Mass: St Hermenegild, Martyr 📱

Regina Caeli

✠Challoner Meditation: Low Monday

Regina Caeli

Today's homily: St Hermenegild, Martyr (2026)

1044

Support the Old Roman

If you appreciate this newsletter, Nuntiatoria and Old Roman TV, and value the effort and time involved in their creation, please consider supporting us with a donation below. Your generosity enables us to continue providing thoughtful and enriching content. Every contribution, no matter the size, makes a meaningful difference. Thank you for your support!

Alternatively, please consider showing your support by sharing it with others. Referring friends, colleagues, or family members helps our readership grow and ensures that our content continues reaching those who will value it most.

Thank you for helping us spread the word!

Every penny counts!

Make a monthly donation

Choose an option below…

£5.00

£25.00

£50.00

£5.00

£15.00

£100.00

Or any amount would be welcome…

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

Your contribution is appreciated.

Donate Donate monthly

🔝

Nuntiatoria LI: Dominica in Passionis

w/c 06/04/25

ORDO

Velata Gloria

From the Primus

Recent Epistles & Conferences

Liturgical Notes

The Fifth Sunday of Lent: Passion Sunday

Missalettes (Dominica de Passionis)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

“Velata Gloria” a Motto for the fifth week of Lent

Spiritual Reflection for the Fifth Sunday in Lent

A sermon for Sunday

The Desirability of Experiencing Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum in a State of Grace

Guidance For Examination and Confession

A Primer for the Laity on Devotional Participation in Passiontide and the Sacred Triduum

Guidance for attending and facilitating Mass

A Practical Primer for Catholics Entering Passiontide

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Liturgical Lawfare: How Modernists Weaponised Canon Law to Impose a Revolution

A Church on the Brink? Synodality, Decentralization, and the Risk of Schism

The Turning Tide in the Rupnik Case: From Papal Rehabilitation to Lourdes’s Response

When Justice Is Gagged: The Libero Milone Case and the Crisis of Vatican Transparency

A Frail Pontiff and a Paralyzed Vatican: Who Governs the Church Now?

The Death of Catholic Spain: Secularisation, Disaffiliation, and the Mission Ahead

The Desecration at Topeka: What the Kansas Black Mass Tells Us About Modern America

A Sign from Arizona? The Alleged Miracle Attributed to Cardinal Pell

The Truth Behind the CRS Basket: Catholics Deserve Accountability

Sanctuary or Subversion? A Catholic Critique of “Know Your Rights” Immigration Workshops

A Tale of Two Funds: What the Government’s Budget Says About the Soul of the Nation

The Sacrifice of Innocence: When Ideology Suspends a Toddler

Faith in the Dock: What the Glawdys Leger Judgment Means for Religious Education in England

The Hidden Playbook: How Trans Lobbyists Quietly Redefined Childhood

The Tin Ear of Justin Welby: Abuse, Accountability, and the Crisis of the Established Church

Labour Council Moves to Criminalise Street Preachers — A Warning for All Who Cherish Liberty

Police Raid Quaker Meeting House: An Unprecedented Violation of Conscience and Sacred Space

A Light in the Darkness: Why Rupert Lowe’s Grooming Gang Inquiry Matters

Pilgrimage to Rome & the Holy Door – November 2025

Thank you for your response. ✨

Practical Guidance for Observing the Traditional Catholic Fast

Join the Old Roman Apostolate Forum!

Why Join?

Old Roman TV

Support the Old Roman

Every penny counts!

Make a monthly donation

Share this:

Like this:

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from nuntiatoria