Nuntiatoria LXIII: Caritas Christi urget nos

w/c 20/07/25

ORDO

Dies	20 SUN	21 MON	22 TUE	23 WED	24 THU	25 FRI	26 SAT	27 SUN
Officium	S. Hieronymi Æmiliani Confessoris	S. Praxedis Virginis	S. Mariæ Magdalenæ Pœnitentis	S. Apollinaris Episcopi et Martyris	In Vigilia S. Jacobi Ap.	S. Jacobi Apostoli	S. Annæ Matris B.M.V.	Dominica VII Post Pentecosten
CLASSIS	Duplex	Simplex	Duplex	Duplex	Simplex	Duplex II	Duplex II	Semiduplex
Color*	Effúsum	Rubeum	Albus	Rubeum	Purpura	Rubeum	Albus	Viridis
MISSA	Exáudi, Dómine	Loquébar	Me exspectavérunt	Lætábitur	Ego autem	Majórem	Gaudeámus	Omnes gentes
Orationes	2a. Dominica VI Post Pentecosten 3a. S. Margaritæ, VM	2a. A cunctis 3a. Pro papa vel ad libitum	NA	NA	2a. S. Christinæ V&M 3a. A cunctis	2a. SS. Christophori Martyris	NA	2a. S. Pantaleonis M 3a. A cunctis
NOTAE	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Pref. de Communis	no Gl. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Apostolis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Communis	Gl. Cr. Pref. de Trinitatis
Nota Bene/Vel/Votiva		Missae votivae vel Requiem permittuntur.			Missae votivae vel Requiem permittuntur.

Caritas Christi urget nos

“The love of Christ urges us on” — 2 Corinthians 5:14 This scriptural motto expresses the spiritual heart of the Somascan Fathers (Clerics Regular of Somasca) vocation: that all their work—especially care for orphans, the poor, and youth—is motivated not by ideology or duty alone, but by the compelling love of Christ. It reflects the personal conversion of their founder, St. Jerome Aemiliani, and his lifelong commitment to charity rooted in divine love. 🔝

From the Primus

HE ✠Jerome OSJV, Titular Archbishop of Selsey

Carissimi, Beloved in Christ,

In an age grown weary of truth—indeed, weary even of itself—the faithful are called not to despair but to vigilance, discernment, and courage. The world around us accelerates into moral confusion and institutional decay, driven not by ignorance alone but by ideologies that exalt rebellion and enshrine disorder. Yet amid this storm, the Church must remain what she is and always has been: Mater et Magistra, our Mother and Teacher, the pillar and ground of the truth¹.

In recent days, the High Court handed down a ruling of profound significance in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police. The court determined that the police acted unlawfully by sending uniformed officers to march under Progress Pride flags, paint a police vehicle with Pride colours, and host a stall at Newcastle Pride. These actions, the judge ruled, breached the police’s statutory duty of political and ideological impartiality—a duty that cannot be suspended, even under the Public Sector Equality Duty². The claimant, Linzi Smith, a gender-critical woman, had previously been investigated for so-called “hate crime” over social media posts. She later received an apology. The court’s ruling is not only a rebuke to Northumbria Police but a warning to all public authorities tempted to conflate advocacy with duty.

I, too, was excluded from civic partnership by Brighton & Hove City Council for affirming Catholic teaching on sexuality and the created order. This pattern of exclusion—whether of bishops, teachers, parents, or concerned citizens—betrays an increasingly rigid orthodoxy enforced not by truth, but by bureaucracy and fear. The “inclusivity” demanded of Christians today is all too often the price of silence, compromise, or apostasy.

As your bishop and shepherd, I must say this clearly: ideological activism, when embedded within our schools, councils, and health systems, becomes a form of spiritual and civic tyranny. It silences dissent not by reasoned argument but by coercion, redefinition, and intimidation. The PSED, originally designed to ensure fairness, is now often interpreted by zealots to demand ideological conformity. When councils threaten charities, silence teachers, or coerce children in the name of “diversity,” they do not build peace—they prepare persecution.

This is why it is imperative that Catholics—and all people of goodwill—recover a proper understanding of law, duty, and freedom. True equality does not mean the flattening of nature or the denial of reason. True inclusion does not require the exclusion of conscience. And genuine compassion never demands the mutilation of truth.

Let us be clear also: the roots of our present predicament are not merely political, but theological. Without God, knowledge becomes pride, law becomes tyranny, and love becomes lust. Without God, the family collapses, the state loses its compass, and the soul withers into despair or rage. As I have said elsewhere, when society severs its moorings to the transcendent, it begins to consume itself—permitting what should be punished and punishing what should be permitted.

Yet even now, God is not mocked. His Church endures, and the light of grace remains. I see it in the witness of our young men and women rediscovering the old devotions. I see it in the hunger for the traditional liturgy, which nourishes the soul not with novelty, but with reverence and truth. I see it in those who risk ridicule or worse to speak for life, for marriage, for the natural order. And I see it in the quiet fidelity of those who persevere in prayer, in family life, in hidden acts of courage and sacrifice.

In all this, I recall the words of St Paul: “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good”³. We are not called to comfort or cultural conformity. We are called to holiness, to fidelity, and to readiness—for the battle is not merely political, but spiritual.

Let us then rededicate ourselves to the tasks before us: to teach, to testify, to sanctify. Let us resist the lies of this age not only with argument, but with prayer and penance. Let us form our children in truth, not trends; in virtue, not vanity. And let us never cease to proclaim the Gospel—not merely in church, but in public, in season and out of season, whatever the cost.

I urge our chapels and missions to commit themselves this month to prayer for our respective nations, for our children, and for the conversion of those in power. May our altars be places of intercession; may our homes be fortresses of light.

Let us not grow weary in well-doing. For we shall reap, if we faint not. 🔝

With my Apostolic blessing, and in the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

¹ 1 Timothy 3:15 — “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
² Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, High Court of Justice, 16 July 2025. Mr Justice Linden ruled that the presence of uniformed officers under ideological banners—specifically the Progress Pride flag—created a perception of institutional partisanship and breached the legal requirement of police neutrality.
³ Romans 12:21 — “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

---

Recent Epistles & Conferences

---

---

Liturgical Notes

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

To live unto God: The Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

“Do you not know that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His death?” (Rom. 6:3)

On this Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Holy Mother Church, through the Epistle and Gospel, places before us two great themes—the mystery of death and resurrection in Christ, and the miraculous multiplication of bread by which He feeds His people. These are not mere episodes, but profound spiritual realities that speak to the soul about the pattern of divine life: death to self, newness of life, and divine nourishment.

Death and Resurrection: The Pattern of the Christian Life
In the Epistle (Romans 6:3–11), St. Paul unfolds the doctrine of our mystical participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. In Baptism, we were plunged into the death of Christ—not symbolically only, but spiritually and truly. The old man, that is, the self formed by sin and disorder, was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be destroyed. And if we are dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him.

Dom Prosper Guéranger writes: “The Church gives us this passage from the Apostle, as a fitting explanation of what Baptism does for man. This Sacrament gives us the death and the life of Jesus. The death, that we may be delivered from sin; the life, that we may walk henceforth in the path of virtue”¹.

Fr. Leonard Goffine, in his Instruction on the Epistle, notes that the “old Adam in us must die; that is, we must continually struggle against evil inclinations, conquer ourselves, and do penance”⁵. His emphasis is pastoral and clear: sanctity demands daily interior mortification.

Fr. Johannes Baur, in his Liturgical Sermons, reflects that this Sunday’s Epistle teaches that “grace is not a mere cleansing agent—it is a principle of life that begins only after the death of the old man.” He writes that true sanctity “does not consist in avoiding sin only, but in a complete transformation through the resurrectional power of Christ within us”⁶.

The spiritual life is not a gentle self-improvement project; it is a crucifixion. As Fr. Alban Goodier explains, “The old man must go… not be reformed, but utterly put away, nailed to the Cross of Christ, buried with Him, and then a new man shall rise”².

We are tempted daily to forget this. The world, with its soft voices and easy pleasures, tells us that comfort is the measure of happiness. But the Gospel—indeed, the very form of the Cross—declares otherwise: we must die, truly and deeply, to our own will, pride, and passions if we would rise with Christ.

The Bread of Christ: Nourishment for the Journey
The Gospel (Mark 8:1–9) gives us the miracle of the multiplication of loaves. Christ sees the hungry multitude and is moved with compassion. He feeds them in the wilderness, as once God fed the Israelites with manna. The Fathers of the Church and traditional commentators saw in this miracle a prefiguration of the Holy Eucharist.

Cornelius a Lapide comments: “This multiplication of loaves was a type of the Eucharist, in which Christ gives not loaves but His own Body—He feeds not four thousand, but the whole world”³.

Fr. Goffine reminds us that this Gospel calls us to confidence in Divine Providence: “He who provided bread in the desert will not fail to nourish the souls who follow Him in penance and faith”⁷. The multiplication thus becomes not only a sign of divine power but of divine fidelity and care.

Fr. Baur, ever the liturgical theologian, writes that the feeding of the multitude “represents the Eucharistic Church in pilgrimage, receiving its strength from the altar, where Christ not only feeds, but gives Himself as food—whole and entire”⁸.

This miracle follows naturally from the Epistle. If we are dead with Christ, we must live by Christ. And what is the food of this new life? Not mere earthly sustenance, not spiritual sentiment, but the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of our Lord. He alone satisfies the hunger of the heart. All else leaves us empty.

Dom Guéranger again observes: “This multiplication in the desert… reminds us of that other table, more mysterious and divine, to which the Gentiles were soon to be invited. There, He would be Himself their food, and the banquet would be for eternity”⁴.

Meditation and Resolution
Are we living the pattern of Baptism? Do we truly die with Christ in our thoughts, habits, affections? Or do we live as though the old man still reigns?

Are we hungry for Christ? Do we come to Him in the Eucharist with longing and love? Or do we come distracted, lukewarm, forgetful of what we receive?

Today’s liturgy calls us to recover a sense of the radical nature of grace: it kills and makes alive. It crucifies and raises. It calls us to a love that hungers only for God. And it reminds us that Christ, who demands all, gives all—His Body for our food, His life for our life.

“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has life in him, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:54)

Let us, then, kneel at the altar with new hunger, new faith, and new resolve: to die daily with Christ, to live only by Him, and to follow Him into the wilderness where He feeds His saints with the Bread of Eternal Life. 🔝

¹ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Sixth Sunday after Pentecost.
² Fr. Alban Goodier, The Inner Life of Jesus, ch. 5.
³ Cornelius a Lapide, Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam, on Mark 8:2–9.
⁴ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, ibid.
⁵ Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year of Grace, Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Epistle.
⁶ Fr. Johannes Baur, Lenten and Summer Sundays: Liturgical Sermons, vol. II, Sixth Sunday after Pentecost.
⁷ Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year of Grace, ibid., Gospel.
⁸ Fr. Johannes Baur, Liturgical Sermons, vol. II, on the Gospel for this Sunday.

---

Missalettes (Sunday VI Post Pentecost)

Latin/English

Latin/Español

Latin/Tagalog

🔝

---

Spiritual Reflection for the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost
“So do you also reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:11)

Vivere Deo—to live unto God—is not merely a pious aspiration but the very pattern of Christian existence. On this Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, the Church invites us to contemplate what it means to live unto God, not in theory, but in the crucible of baptismal death and Eucharistic life.

The words of St. Paul resound like a call to arms: we are to consider ourselves dead to sin, no longer enslaved to its lies and appetites, and instead alive to God, animated by the life of grace. This is not metaphor. This is the Christian mystery: life comes through death.

Death to Sin: The Gate of Life
“Know you not,” St. Paul asks, “that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His death?” (Rom. 6:3). The old man—self-centered, enslaved by passion, resisting God—must be crucified. This is not a momentary decision or a one-time event, but a lifelong dying. Fr. Leonard Goffine writes: “Our old man must be destroyed, not by being reformed, but by dying entirely, so that the new man may arise in holiness.”¹

Vivere Deo means a continual dying to self. It is to nail pride to the cross. To put to death disordered desires. To kill the subtle rebellion in the soul that murmurs against obedience, purity, patience, or sacrifice. This death is not morbid—it is liberating. For in dying to sin, we rise to the freedom of the children of God.

The Wilderness and the Bread of Life
The Gospel (Mark 8:1–9) shows Christ in the wilderness, surrounded by thousands who have followed Him, hungry and weary. He does not send them away. He feeds them. And He does so not with what they bring, but with what He provides and multiplies.

Here we see the meaning of Vivere Deo more deeply. We do not live unto God by our own strength. We live by what He gives—above all, by Himself. “The multiplication of loaves,” writes Fr. Johannes Baur, “foreshadows the Eucharist, by which Christ nourishes not the body only but the new man born in Baptism”².

To live unto God, we must be fed by God. Vivere Deo is not white-knuckled asceticism, but a hunger for the Bread of Heaven. Just as the people in the Gospel followed Christ into the wilderness and were sustained, so must we withdraw from the world’s comforts to be nourished by Christ’s Body and Blood.

The Eucharistic Life
Dom Guéranger teaches that this Sunday’s liturgy unites the two great works of God: regeneration and sustenance. “The Epistle shows us the soul dead to sin and born anew in Christ. The Gospel shows us Christ feeding this new life with His own gift. Both are necessary: the tomb of sin must be left behind, and the table of Christ approached with longing.”³

Vivere Deo means frequent, fervent Communion. It means to live a life centered on the altar. Not just to receive the Host, but to become like what we receive: broken, offered, holy. The Christian, nourished by Christ, becomes an extension of Christ’s life in the world.

The World Will Not Understand
To live unto God is to live differently. It is to be misunderstood. The world lives de seipso—unto itself. But the Christian, dead to the world and alive to God, lives a paradox: he dies to live, he surrenders to conquer, he becomes poor to be rich.

This is the scandal and glory of the Cross. This is why Fr. Alban Goodier insists that the Christian life is not “reformation” but “resurrection”⁴. The one who lives unto God is not a slightly improved man. He is a new creation.

Conclusion: Daily Renewal
Vivere Deo is not achieved once, but renewed daily. It begins each morning with a fresh renunciation of sin, and deepens each day with every act of love, sacrifice, and fidelity to grace.

Let us, then, renew our baptismal promise: to renounce Satan, and all his works, and all his pomps. Let us approach the altar not as passive spectators but as hungry followers of Christ. Let us receive the Bread of Life with the prayer, “Lord, that I may live unto Thee, and not unto myself.”

Vivere Deo: this is the vocation of every Christian soul. It is the only life worth living. It is the life of Christ in us. 🔝

¹ Fr. Leonard Goffine, The Church’s Year of Grace, Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Epistle.
² Fr. Johannes Baur, Liturgical Sermons, vol. II, on Mark 8.
³ Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Sixth Sunday after Pentecost.
⁴ Fr. Alban Goodier, The Inner Life of Jesus, ch. 5.

---

A sermon for Sunday

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

St. Jerome Emiliani/Sixth Sunday after Pentecost (July 20)

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Jerome Emiliani, as well as commemorating the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost. St. Jerome Emiliani was born in Venice in 1483. He was from a noble family and his early life was preoccupied with his involvement in the interminable wars between rival Italian states that defined the period. He served in the army of the Venetian republic. When the League of Cambrai was formed to resist the Venetians, he was appointed to command the fortress of Castelnuovo, in the mountains near Treviso. When the town fell he was taken prisoner and chained to a dungeon. He had previously led a careless and irreligious life, but he discerned a religious vocation, and decided to dedicate the rest of his life to the service of God. He was able to escape his imprisonment and made his way to a church in Treviso, where he renounced his earlier life as a soldier. He was initially given the post of mayor of the town. Soon after he returned to Venice to take charge of the education of his nephews and pursue his studies for his priestly vocation. He was finally ordained in 1518.

The age was not only one of constant warfare, but also there were famines and plagues. St. Jerome devoted himself to the relief of all those in need, particularly abandoned orphans. He hired a house, clothed and fed them at his own expense and instructed them in the Christian life. In 1531, after himself recovering from the plague, he resolved to devote himself solely to others. He founded orphanages at Brescia, Bergamo, and Como, a shelter for penitent prostitutes, and a hospital at Verona. Around 1532, assisted by two other priests he established a congregation of men, and at Somascha, between Bergamo and Milan, he founded a house to further the religious exercises of those who were to be received into the congregation. The order became known as the Clerks Regular of Somascha, and its principal work was the care of orphans. It continued also to be involved in the instruction of youth and young clerics. St. Jerome died on 8^th February, 1537.

It is fitting that we hear today from the words of Isaiah, in which the prophet exhorts the people to “deal thy bread to the hungry, and bring the needy and the harbourless into thy house: when thou shalt see one naked, cover him, and despise not thy own flesh.” Faith was not simply about outward religious observances in accordance with the letter of the law, but above all a way of life. “If thou wilt take away the chain out of the midst of thee, and cease to stretch out the finger, and to speak that which profiteth not. When thou shalt pour out thy soul to the hungry, and shalt satisfy the afflicted soul, then shall thy light rise up in darkness, and thy darkness shall be as the noon day. And the Lord will give thee rest continually, and will fill thy soul with brightness, and deliver thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a fountain of water whose waters shall not fail.”

In the Old Testament there is a constant tension between the kings who exercised power, and the prophets who preached righteousness. While the authority of the civil power in the person of the monarch ultimately came from God, with power came responsibility. It was the role of the prophet to be a watchman of the house of Israel, to exhort the people and their rulers to follow the old paths and not follow the multitude to do evil. Then as now there were false prophets who prophesised smooth things, who told the people and their rulers what they wanted to hear. By contrast, the true prophet was often and uncomfortable and disturbing figure, a voice crying the wilderness, whether they will hear or whether they will forbear, as Ezekiel put it. The prophet Nathan confronted king David over his adultery with Bathsheba. The prophet Elijah rebuked King Ahab over the murder of Naboth to acquire his vineyard for the king.

Jesus proclaimed himself to be the full, final and definitive revelation of God’s will. He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them. But he not only preached the truth, boldly rebuked vice and patiently suffered the consequences. He also reached out to seek and save the lost. In today’s Gospel from St. Matthew we hear how the disciples rebuked those who presented children to Jesus for him to bless them. But Jesus said “Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me; for the kingdom of heaven is for such.” He told a rich young man who asked him what he must do to inherit the life of the world to come that it was not enough simply to obey the commandments. The young man himself said that he had kept all these from his youth. But Jesus said to him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” This was too much for the man to accept, and he turned away sorrowful, for he had many possessions.

But where the rich young man failed to rise to Jesus’ challenge, St. Jerome Emiliani centuries later was one who did. He was also a rich young man, but he accepted the call of Jesus to give up his possessions to those in need and devote his life to the service of God and neighbour. This shows that Jesus’ challenge was not simply an impossible ideal, the unattainable that we are yet bound to attain, but one that, when taken seriously, has had effects in history. Not all those who have sought to help those in need have done so in the name of Christ, but more often than not, both then and now, it is the Christian faith that has been the primary motivation for great charitable endeavours.

Jesus did not call all his followers to renounce their possessions and follow him, for many remained in their homes and families. But he called us all to renounce our past sinful lives and devote ourselves to the service of God and neighbour.

Let us pray that we will be inspired by the example of St. Jerome Emiliani and seek to help those most in need in our own time and place.

O God, the father of mercies, grant, by the merits and prayers of blessed Jerome, whom thou didst raise up to be the father and helper of orphans, that we may faithfully keep the spirit of adoption, whereby we are both in name and in deed thy children. 🔝

Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

All we who are baptised in Christ Jesus are baptised in his death. For we are buried together with him by baptism unto death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

In today’s epistle we hear from St. Paul’s exhortation to the Romans to remain faithful to their baptismal calling. They had been buried with Christ in baptism and had died to the old self. As Christ had been raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so they too should walk in newness of life. “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, and that we may serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is justified from sin.” For Christ having been raised from the dead dieth no more. Death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died he died unto sin once. But in that he liveth he liveth unto God. They should therefore reckon themselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Jesus Christ.

But what was the context in which St. Paul wrote these words? St. Paul wrote to the Romans in anticipation of his future visit there. Since it was a church that he did not found and had not previously visited, it was necessary for him to provide an introduction to himself in which he sought to explain the gospel that he proclaimed and address misunderstandings of his message that had arisen. St. Paul’s letters are not systematic treatises of theology, but are written in response to problems that had arisen in churches that he had founded. The Epistle to the Romans was also written in response to a specific context, but in introducing himself to the Church at Rome St. Paul provides a more systematic presentation of his message than in his other epistles. In many ways the Epistle to the Romans provides a calmer and more measured exposition of what he had previously written in the heat of the moment to the Galatians.

The Epistle to the Romans expounds the gospel which he believed to be the power of God unto salvation, both for the Jew and for the Gentile. As a Jew he had always believed in one God who had created all things and had chosen Israel as a light to the nations. In the fullness of time the Gentile nations would renounce their idols and worship the God of Israel, God’s Kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven, the Holy Spirit would be poured out on all flesh and the dead would be raised. But when he saw the light on the Damascus Road he came to believe that whereas he had expected the dead to finally be raised at the end of history, the resurrection had now come through one man, Jesus, in the midst of history. In the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the new age had already dawned in the midst of time, though the present age of sin and death was still very much in operation. It was therefore time for the Gentiles to renounce their idols and worship the one true God of Israel who had finally fully revealed himself in Jesus. Salvation was now freely available to all who repented of their sins and were baptised, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. There was no need for the Gentiles to become circumcised Jews and observe the Law of Moses. All that was necessary was for them to believe and be baptised and they would be justified by faith. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, but God in his love and mercy had provided a means of salvation through the atoning work of Jesus upon the cross. All who believed and were baptised were now members of the new covenant people of God, in which sins were forgiven.

His message therefore was that Christians, members of the Body of Christ, should become what they are. They all shared in the curse of sin and death which had come upon humanity through the sin of Adam, the sin of pride. But as sin and death had come in Adam, so righteousness and salvation had come through one man, Jesus Christ. Salvation was made available to all through incorporation to him. Hence, when St. Paul speaks of Christians being members of the Body of Christ, he is not referring to a supra-personal collective, but a single personal organism. For Christians not to allow the Holy Spirit to bear fruit in their lives is not simply wrong in itself, but is a denial of their very identity as members of the Body of Christ.

The good news of the gospel is that God in Christ has done for us what we could not do for ourselves and has reconciled the world to himself. All that is necessary for us is to recognise our own fallen nature, and repent of our sins and be baptised into the Body of Christ. The Christian life, the life of holiness and sanctification, is not something that we do for God, but rather it is what he has done for us. We need to renounce our pride and ego centered way of life and allow the Holy Spirit to enable us to become what we are.

St. Paul’s point was later developed by St. Augustine when he said that the real freedom is not to sin, for it is in service to God that perfect freedom is to be found. When we were the slaves of sin we were free from righteousness, but there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, for the law of the spirit of life has set us free from the law of sin and death. For the wages of sin is death, but the grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit may pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity that we may become what in Christ we now are. 🔝

St. James (July 25)

Today we celebrate the feast of St. James. St. James, along with his brother St. John, was one of the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples (along with St. Peter). St. James and St. John were the sons of Zebedee and shared in their father’s fishing business in Galilee. They were initially followers of St. John the Baptist, and then became followers of Jesus as the one to whom St. John the Baptist pointed as the Coming One who would separate the wheat from the chaff and would baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire (John 1). Subsequently, following his earlier mission alongside St. John the Baptist in Judea, Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming that the Kingdom of God, future in its fullness, was now being manifested in his own words and mighty works. He called St. James and St. John to leave behind their fishing business and become his permanent disciples. In following him they would become fishers of men (Luke 5). Presumably on the strength of this commitment they formed (along with St. Peter) the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. They were known as the sons of thunder, perhaps on account of their fiery temperament, and this passionate commitment is reflected in the Gospel, Epistles and Revelation of St. John. They accompanied him (along with St. Peter) at many of the most crucial points in his ministry, on the Mount of the Transfiguration, at the preparation for the Last Supper in the Upper Room and in the Garden of Gethsemane.

After his resurrection, ascension and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost they received the great commission to preach the Gospel. While St. James is now somewhat overshadowed by his brother St. John (who appears alongside St. Peter in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles) it was St. James who was the first of the apostles to be martyred in the persecution under King Herod (Acts 12). St. Peter escaped from prison in this persecution, while St. John finally settled in Ephesus where he survived until the end of the first century. Tradition has it that the relics of St. James were later transferred from Jerusalem to Santiago de Compostela in northern Spain. This became one of the great places of pilgrimage in the middle ages and remains a place of pilgrimage to this day.

The passionate commitment of St. James (as with his brother St. John) is clear. However, his zeal was not always according to knowledge. He was initially drawn to follow one whom St. John the Baptist foretold would separate the wheat from the chaff. It was probably with this in mind that the two sons of Zebedee asked Jesus to call down fire from heaven, even as Elijah did, on a village that did not receive the Gospel. Jesus replied that they did not know what spirit they were of, for the Son of Man had not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them (Luke 9). They followed one in whom the eyes of the blind were opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped, who they believed to be the anointed liberator of Israel, through whom the promises of God for Israel and the world were finally being fulfilled.

When St. Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Christ at Caesarea Philippi Jesus hailed him as the rock on which the Church, the faithful remnant of Israel would be built. Yet when Jesus intimated that his messianic destiny, enthronement and rule would only come through reversal, repudiation, suffering and death St. Peter sought to dissuade him from this cause of action. He was still looking for a warrior and a conqueror, but God’s Messiah was to be a servant (Matthew 16). Likewise St. James and St. James also still saw the kingdom in triumphalist terms. They had given passionate commitment to the cause and desired first place in the kingdom, indeed to sit one on Jesus’ right hand and one on his left. Jesus asked if they were willing to share his cup and be baptised with his baptism (Matthew 20). The baptism of fire which St. John the Baptist had foretold would be undergone by Jesus rather than simply dispensed by him. His baptism in the waters of the Jordan would finally be consummated at Golgotha, for the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Though they did not fully understand the implications of what they were asking St. James and St. John would themselves eventually undergo this baptism of blood, St. James in the persecution under Herod, while St. John would later escape from a cauldron of boiling oil in Rome to survive until the end of the first century in Ephesus.

There is much to learn from the life of St. James today. There is still a tendency to see Christian ministry in triumphalist terms. People expect prosperity and material reward for their commitment to a cause. But Jesus did not promise ease and comfort for his followers in this world, but rather that they would themselves experience (as he himself had done) reversal, repudiation, suffering and even death. This is much easier to state in theory than it is to witness to in practice. Yet the word martyr means witness, and as Tertullian put it, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. St. James was the first of the apostles to bear witness through martyrdom. The roll call of martyrs continues from the first ages of the Church to this day. We are called to follow this apostolic witness in our own time. Even if we do not face actual martyrdom as St. James did, we still face opposition and hostility from the world. Let us pray that we will follow the passionate commitment of St. James in our own time and place, and that our zeal may be according to knowledge. 🔝

---

The Feast of St James the Great, Apostle: July 25

Apostle, Pilgrim, and Martyr

The Feast of Saint James the Greater, Apostle, is celebrated on July 25 in the traditional Roman calendar. He is called the Greater (Latin: Maior) not because of any moral superiority to his namesake, Saint James the Less, but likely because he was either older or taller. The son of Zebedee and brother of John the Evangelist, Saint James was one of the first disciples to be called by Our Lord, and one of the three privileged to witness His Transfiguration, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, and His agony in Gethsemane.

Liturgical Rank and Propers
In the Tridentine Missal, this feast is of Double Second Class rank, with a proper Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, Communion, and Postcommunion, all focused on his apostolic authority, zeal, and martyrdom.

The Epistle (Acts 12:1–11) recounts the persecution of the Church under Herod Agrippa, who “killed James the brother of John with the sword.” This is the only apostolic martyrdom recorded in Scripture and thus grants St. James particular distinction as the first apostolic martyr, fulfilling Christ’s prophecy: “You shall indeed drink of My chalice” (Mt 20:23).

The Gospel (Matthew 20:20–23) presents the bold request of James and John through their mother: to sit at Christ’s right and left in glory. Our Lord responds with a challenge to share in His suffering, a cup of bitter passion, which James would indeed drink to its dregs.

Spain’s Patron and the Way of Compostela
Saint James holds a unique place in Spanish devotion as Santiago Matamoros, the patron of Spain. According to pious tradition, after Pentecost he journeyed west to evangelise the Iberian Peninsula. Though his missionary success seemed meagre, he later appeared in vision to encourage the faithful in Spain and is said to have been mystically transported there after his martyrdom, his relics enshrined at Santiago de Compostela in Galicia. This shrine became the third most important Christian pilgrimage site after Jerusalem and Rome, especially during the Middle Ages.

The famous pilgrimage, the Camino de Santiago, grew around this devotion and has been revived in modern times, though often now stripped of its penitential or Catholic character. Nevertheless, it remains a testimony to the deep cultural and spiritual impact of this Apostle on Christendom.

Symbolism and Iconography
Saint James is commonly depicted as a pilgrim: wide-brimmed hat, scallop shell (the traditional badge of the Compostelan pilgrims), staff, and travel pouch. He may also be shown with a sword, referencing both his martyrdom and, in Spanish imagery, his legendary appearances in battle during the Reconquista. The scallop shell became a widespread symbol of pilgrimage, recalling the countless souls journeying to Compostela in hope of mercy and transformation.

Apostolic Zeal and Martyr’s Faith
The Collect of the feast recalls James’s readiness to obey the call of Christ, even unto death:

Sancti Jacóbi, Apóstoli tui, quaesumus, Dómine, festívitas gloriósa, tuam nobis tríbuat gratiam: et peccáta nostra dimittat, et apud te semper fáciat esse devótos.

We beseech Thee, O Lord, that the glorious solemnity of Thine Apostle Saint James may, by his intercession, bestow upon us Thy grace: and may both forgive our sins and grant us ever to serve Thee devoutly.

Here the connection is clear: the feast is not only a commemoration of a great Apostle but an invitation to imitate his boldness, loyalty, and self-offering. The traditional rite expresses this through rich Scriptural typology, noble chant, and the ancient collect—a spirituality of sacrifice and devotion rooted in the Apostolic Church.

Final Thought: “Can You Drink the Chalice?”
Saint James the Greater reminds us of the radical nature of discipleship. From leaving his nets behind to standing unflinching before Herod’s sword, James exemplifies the truth that to follow Christ is to lose all in order to gain all. His pilgrimage—first to Christ, then to Spain, finally to martyrdom—is the pattern of every Christian life: faith, mission, suffering, and glory.

On this feast, the Church invites us anew to say with James: “I can.” Not in our strength, but in the power of Him who called us. 🔝

---

The Feast of St Anne: July 26

Mother of the Mother of God, Model of Faithful Maternity

Introduction
The Church celebrates the Feast of St Anne, mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary and grandmother of Our Lord Jesus Christ, on July 26. Though not mentioned in Sacred Scripture, her name and role come down to us through ancient Christian tradition, especially the Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd-century apocryphal text that preserves early Christian piety regarding the holy parents of the Virgin Mary.

A Hidden But Glorious Vocation
St Anne’s greatness lies not in dramatic works or martyrdom but in her hidden, maternal vocation—preparing and nurturing the one who would become the living tabernacle of God Incarnate. In this, she is a type of the Old Testament matriarchs, like Sarah and Hannah, whose faith and patience bore fruit in the divine plan.

According to tradition, Anne and her husband Joachim were childless until, after years of prayer and humiliation, an angel revealed to each of them—separately—that they would be blessed with a child who would be honoured by all generations. This parallels the theme of miraculous conception found often in salvation history and reminds us that God’s providence often works most powerfully in the weak and lowly.

Patroness and Intercessor
St Anne is the patroness of mothers, women in labour, and the childless, as well as educators and Christian families. Her cult has been widespread in both East and West from the early centuries, with devotion flourishing particularly in the Middle Ages and beyond. Many churches and shrines are dedicated to her, the most famous perhaps being Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré in Québec, Canada, a place of pilgrimage and miraculous healings.

Her Liturgical Commemoration
In the Traditional Roman Calendar, the feast of St Anne is a double major, celebrated with white vestments, emphasizing her spiritual purity and joy. The Mass texts extol her as the bearer of the root from which blossomed the Flower of Jesse—Christ Himself. The Gospel is taken from the account of the woman in the crowd praising the womb that bore Jesus (Luke 11:27–28), underscoring Anne’s role in salvation history through her daughter, Mary.

A Model for Today
In an age that downplays the dignity of motherhood, St Anne reminds us of the primordial vocation of womanhood—to receive, nurture, and bring forth life, both physically and spiritually. She stands as a model of steadfast faith, embodying the virtues of patience, trust in divine providence, and reverence for the sacred.

As the grandmother of Christ, she also reminds us of the importance of generational holiness—the transmission of faith through families, the sanctification of the domestic church, and the unseen sacrifices of parents and grandparents that build the foundations of sainthood.

Conclusion
On her feast, the Church calls us to honour not only a woman who bore the Mother of God, but to recognise in her a profound mystery: that God sanctifies and works through ordinary human family life. St Anne shows us that to raise a child in holiness is to participate in the unfolding of salvation.

Prayer
O Glorious St Anne, faithful mother and blessed grandmother, intercede for us, that we may, by your example and prayers, cherish the vocation of Christian motherhood and family life, and so help bring Christ into the world anew. Amen. 🔝

NOVENA TO ST ANNE

---

A Living Tradition in the Heart of Chicago: St Anne’s Old Roman Mission Prepares for Its Patronal Feast

As July 26 approaches, the faithful attached to St Anne’s Old Roman Catholic Mission in Chicago are preparing to honour their patroness in a manner befitting one of the most venerable traditions in American Catholicism. Though the Mission does not currently have a dedicated church building, it is faithfully served by the Missionary Franciscans of Christ the King, who offer Mass and sacraments at St Felix Friary, a centre of traditional Catholic life in the city.

A Legacy Rooted in Apostolic Continuity
The St Anne Mission stands as a visible sign of the Old Roman Catholic Apostolate in Chicago, one of the oldest apostolates of its kind in the United States. Established in 1919 by Archbishop Carmel Henry Carfora, the apostolate maintains unbroken apostolic succession, traditional Catholic doctrine, and the Tridentine liturgy, all preserved in fidelity to the perennial teachings of the Church.

Today, that legacy is safeguarded by clergy and faithful committed to orthodoxy, reverence, and sacramental integrity. The Mission exists not as a monument to the past, but as a living witness to the enduring truth of the Catholic faith.

A Shrine Without a Temple—Yet Rich in Grace
Though it lacks a dedicated parish church, St Anne’s Mission is no less a sanctuary. The faithful gather at the St Felix Friary, where the friars of the Missionary Franciscans of Christ the King offer the Traditional Latin Mass, daily prayers, catechesis, and the full sacramental life.

Here, in a modest but deeply sacred setting, the faithful keep vigil—not merely for tradition’s sake, but for the salvation of souls. The Friary’s chapel is a spiritual hearth where ancient liturgy is not merely preserved, but lived with fervour and conviction.

The Patronal Feast of St Anne: July 26
Leading up to the feast, the faithful are encouraged to participate in a novenal preparation, offering prayers, intentions, and acts of reparation. The Mission invites not only regular members but all Catholics in the region who are drawn to the beauty and integrity of traditional worship.

An Answer to the Crisis of Modern Catholicism
In an era of doctrinal confusion, liturgical innovation, and spiritual rootlessness, St Anne’s Old Roman Mission stands apart. It offers an anchor—a deeply rooted expression of the Catholic religion, faithful to the perennial Magisterium and sacramental order. The friars and laity of the Mission live the conviction that to restore the Church, one must begin by restoring the altar.

The community’s motto—Ancient Faith in a Modern World—is not a nostalgic slogan but a prophetic call. In the very city where secularism and moral ambiguity dominate public life, the Mission speaks clearly: “This is the faith of our fathers. This is the way of the saints.”

Conclusion: St Anne, Glorious Matriarch of Salvation
As the faithful of Chicago gather to honour St Anne, they do so in union with the Church across centuries. Though small in number and modest in setting, they participate in a vast spiritual inheritance. In the grandmother of Christ, they see not only a heavenly intercessor, but a model of perseverance, purity, and hidden fidelity.

Please pray for the administrator, Bishop Nioclas Kelly, the priests and the faithful of the mission. 🔝

“St Anne, faithful mother of the Virgin and holy teacher of the hidden life, pray for us!”

---

---

Forgotten Rubrics: Preparation for Holy Communion

In the traditional Roman Rite, especially prior to the liturgical upheavals of the 20th century, the faithful were guided by a rich body of devotional and liturgical customs that shaped their preparation for Holy Communion. Many of these rubrics and practices have been forgotten or diminished in the modern age. Yet their recovery is essential if we are to restore a proper reverence and fruitful participation in the Holy Eucharist—the Sacrament of Sacraments.

1. The Eucharistic Fast: More than Just an Hour
The current one-hour fast, introduced by Pope Paul VI in Paenitemini (1966), is a major departure from earlier discipline. Traditionally, the faithful were required to fast from midnight before receiving Holy Communion. Pope Pius XII mitigated this somewhat in 1953 and again in 1957, allowing water and, in the latter case, a three-hour fast from solid food and one hour from liquids other than water.

This rigorous fast expressed the solemnity of the sacrament and cultivated a spirit of bodily and spiritual vigilance. It also reflected ancient tradition: St. Augustine remarks that Christians receive the Body of the Lord “on an empty stomach” (Sermon 229), and this discipline was held for centuries.

2. Confession and State of Grace
The Council of Trent solemnly declared:
“No one conscious of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the sacred Eucharist without sacramental confession beforehand.”¹

The traditional Missal presupposes this in the general practice of Communion. Though not formally codified in the rubrics for the laity, this expectation was universally observed and preached. The Confiteor said before Communion by the servers (or deacon and subdeacon in Solemn Mass), followed by the priest’s absolution (Misereatur and Indulgentiam), was never intended to replace sacramental confession. Rather, it acted as a final purification of venial sins and a reminder of the need for purity of soul.

3. Preparatory Prayers Before Mass
The Missal contains a full set of preparatory prayers for Holy Communion, including Psalm 83 (Quam dilecta), Psalm 84 (Benedixisti), Psalm 85 (Inclina Domine), and a litany of fervent petitions for grace, humility, and a worthy reception. These prayers, often omitted or rushed today, were once a staple of Catholic devotional life.

St. Thomas Aquinas’s Prayer Before Communion (starting “Almighty and everlasting God, behold I come to the Sacrament…”) and Adoro Te Devote were recited by the devout, often memorised and passed on from parent to child.

4. External Conduct: Silence, Dress, and Posture
The traditional rubrics emphasize that external reverence aids internal devotion. Silence before Mass—indeed from the moment one enters the church—was strictly maintained. Dress was modest and decorous, with women veiling and men donning jacket and tie as a mark of respect for the Divine Presence.

Receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue is not just a preference—it is an external rubric that reflects profound theological truth. The communicant does not “take” but receives the Lord. The hands remain folded in prayer, and the priest utters the formula (Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.) over each person, reinforcing the personal and sacred nature of the act.

5. Thanksgiving After Communion
One of the most forgotten rubrics is what follows: thanksgiving. Traditionally, a period of silent prayer after Mass or formal devotions such as the Anima Christi, Psalms, or the Prayer of St. Bonaventure were expected. The Catechism of the Council of Trent urges the faithful to remain after Mass and “spend some time in thanksgiving, recalling the benefits and graces they have received”².

St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches that “there is no prayer more agreeable to God than that which is made after Communion.”³ Modern haste has all but erased this custom, but its rediscovery brings spiritual transformation.

Conclusion: A Sacred Encounter Requires Preparation
To prepare for Communion is to prepare to meet God Himself. The traditional rubrics and devotional practices—many of them now neglected—remind us that the Holy Eucharist is not casual nourishment, but the divine fire of love which consumes and sanctifies.

To forget these rubrics is to risk treating the sacred as commonplace. To remember them is to draw near with fear and love, like Moses before the burning bush.

Let us then recover these forgotten rubrics—not as antiquarian curiosities, but as precious treasures of the Church’s wisdom, handed down by saints for our sanctification. 🔝

¹ Council of Trent, Session XIII, Canon 11.
² Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, The Sacrament of the Eucharist, On the Manner of Receiving.
³ St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Holy Eucharist, Treatise VII.

---

Without God: A Personal Reflection on the Collapse of Order
by the Archbishop of Selsey

Some time ago, I composed a brief meditation which, though simple in form, has prompted wide reflection and resonance:

Without God…
The university seeks knowledge, but forgets wisdom.
The scientist discovers facts, but discards truth.
The heart chases lust, mistaking it for love.
The politician craves power, not justice.
The artist worships beauty, but not the Beautiful.

This was not intended as poetry, still less as polemic, but as a pastoral expression of what I have long observed. In every sphere of life—education, science, personal relationships, public service, and the arts—there is evident a growing disorientation. The common cause of this disorder is the eclipse of God. When the transcendent order is denied, the natural order begins to collapse.

Universities were once founded as bastions of Christian wisdom, where reason served Revelation. Today they have become engines of ideology, no longer concerned with truth but with consensus or activism. As Pope Pius XI taught in Divini Illius Magistri, education without reference to God becomes a deformation of the mind rather than its formation.¹ Detached from first principles and ultimate ends, the modern academy produces clever men who cannot see, and learned men who cannot judge. The result is a system that promotes specialisation without sanctification, and research without reverence.

Scientific inquiry, too, suffers when its moral compass is broken. The pursuit of facts, if not ordered by the natural law, becomes dangerous. In Sapientiae Christianae, Pope Leo XIII warned that the unbridled license of thought, ungoverned by faith, undermines the very foundations of reason.² We now live in a world where human life is manipulated in laboratories, and where nature is not revered but rewritten, often with destructive results.

What the modern world calls “love” is often no more than sentimentalism or sensual appetite. Love without chastity and sacrifice becomes exploitation. The culture of pornography, fornication, and fractured families is not the fruit of liberty, but of disordered liberty. When lust is mistaken for love, and feeling for fidelity, souls suffer. This is not a private failure but a public tragedy, as the very structure of society—the family—collapses under the weight of selfish desire. Pope Leo XIII, in Arcanum Divinae, taught that the Christian understanding of marriage and family life is the cornerstone of any civilised society.³ Without it, we see what we now endure: confusion, isolation, and despair.

In politics, power has become an end in itself. Detached from justice, truth, and the common good, public authority degenerates into spectacle or coercion. Pope St. Pius X, in Notre Charge Apostolique, warned of those who seek to “neutralise” God in the public sphere.⁴ But a state without God cannot remain morally upright. It must either fall into anarchy or impose ideology as its new dogma. True authority must serve the law of God; otherwise, it becomes a mask for tyranny.

The arts, too, are now often void of transcendence. Once a means of glorifying God and elevating the soul, art has become a mirror of human vanity or chaos. Beauty, as St. Thomas Aquinas taught, is a participation in divine harmony.⁵ But when the Beautiful is rejected, aesthetics degrade into either sentimentalism or shock. Modern man no longer beholds glory; he stares at himself.

All this leads me to what I expressed in the second part of the meditation:

Man, exalting himself, falls lower than the beasts…
He builds towers to heaven, but forgets the foundation.
He names evil as good, and scoffs at the Cross.

This is the new idolatry. Man does not stop worshipping when he rejects God—he merely worships lesser things: himself, his appetites, his ideologies. Pope Pius XII, in Summi Pontificatus, warned that in denying God, man ultimately denies himself.⁶ The paradox of modernity is that in striving to be free from God, man becomes a slave—to pleasure, to power, to pride.

Yet this is not a meditation of despair. It is a call to restoration. I concluded:

But with God…
Knowledge becomes light.
Desire becomes charity.
Power becomes service.
And man, humbled and redeemed,
Finds his beginning and his end—
In the Word made flesh.

This is the Catholic vision, and the only true remedy for the disintegration we witness. In E Supremi Apostolatus, Pope St. Pius X declared that the task of our age is to restore all things in Christ.⁷ Only in Him do reason, love, authority, and beauty find their true meaning. He is not a religious preference; He is the Logos through whom all things were made.

We must proclaim this truth again with courage. In our homes, our schools, our chapels, and our public discourse, we must restore God to His rightful place—not as a decorative sentiment, but as the origin and end of all that is. Without Him, nothing holds. With Him, all things are renewed.

Let those with ears to hear, hear. 🔝

¹ Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (1929), §7
² Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae (1890), §8
³ Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae (1880), §10
⁴ Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique (1910), §24
⁵ Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, a. 4
⁶ Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (1939), §3
⁷ Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus (1903), §4

---

CURRENT AFFAIRS

---

“The Church Was Attacked”: Death and Devastation at Gaza’s Holy Family

The last remaining Catholic church in the Gaza Strip, the Holy Family Church in Gaza City’s Zeitoun neighbourhood, was struck Thursday by Israeli military fire, killing at least two civilians and injuring over a dozen more, including the parish priest. The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem named the victims as Saad Issa Kostandi Salameh and Foumia Issa Latif Ayyad, both sheltering within the church compound when it was hit.

The parish priest, Fr Gabriel Romanelli, an Argentinian missionary of the Institute of the Incarnate Word, was wounded by shrapnel in his leg. His injuries were described as mild, and he returned shortly after to assist the wounded and offer comfort. Fr Romanelli has become widely known during the Gaza war for his refusal to abandon the faithful and for his direct communication with Pope Francis before the latter’s death.

Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, stated plainly that “the church was attacked this morning.” In comments to the Pillar Catholic, the cardinal expressed serious doubts about whether the strike was accidental, saying: “I am not sure it was a mistake.”¹ The patriarchate’s official statement condemned the attack, calling the war itself “barbaric” and appealing for an end to the violence.

Pope Leo XIV, through a statement issued by Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, expressed his “profound sorrow” at the news of the deaths and injuries and renewed his call for “an immediate ceasefire, the restoration of dialogue, and a lasting peace based on justice.”² The Pope conveyed his spiritual closeness to Fr Romanelli and the parishioners, invoking Christ’s mercy upon the dead.

The Holy Family compound—Gaza’s only Catholic parish—has served as the last Christian refuge in the Strip since the outbreak of war in October 2023. Housing dozens of displaced and elderly people, it includes a convent, school, and residential quarters. The compound has been damaged repeatedly in recent months. In December 2023, two Christian women were shot and killed by snipers while inside the compound. In July 2024, nearby shelling caused structural damage. Church leaders have consistently called on the warring parties to respect religious sanctuaries and to protect civilians according to international law.

In the wake of the latest strike, global Christian bodies issued strong responses. The World Council of Churches called the attack a “grave violation of international humanitarian law.”³ Orthodox Church leaders likewise denounced the targeting of a place of worship, urging accountability and protection for religious minorities. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called the bombing “unacceptable,” stating that “no military action can justify targeting civilians or sacred sites.”⁴

The Israeli Defense Forces issued a statement of “deep regret” over the incident and pledged to investigate. Foreign Ministry spokesman Oren Marmorstein said the IDF was reviewing the matter and would publish its findings transparently. But trust in such assurances is in short supply among those who have watched churches, schools, and hospitals become collateral in the protracted siege of Gaza.

The symbolism of the church’s name—the Holy Family—has not gone unnoticed. Just as Christ, Mary, and Joseph were once driven into Egypt by the threat of a tyrant’s sword, so today, Gaza’s Christian faithful find themselves harried, besieged, and hunted in their own land. The parishioners who remain do so not out of political defiance, but out of faith—faith that God remains in the midst of his suffering people.

Fr Romanelli’s return to the church, despite his own wounds, evokes the Good Shepherd who does not flee at the coming of danger (cf. John 10:12–13). His perseverance, like that of his flock, bears witness to a love stronger than fear. In the heart of modern warfare, a theology of the Cross is being lived with unflinching clarity. As one of the survivors reportedly told a visiting journalist: “We have nothing left but God—and that is enough.”

From a moral and theological perspective, the assault on a house of worship—regardless of intention—demands both public outrage and spiritual reparation. The wider Catholic Church, particularly in the West, must not hide behind political complexity. When Christians are killed in their churches and priests wounded in the sanctuary, silence becomes complicity. To speak out is not to take sides in a war, but to stand with Christ wherever He is wounded again in His members.

The Holy Family Church now joins the long list of sanctuaries desecrated by the violence of men and the indifference of those who might have acted. Yet from these ruins, the voice of the Church resounds: “Enough.” The call for peace is not naïve—it is necessary. It is demanded by faith, by reason, and by the dignity of the human person. 🔝

Footnotes
¹ Pillar Catholic, “Pizzaballa: Not sure Gaza parish strike was a mistake”, July 17, 2025
² Vatican News, “Pope renews call for ceasefire after Gaza church hit”, July 17, 2025
³ ICN, “WCC condemns Israeli attack on Holy Family Church in Gaza”, July 17, 2025
⁴ The Sun, “Pope’s pal injured in Gaza strike”, July 17, 2025

---

Signals and Silences: Pope Leo XIV’s Curial Appointments Trouble Traditional Catholics

The appointment of three high-profile prelates—Cardinals Arthur Roche, Cristóbal López Romero, and Leonardo Ulrich Steiner—to the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life has raised alarm among Catholics hoping that the pontificate of Pope Leo XIV would mark a decisive break from the synodal-progressive legacy of Pope Francis.

All three cardinals have been linked with liturgical restriction, doctrinal ambiguity, or progressive stances on moral teaching. Their selection is being interpreted as a clear signal: that despite hopeful gestures early in his pontificate, Pope Leo may be continuing—rather than correcting—the course of his predecessor.

Cardinal Arthur Roche: Liturgical Suppression as Policy
Cardinal Roche, previously Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, was the chief executor of Traditionis Custodes, the 2021 motu proprio that curtailed the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. In February 2023, he issued a rescript that stripped diocesan bishops of their canonical discretion to permit Latin Masses in parish churches or establish new TLM locations. All such permissions were to be reserved to Rome, effectively neutralizing Canon 87¹.

Many canonists, including J.D. Flynn of The Pillar, challenged the canonical legitimacy of the rescript, arguing that it represented an unlawful centralization of liturgical governance². Roche’s combative rhetoric—such as claiming that TLM adherents are “more Protestant than Catholic”—only deepened distrust among traditional Catholics³.

Commentators on the Faith and Reason program were quick to react. Fr. Charles Murr, a former papal diplomat and critic of Francis-era reforms, warned that Roche’s appointment could lead to the alienation of “millions” of faithful Catholics who have turned to the Traditional Mass as a refuge from doctrinal confusion and liturgical irreverence. He described the Roman Curia as the Church’s “deep state,” whose unspoken motto remains: “Popes come and go; the Curia remains forever.”⁴

Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero: Defying the African Episcopate
Cardinal López Romero, a Spanish-born Jesuit and Archbishop of Rabat, Morocco, was a vocal proponent of same-sex pastoral blessings during the global fallout from Fiducia Supplicans, the December 2023 Vatican declaration permitting non-liturgical blessings for “irregular couples.” While the entire African episcopate rejected the document, López Romero publicly supported it and implemented it in Northern Africa⁵.

As John-Henry Westen noted on Faith and Reason, “He was the one who said ‘we’re going to do the same-sex couple blessings’—even though the rest of the continent said no.”⁶ His promotion to the Roman Curia is seen by many as a reward for doctrinal defiance, and a further sign of Rome’s alignment with Western progressive ideology over the moral clarity of the global South.

Cardinal Leonardo Steiner: From Amazonian Synod to Global Influence
A Francis appointee and key participant in the 2019 Amazon Synod, Cardinal Steiner has been associated with efforts to integrate indigenous cosmologies and ritual elements into Catholic liturgy, including proposals for an “Amazonian rite.” His theological approach embraces ecological spirituality, liturgical innovation, and synodal structures—hallmarks of the Francis pontificate⁷.

According to analyst Frank Wright, Steiner’s inclusion, along with Roche and López Romero, signals a Vatican still “wedded to a dead ideology,” resistant to offering the Church’s perennial teachings as an alternative to modern chaos. “They want us to become Amazonian pagans,” he warned. “This is mad enough to be true. Because this is where we are.”⁸

A Tense Contradiction
These appointments stand in awkward contrast with symbolic acts that initially inspired hope. Pope Leo has used Latin in his public blessings, worn traditional Roman vestments, and publicly led a Corpus Christi procession through the streets of Rome. He has also received Cardinal Raymond Burke, who later hinted at a positive conversation about the future of the Traditional Latin Mass. Yet, as Fr. Murr pointed out, such gestures are undermined by the reappointment of Roche and others:

“Why surround yourself with the same architects of the crisis? The Church is hemorrhaging faithful—millions, not thousands.”⁹

A Liturgical and Doctrinal Flashpoint
The Latin Mass remains a defining fault line in contemporary Catholicism. In many dioceses, it is the one area of clear growth, attracting vocations, young families, and doctrinal fidelity. Critics of Traditionis Custodes argue that its suppression punishes the very communities most faithful to the Church’s teaching on marriage, the priesthood, and the sanctity of life.

López Romero’s promotion is seen as equally telling: elevating someone who publicly dissented from a continent-wide episcopal consensus undermines both synodality and Catholic unity. Steiner’s trajectory suggests that Rome continues to valorize inculturation and syncretism over doctrinal continuity.

A Plea to Pope Leo
Fr. Murr concluded with a public appeal to Pope Leo XIV:

“If the Holy Father watches this program… straighten out the situation with the Latin Mass. A serious Mass should be provided for these people so we can start rebuilding in unity the Catholic Church.”¹⁰

As the Vatican finalizes its curial appointments, the faithful are watching closely. Will Pope Leo XIV govern as a reformer who restores Catholic identity—or will he preside over a rebranded continuity of crisis? 🔝

1. Rescriptum ex Audientia SS.mi, February 21, 2023.
2. J.D. Flynn, “How Traditionis Custodes Brought Rome and U.S. Bishops into Conflict,” The Pillar, February 2023.
3. Roche’s remark cited in traditional Catholic media, 2022–2023.
4. Fr. Charles Murr, Faith and Reason, July 2025.
5. López Romero’s comments reported January 2024 in response to African bishops’ rejection of Fiducia Supplicans.
6. John-Henry Westen, Faith and Reason, July 2025.
7. Amazon Synod records, 2019; Cardinal Steiner’s post-synodal interventions, 2020–2024.
8. Frank Wright, Faith and Reason, July 2025.
9. Fr. Charles Murr, ibid.
10. Ibid.

---

“The Real Miracle”: Sharing or Supernatural Power?

When Pope Leo XIV addressed participants at the 44th International Academic Conference on Sacred Scripture on June 30, 2025, he offered a reinterpretation of one of Christ’s most beloved miracles—the feeding of the five thousand. Reflecting on the Gospel accounts, Leo remarked:

“When we read the account of what is commonly called the multiplication of the loaves (cf. Mt 14:13–21; Mk 6:30–44; Lk 9:10–17; Jn 6:1–15), we realize that the real miracle performed by Christ was to show that the key to overcoming hunger lies in sharing rather than in greedily hoarding.”¹

This seemingly pious sentiment, however, triggered immediate concern among theologians, traditional clergy, and lay faithful alike. While such reinterpretations may sound compassionate or socially engaged, they reflect a modernist hermeneutic that undermines both the integrity of Scripture and the divine identity of Christ.

A Modernist Trope Revived
The idea that the miracle of the loaves was a symbolic act of inspiring generosity, rather than a supernatural event, has been a hallmark of liberal exegesis since the mid-20th century. Pope Francis expressed a similar view in 2016:

“This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication, it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.”²

Now repeated by Pope Leo XIV, the framing shifts emphasis from divine intervention to communal ethics—recasting the Gospel as a parable of human cooperation rather than a testimony of divine power.

Bishop Donald Sanborn, speaking on Leo Watch Live, responded forcefully:

“There is nothing in those Gospels that says they shared anything with each other. The whole point was that they didn’t have any food. That was the point. Even a priest giving a crummy sermon could convince people to share. That’s not a miracle.”³

This critique is more than rhetorical. It draws on the consistent teaching of the Church across centuries.

Patristic Testimony: A Supernatural Miracle
The Church Fathers are united in their interpretation of the event as a literal, supernatural multiplication wrought by Christ:

• St. John Chrysostom teaches: “He Himself gives us our food… taking what existed, He multiplied it. He is the Creator and Ruler of all.”⁴
• St. Augustine affirms the miracle as divine act: “He who multiplied the loaves in His hands is the same One who multiplies the seeds in the earth… Here He performed in His hands what He normally does through the earth.”⁵
• St. Cyril of Alexandria emphasizes the divine identity revealed through the miracle: “The Savior performs the miracle not merely to feed them, but to demonstrate that He is indeed God. For He creates out of a little abundance, satisfying all as only God can do.”⁶

None of these fathers suggest anything resembling the “miracle of sharing.” To the contrary, they saw in this act a confirmation of Christ’s dominion over creation.

The Magisterium Speaks
Far from being an open question, the historical truth of this miracle has been reaffirmed by the Magisterium:

• Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissimus Deus (1893), explicitly condemned those who reduce Gospel narratives to moral myths: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden… to deny the historical character of the sacred text.”⁷
• Pope Pius XII, in Humani Generis (1950), warned against those who “freely distort the concept of miracle” or reinterpret them as symbols or myths.⁸
• The Pontifical Biblical Commission, under Pius X, decreed in 1905: “The literal historical sense of the Gospel narratives cannot be denied, especially when they relate to facts touching the miracles and resurrection of Christ.”⁹

These teachings are not mere disciplinary pronouncements—they affirm the supernatural character of Divine Revelation and safeguard the faithful from precisely the kind of reductionism now being promoted by Pope Leo XIV.

The Eucharistic Connection
The implications of denying this miracle’s literal sense extend beyond Christology into sacramental theology. In John 6, the multiplication of the loaves directly precedes Christ’s Bread of Life discourse—a clear typological link to the Holy Eucharist.

St. Ambrose writes:

“Just as He multiplied the loaves, so now He multiplies Himself in the Eucharist to feed the faithful.”¹⁰

If the miracle is merely about communal generosity, then its Eucharistic prefiguration collapses. The moral lesson replaces the sacramental mystery. Such a reinterpretation is not merely shallow—it is dangerous to faith.

A Theological Trojan Horse
Leo XIV’s remarks may appear moderate or pastorally sensitive, but they perpetuate the same trajectory that has hollowed out much of post-conciliar theology: a preference for immanent over transcendent, for psychological uplift over divine revelation, and for social harmony over doctrinal clarity.

To say that Christ’s “real miracle” was sharing is not only contrary to Scripture, but to Tradition, and ultimately to the very identity of Jesus Christ as true God and true man.

As Bishop Sanborn noted:

“He makes himself absurd by saying stupid things like that… This is naturalism. This is modernism.”

Conclusion
The true miracle of the multiplication of the loaves is not in softening hearts or sharing leftovers. It is in Christ’s divine power to create out of nothing, to satisfy the hungry, and to prefigure the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.

This is what the Church has always taught. Anything less is not faith—it is fiction. 🔝

¹ Pope Leo XIV, Address to the 44th International Academic Conference on Sacred Scripture, June 30, 2025, Vatican.va
² Pope Francis, Homily for Corpus Christi, May 29, 2016
³ Bishop Donald Sanborn, Leo Watch Live, July 2025
⁴ St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 49
⁵ St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 24.1
⁶ St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book IV
⁷ Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (1893), §20
⁸ Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950), §36–37
⁹ Pontifical Biblical Commission, Responses on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, June 1905
¹⁰ St. Ambrose, De Sacramentis, Book IV, ch. 4

---

German Bishops’ Head Defends Pro-Abortion Judicial Nominee, Ignites Further Division

Bishop Georg Bätzing, president of the German Bishops’ Conference, has publicly defended Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, a controversial judicial nominee with a record of supporting abortion rights, despite vocal opposition from Catholic leaders and conservative lawmakers. The move has further exposed the widening rift between Germany’s episcopal leadership and the Church’s moral teaching on life issues.

Brosius-Gersdorf, a constitutional scholar nominated by the Social Democratic Party (SPD) to serve on Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court, has faced heavy criticism over her perceived support for the liberalization of abortion laws. She has been accused—most notably by members of the CDU/CSU and various Catholic prelates—of advocating for policies that undermine the dignity of unborn life. Archbishop Herwig Gössl of Bamberg initially condemned the nomination as a “domestic political scandal.”

However, in a surprising turn, Archbishop Gössl later retracted his remarks following a private phone call with Brosius-Gersdorf. Admitting he had been “falsch informiert” (“misinformed”), he issued a public apology and clarification, prompting accusations of political pressure and episcopal backpedaling¹.

Despite Gössl’s reversal, other German bishops—including Bishop Stefan Oster of Passau and Bishop Rudolf Voderholzer of Regensburg—continued to express deep concern. They warned that Brosius-Gersdorf’s past statements amounted to a “radical attack on the foundations of our constitution,” particularly regarding Article 1, which affirms the inviolable dignity of every human life².

Amidst the controversy, Bishop Bätzing sought to reframe the debate. In an interview with Augsburger Allgemeine, he insisted that Brosius-Gersdorf “doesn’t deserve to be damaged like this,” and criticized the tone and content of the opposition. “A lot has gone wrong in this entire debate,” he said, further cautioning that “the election of constitutional judges is not a topic for a culture war.”³

In a statement at odds with Catholic teaching, Bätzing defended Germany’s current abortion framework—§218a of the Criminal Code—which allows abortion within 22 weeks of gestation following state-mandated counselling. He described this regime as a “reasonable compromise” and warned against destabilizing it by pushing for stricter protections for the unborn. “Why should one abandon the clear compromise that exists on the abortion issue and thereby potentially risk a social divide?” he asked⁴.

Brosius-Gersdorf, for her part, rejected the accusation that she supports abortion up to birth, calling it “defamatory.” However, her past statements—including a 2020 interview in which she referred to Germany’s abortion restrictions as “outdated” and “in tension with human dignity”—have raised red flags for many life advocates. In a televised interview with ZDF, she lamented the politicization of the judicial appointment process and warned that Germany risks falling into “American-style culture war dynamics,” damaging the credibility of its constitutional court⁵.

With mounting public scrutiny and the Bundestag’s July 11 vote postponed, the future of her candidacy remains uncertain. Leaders within the SPD have defended her and accused conservative critics of engaging in a “smear campaign,” while the CDU/CSU leadership remains firm in its opposition⁶.

Moral Clarity or Compromise?
Bishop Bätzing’s comments have drawn renewed criticism from theologians and Catholic commentators who accuse him of abandoning clear moral witness. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law”⁷.

Moreover, those who “formally cooperate” in abortion—including by supporting pro-abortion laws or appointments—incur latae sententiae excommunication⁸. Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae reaffirms that laws permitting abortion “cease to be valid as laws” and constitute a direct threat to the foundational principles of justice⁹.

The contrast between Bätzing’s approach and the Church’s magisterial teaching could not be starker. Critics argue that his willingness to defend a judicial nominee with a demonstrably pro-abortion record, and to speak of compromise on a matter of intrinsic evil, amounts to moral capitulation.

The case has become emblematic of deeper fissures within the German Church, already strained by the “Synodal Way”—a process widely criticized by the Holy See for undermining Catholic doctrine. With this latest intervention, Bishop Bätzing appears to be entrenching a vision of ecclesial engagement more aligned with political consensus than with prophetic witness.

As one commentator put it: “What is at stake here is not just one judicial nomination—but whether the Catholic Church in Germany still believes that some truths are non-negotiable.” 🔝

¹ Welt, “War falsch informiert”: Archbishop Gössl retracts remarks, 17 July 2025
² Welt, Bischöfe kritisieren Brosius-Gersdorf, 15 July 2025
³ Augsburger Allgemeine, Bätzing interview, 16 July 2025
⁴ Augsburger Allgemeine, ibid.
⁵ Reuters, “German judge warns row threatens court’s reputation,” 16 July 2025
⁶ Financial Times, “Merz’s coalition in crisis over nominee,” 12 July 2025
⁷ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2271
⁸ Code of Canon Law, canon 1397 §2
⁹ Evangelium Vitae, §72

---

Pope Leo Celebrates First Public Mass Ad Orientem: A Symbolic Gesture Toward Liturgical Tradition

For the first time in his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV has publicly celebrated Holy Mass ad orientem—facing liturgical east—during the Feast of Saint Bonaventure at Castel Gandolfo’s Carabinieri Chapel. While previous Masses under his papacy had retained versus populum celebration, this marks a striking departure in visible liturgical orientation, long associated with the Church’s tradition prior to the post-Vatican II reforms.

A Quiet but Significant Gesture
Though modest in scale, the moment did not go unnoticed. The Pope’s decision to face the altar rather than the congregation during the Eucharistic liturgy echoes a theological and spiritual emphasis on sacra mysteria, the sacred mysteries at the heart of Catholic worship. It also reflects Pope Leo’s consistent admiration for Eastern Catholic rites and their preservation of reverent and mystical liturgical forms.

During a Jubilee address to Eastern Catholic hierarchs, Pope Leo emphasized the “need to recover the sense of mystery” in worship and warned against surrendering tradition to “practicality or convenience,” lest it be corrupted by the “mentality of consumerism and utilitarianism.”¹

Such language has resonated with traditional Catholics who have long seen ad orientem worship as a concrete embodiment of the Church’s Godward orientation—liturgically, doctrinally, and eschatologically.

A Subtle Challenge to Prevailing Trends
The celebration comes amid continued tensions over Traditionis Custodes, the 2021 motu proprio by Pope Francis that severely curtailed the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass. In its wake, numerous bishops, particularly in North America, moved to restrict not only the Tridentine Rite but also ad orientem celebration of the Novus Ordo—despite no prohibition in its rubrics.

Bishop Edward M. Rice of Springfield–Cape Girardeau, for instance, issued a directive in 2023 requesting all priests to face the people at Mass, citing his authority under Traditionis Custodes.² Yet the Congregation for Divine Worship had affirmed as recently as 2000 that ad orientem is not forbidden and that it would be a “grave error” to view the orientation of the Mass as directed primarily to the community.³

Pope Leo’s quiet turn toward the altar, therefore, serves not merely as a liturgical preference but as a theological signal—one that affirms the continuity of worship throughout the ages and may foreshadow a broader openness to organic restoration within the postconciliar rites.

Traditionalists Cautiously Hopeful
While some traditional Catholics remain sceptical of Pope Leo’s intentions given his ambiguous stance on Traditionis Custodes, others view this latest move as a tentative but positive development. A petition by LifeSiteNews calling for the full reversal of the Latin Mass restrictions has gained nearly 20,000 signatures, linking Leo’s emphasis on unity with calls for liturgical freedom and the end of episcopal suppression.⁴

Whether this celebration will remain an isolated event or signal a broader liturgical shift under Pope Leo’s leadership remains to be seen. But in an era of polarisation and confusion, this Mass at Castel Gandolfo may mark a quiet step toward reorienting the Church—literally and spiritually—toward her sacred origins. 🔝

¹ Pope Leo XIV, Address to participants in the Jubilee of the Oriental Churches, Vatican Media, 2025.
² Bishop Edward M. Rice, Diocesan Statement on Liturgical Orientation, Diocese of Springfield–Cape Girardeau, 2023.
³ Congregation for Divine Worship, Notitiae 36 (2000), pp. 397–399.
⁴ LifeSiteNews, “Ask Pope Leo XIV to abandon Traditionis Custodes and lift all suppressions of the Latin Mass,” July 2025.

---

Why We Knelt: Faithful Catholics Respond to Charlotte Bishop’s Crackdown on Reverence

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina — In quiet defiance of episcopal directives discouraging traditional practices, nearly all in attendance at a recent concelebrated Mass in the Cathedral of St. Patrick knelt to receive Holy Communion — with Bishop Michael Martin of Charlotte present. Their motive, participants say, was not rebellion, but love¹.

The event was coordinated by Friends of Catholic Reverence, a lay initiative promoting Eucharistic piety and fidelity to the Church’s liturgical heritage. In an exclusive statement, the group said their act of kneeling was directed not at Bishop Martin, but toward “our most Sacred and Blessed Lord at Mass,” whom they believe is owed the fullest expression of bodily reverence².

“It is about giving glory to God,” explained a woman identified as Nellie. “We want our posture and behaviour at the Holy Sacrifice to mirror our interior adoration.”³

Alex, a young man who also participated, described the act of kneeling as an embodied theology. “Frankly, I love God,” he said. “Not in a casual way — I mean as the Creator of the universe. That should be reflected in how we worship.”⁴

Bishop’s Directive and Lay Response
The gesture comes in the wake of a leaked document authored by Bishop Martin, reportedly drafted for diocesan implementation, which called for the removal of altar rails and discouraged kneeling for Communion⁵. “To instruct the faithful that kneeling is more reverent than standing is simply absurd,” the document read, further instructing that “moveable altar rails should be removed” and prei dieux were “not appropriate” for the reception of Communion⁶.

Though the diocese has since walked back the document, claiming it was a draft still “in discussion,” its public release has prompted a groundswell of resistance from Catholics committed to traditional practices — especially the reverent reception of the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling⁷.

In response, Friends of Catholic Reverence not only encouraged faithful attendance at the bishop’s Mass but also organized a public rosary and prayer vigil. “We asked the faithful if they were willing to make a united, public, yet positive statement,” the group said, emphasizing their approach was not protest but piety⁸.

Concerns for the Vulnerable and the Sacred
The group also raised practical and pastoral concerns, particularly regarding the elderly and disabled. “We ask that [the bishop] not discriminate against those with mobility issues who prefer to kneel,” the statement read. “Many of the faithful find the removal of kneelers intimidating. This clearly does not edify.”⁹

Far from being a mere preference, Friends argues that liturgical reverence has formative power. “What we pray and do inside of Mass can have a strong conscious and subconscious effect on how we pray and what we do outside of Mass,” they said¹⁰. Reverent worship is, in their words, a spiritual reorientation in a disoriented world.

Suppression of the Latin Mass
The group also expressed sorrow at Bishop Martin’s suppression of multiple Traditional Latin Masses in the diocese. While framed as a “merger,” the reorganization has required some families to drive two hours each way to attend the remaining TLM, effectively disbanding long-established communities¹¹.

“Unity already exists,” Friends noted. “What Bishop Martin is imposing is uniformity, not unity.” They pointed to the Church’s historic embrace of diverse rites within one faith, and warned that removing this diversity “will assist in destroying this unity.”¹²

One woman, a member of an immigrant family, testified to the personal pain this caused: “It was so painful for us, and for me, as an immigrant family,” she said. “It changed our lives.”¹³

The Call to Combat — and Reparation
Asked how Catholics should now respond, Friends cited a message from Bishop Joseph Strickland published on his Substack on June 29:

“The Holy Eucharist is not a symbol. It is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ… It is being profaned.
What must our response be? Reparation. Holy Hours. Fasting. Acts of love. Visits to the tabernacle. Masses offered in silence and devotion. Small acts that shake hell…
Mary is not calling us to comfort. She is calling us to combat… This is not the time to flee. It is the time to stand.”¹⁴

They echoed Strickland’s closing exhortation: “Do not abandon the Church, no matter how she suffers… Take up your Rosary like a sword. Go to confession. Go to adoration. Return to reverence. Return to Christ.”

The group continues to encourage Catholics to pray acts of reparation such as the Holy Face devotion:

“May the most Holy, the most Sacred, the most Adorable, the most unknown and the most inexpressible Name of God be adored, praised, blessed, loved and glorified… by the loving Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Amen.”¹⁵

At a time of increasing tension between the faithful and the shepherds tasked with their care, Friends of Catholic Reverence insists that their movement is not about resistance but fidelity — not confrontation, but courage. As their statement concluded: “With Mary at our side and Christ in the Eucharist, we are not afraid.”¹⁶ 🔝

1. LifeSiteNews, “Catholics explain why they knelt for Communion at Charlotte bishop’s Mass,” Jul 14, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Rorate Caeli blog, unpublished directive from Bishop Michael Martin (leaked).
6. Ibid.
7. LifeSiteNews, op. cit.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Bishop Joseph Strickland, Substack post, June 29, 2025.
15. Traditional Holy Face Devotion Prayer.
16. LifeSiteNews, op. cit.

---

Deliver Us from Evil: Cardinal Simoni’s Witness and Warning

At 96 years of age, Cardinal Ernest Simoni remains a formidable witness to the enduring power of grace over tyranny, and of exorcism over ideology. Known for his unbroken fidelity during nearly two decades in Albania’s Communist prison camps, the cardinal recently led a Latin prayer of deliverance at the Worldwide Exorcism Conference in Newark, New Jersey, invoking God’s mercy upon a world increasingly gripped by spiritual darkness¹.

A Martyr of the 20th Century
Born in 1928 and formed in the Franciscan tradition, Simoni’s vocation was tested early. Communist forces raided his minor seminary and executed the friars. Undeterred, he continued his studies underground and was ordained at 28. But on Christmas Eve 1963, he was arrested after offering a Latin Mass for the repose of U.S. President John F. Kennedy². This detail is confirmed by both local Albanian media and biographical sources³. Accused of “conspiring against the state,” he was sentenced to death for preaching fidelity to Christ. The sentence was later commuted to hard labor.

For 18 years, Simoni endured brutal prison conditions, torture, and solitary confinement. He offered the Latin Mass from memory with smuggled bread and wine, maintained silent resistance, and refused multiple inducements to abandon the priesthood—including pressure to marry. “I’m already married to the most beautiful bride there is,” he told his captors, “I’m married to the Church”⁴.

Exorcist and Evangelist
Following the collapse of Albania’s Communist regime in 1991, Simoni resumed his priestly ministry, including the performance of exorcisms—something he had begun before his arrest⁵. In a 2018 address at Rome’s Regina Apostolorum University, he testified to performing “four or five exorcisms a day”⁶. His long persecution, he suggested, had given him intimate knowledge of the demonic strategies afflicting modern souls: despair, blasphemy, and rebellion against divine order.

At the Newark conference, held July 11–12, 2025, Simoni joined other experienced exorcists—including Fr. John Szada of Harrisburg and Msgr. John Esseff of Scranton—in calling for deliverance from demonic influence⁷. Though his contribution was not a formal exorcism with the full rites, his Latin prayer was offered from memory and with deep intent for those afflicted by spiritual oppression, illness, and infertility⁸. He also offered spontaneous prayers in Albanian, urging attendees to pray the Rosary four times a day and to return to God⁹.

The Prophecy of Fatima and the Crisis of Our Time
Simoni has repeatedly drawn attention to the warnings of Our Lady of Fatima. In 2017 he remarked, “We see the prophecy of Fatima revealing itself today. If the people do not turn towards Christ, darkness and error will consume the world”¹⁰. He echoed the theme at the Newark gathering, where his presence and prayer gave tangible expression to the spiritual crisis many exorcists now attest is intensifying.

His recent participation in traditional Latin Mass pilgrimages organized by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest further illustrates his theological orientation and enduring loyalty to the liturgy he once whispered amid forced labor and persecution. In a time when even exorcism has become a contested ministry, Simoni’s quiet perseverance is a living rebuke to a world that dismisses the devil as myth and sin as an outdated superstition¹¹.

A Voice for This Generation
Pope Francis, who made Simoni a cardinal in 2016, referred to him as a “living martyr” after hearing his testimony in 2014¹². Though he was too old to participate in the 2025 conclave that elected Pope Leo XIV¹³, his voice continues to resonate with clarity and courage.

At a moment when many Catholics face confusion, suppression, or compromise, Simoni’s simple testimony reminds the Church of its mission: to save souls from sin and from Satan. As the world drifts further from truth, the aged cardinal prays the Church will return—urgently—to her ancient weapons of Mass, confession, prayer, and exorcism.

The demons are not new. But the silence of shepherds is. And Ernest Simoni, even now, refuses to be silent. 🔝

¹ LifeSiteNews, “Cardinal jailed for 20 years by Communists prays for world’s deliverance from demons,” July 15, 2025.
² Ibid. Simoni was arrested on Dec. 24, 1963, following a Midnight Mass offered for President Kennedy.
³ Politiko.al, “Konferenca e ekzorcizmit në New Jersey…” July 15, 2025; Wikipedia: “Ernest Simoni.”
⁴ LifeSiteNews, July 15, 2025; Politiko.al.
⁵ Ibid. Simoni resumed ministry and exorcisms following the collapse of the regime in 1991.
⁶ Simoni, address at Regina Apostolorum University, 2018; confirmed in LifeSiteNews and event coverage.
⁷ John Leaps Evangelization, Event Page: “Worldwide Exorcism Conference,” Newark, July 2025.
⁸ Ibid.; Simoni recited a Latin prayer of deliverance from memory for participants.
⁹ Politiko.al, July 2025. Simoni prayed in Albanian for the sick, infertile, and spiritually oppressed.
¹⁰ LifeSiteNews, 2017 interview with Simoni, quoted again in 2025 coverage.
¹¹ Institute of Christ the King, Pilgrimage announcements; LifeSiteNews, July 15, 2025.
¹² Vatican News, “Pope Francis thanks ‘living martyr’ Cardinal Simoni,” November 19, 2016.
¹³ LifeSiteNews, July 15, 2025. Simoni was excluded from the conclave due to age under Universi Dominici Gregis §33.

---

The False Gospel of Synodality By Archbishop Marian Eleganti

Translated and introduced by Marco Tosatti¹

“Proclaim Christ instead.” This is the urgent plea of Archbishop Marian Eleganti, the former auxiliary bishop of Chur, Switzerland, who has long stood as a clear and courageous voice against the fog of modernist double-speak. His latest intervention, published on Stilum Curiae, dismantles the pseudo-theological edifice of synodality with clinical precision—and prophetic grief.

Spinning in Circles, Speaking to No One
For those working in ecclesiastical offices, the “synodal process” has become an end in itself—a self-referential machine producing documents, extensions, and interim stages that no ordinary Catholic ever reads or hears about. The People of God, says Eleganti, remain untouched and unmoved by the endless paperwork, while the bureaucratic elite multiply commissions, subcommissions, and continental phases in what has become “a canonical no-man’s land.”²

The synod, he writes, “has not reawakened love for Jesus Christ in a single soul.” Instead, it caters primarily to German-speaking, full-time ministry professionals—what one might call the clerical deep state.

What Is Not Being Said
The true problems of the Church are ignored:

• Apostasy from basic creedal truths such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus
• Liturgical abuses and irreverence in the Novus Ordo Mass
• Collapse in vocations across much of Europe
• Heterodox preaching in parishes and universities
• A pastoral theology divorced from Catholic doctrine, often invoking the false maxim that “reality is greater than ideas”³

These are brushed aside for “listening sessions” and “walking together” in a process whose fruits have so far been ambiguity, volatility, and the dismantling of hierarchy under the guise of participation.

A Manipulated Listening
The illusion, writes Eleganti, is that 1.4 billion Catholics—many doctrinally illiterate—can participate meaningfully in a spiritual discernment process. But instead of listening to the Holy Spirit, what actually occurs is the steering of opinion, the marginalisation of tradition, and the elevation of ideology. The result is a manipulated listening, not a genuine act of ecclesial obedience.

As he warns: “Synodality has become a hermeneutic for all sorts of things, especially for lay co-determination at all levels.”⁴ And the effect has been the erosion of the Church’s sacramental and apostolic constitution.

The Abuse of the Term “Listening”
Synodality’s defenders often present it as a recovery of ancient ecclesial practice. But the Church has always begun with listening—to God, to Scripture, to the Fathers. The Shema Yisrael, the Prologue to the Rule of St Benedict, and the very concept of discernment of spirits all call us to hear and obey. What is new, Eleganti stresses, is not discernment, but the synodal pretence that such discernment can be crowdsourced, secularised, and democratised.

The Inverted Church
The consequences are far-reaching:

• The shepherd follows the sheep
• The master learns from the student
• The priest obeys the layman
• The bishop becomes merely one voice among many
• And “the spirit”—undefined, ambiguous—hovers over it all

This is not the Holy Spirit of Pentecost. This is the inversion of ecclesial order.

The Liturgical Vacuum
Eleganti calls attention to what traditional Catholics have long known: young people are not drawn to banal synodal slogans. They crave depth, reverence, and mystery. In countries like France and England, there is a growing desire among youth for baptism, catechesis, and the traditional liturgy.⁵ But in the synodal process, they are ignored—excluded from the narrative of the “listening Church.”

The Real Threat: Islam and Secularism
While the synod spends its time redefining ministry and inclusivity, the real demographic and religious challenge is left untouched. In some European countries, Christians will be a minority within 25 years. Albania is a rare exception where Christians outnumber Muslims. But in most of the West, apostasy and demographic collapse have paved the way for the Islamisation of secular societies.

Conclusion: Less Spin, More Mission
The Archbishop’s final appeal is as sharp as it is holy: “More missionaries, fewer spin doctors.” If the synodal Church continues to replace the Gospel with process, Christ with consultation, and hierarchy with collective muddle, it will deserve its irrelevance. What is needed is not more working documents, but more saints.

Proclaim Christ. Stop spinning. 🔝

¹ Marco Tosatti, Stilum Curiae, “Synodality as a Code Word,” July 11, 2025.
² Eleganti: “The vast people of God are unaware of your documents.”
³ Cf. Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, §231; often used to justify doctrinal relativism.
⁴ Eleganti: “Lay co-determination at all levels … contradicts the teaching of the Council and the 2,000-year-old apostolic laws.”
⁵ For statistics on rising adult baptisms in France, see Famille Chrétienne, “Baptêmes d’adultes : un tiers des catéchumènes a moins de 30 ans” (March 2024). For the UK, Bishop Philip Egan and others have noted a growing interest among young adults in traditional catechesis, reverent liturgy, and sacramental life, particularly within Latin Mass communities and dioceses like Portsmouth and Westminster.

---

Cardinal Müller Denounces Same-Sex ‘Blessings’ as “Pious Deception” and Contradiction of God’s Will

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has issued a sharp and theologically rigorous rebuke to the German bishops who have recently begun implementing so-called same-sex “blessings” within their dioceses. Writing in Die Tagespost, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that such practices are “diametrically opposed to the will of the Creator” and “a deception” which threatens the eternal salvation of both clergy and faithful.

Rooted in Scripture and Tradition
Cardinal Müller opened his reflection with Christ’s own words to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:4: “Have you not read that the Creator made them male and female in the beginning?” From this, he concludes that true marriage is intrinsically the union of a man and a woman—an ontological and divinely instituted reality that no pastoral innovation can alter.

“Any form of divorce and even more so marriage substitutes such as sexual relations between people of the same sex are diametrically opposed to the will of the Creator,” Müller wrote. He added that “Christians naturally understand” that such lifestyles “are not blessed by God.”

A “Pious Deception” and Return to Indulgence-Selling
The German prelate compared the practice of blessing same-sex unions to the “sale of indulgences” which helped precipitate the Protestant Reformation, calling it a “pious deception” and an “ineffective ritual” that falsely conveys divine approval for sin. He warned that knowingly acting against God’s revealed order results in “death of the soul, that is, separation from communion with God,” echoing the severity of St. Paul’s warnings in Romans 1.

Critique of Enlightenment Thinking and Hedonism
Müller went on to denounce the broader anthropological and moral shift that underlies the push for these blessings. He criticised the synodal path’s reliance on sociological and psychological claims that run “in blatant contradiction to biology” and moral theology. In place of a Christian moral order rooted in natural law and revelation, he argued, there now stands “a compromise with the atheistic view of humanity” and “philosophical materialism.”

“No longer is the distinction between good and evil the standard of moral action,” he lamented, “but rather pleasure and displeasure determine human happiness and comfort without any reference to God, our Creator and Redeemer.”

Fiducia Supplicans: Confusing, Contradictory, and Theologically Invalid
Cardinal Müller placed partial blame on the Vatican’s controversial document Fiducia supplicans, which has been cited by heterodox bishops to justify same-sex blessings. He declared the document “confusing in itself” and in contradiction to prior CDF statements and the universal magisterium. Müller stressed that papal authority “is not above the Word of God,” quoting Dei Verbum §10 from the Second Vatican Council:

“This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on…”

He firmly rejected the idea—implied by Fiducia supplicans and its defenders—that a pope or his theologians can override Sacred Scripture, apostolic tradition, and definitive magisterial teachings.

A Clear Warning to the German Bishops
Finally, Cardinal Müller reminded German prelates of the vows they made at their episcopal ordination to guard the entirety of the Catholic faith. Invoking Romans 1:28, he warned that those who suppress the truth and embrace “depraved thinking” fall into moral and doctrinal darkness.

This is not the first time Müller has been attacked by fellow German bishops for his fidelity to Catholic teaching. Nevertheless, he remains unwavering in defending the Church’s perennial doctrine on marriage, sexuality, and the nature of pastoral care.

His latest intervention stands as a prophetic witness—clear, uncompromising, and deeply rooted in Scripture, natural law, and the apostolic tradition—against what he sees as a pastoral betrayal cloaked in emotionalism and ideological conformity. 🔝

¹ Mt 19:4–6
² Cf. Rom 1:26–32
³ Die Tagespost, July 2025
⁴ Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, §10
⁵ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 2003
⁶ Fiducia Supplicans, Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2023
⁷ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357–2359
⁸ Cf. Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 18
⁹ St. Paul, 1 Cor 6:9–10

---

---

In Other News…

---

From Indoctrination to Dismemberment: The Reality of Planned Parenthood’s Agenda

Planned Parenthood presents itself as a trusted healthcare provider and educator. Yet behind this benign façade lies a coordinated strategy to desensitize children, mislead parents and teachers, and carry out violence against the most vulnerable human beings. Through its Sex Ed To-Go program and abortion empire, Planned Parenthood teaches children they are “sexual from birth”—and then offers to end their lives before birth through chemical poisoning, suction dismemberment, or induced fetal death. The result is a culture that confuses sexualisation with education and compassion with clinical killing.

Sexualizing the Innocent
In collaboration with the Future of Sex Education (FoSE) coalition, Planned Parenthood’s Sex Ed To-Go program trains teachers to promote a radical vision of sexuality to children as young as five. One teacher training module opens with a reading from It Was Dusk (1978), which grotesquely depicts infant breastfeeding as a sexually formative experience—framing the mother-infant bond in language suggestive of erotic encounter. It concludes by claiming that a four-month-old nursing boy has taken a “minute contribution to his further sexual development.”¹

Such framing strips one of the most natural human experiences of its innocence and inserts an adult sexual lens. It is not science, but ideology.

Language Games and Gender Confusion
Teachers are instructed to abandon sex-based language altogether. “Boy” and “girl” are replaced with phrases like “person with a penis” or “person with a vulva.”² Sex education materials are saturated with gender theory, promoting the illusion that biological sex is irrelevant to the reality of human identity.

This ideological lexicon is not neutral. It is a deliberate attempt to separate young people from their biological reality, from their parents’ values, and from any moral framework rooted in natural law or divine order.

Abortion Propaganda Disguised as Health Education
The Sex Ed To-Go lesson “Teaching Pregnancy, Childbirth, Adoption & Abortion” uses deceptive images from the MYA Network—photos that display only fragments of gestational sacs, not whole human embryos.³ One slide claims that at six weeks, an embryo resembles “a piece of cotton,” and by nine weeks is still indistinguishable from tissue. Nothing is said of the developing heartbeat, limbs, or organs—all present by this stage.⁴

Abortions are presented as “safe,” “simple,” and morally neutral. The humanity of the child is erased, and no mention is made of the life-ending reality of abortion procedures. The preborn human is reduced to “pregnancy tissue.”⁵

Normalizing Pornography for Children
Perhaps most disturbing is Planned Parenthood’s promotion of pornography to young students. Teachers are encouraged to direct children to The Porn Conversation, a site that frames porn as “entertainment” and offers tips for tweens and teens. Students are told:

“Porn shows lots of penises, vulvas, and orgasms… So keep that in mind while you’re watching.”⁶

There is no warning about the documented psychological damage pornography causes to minors. The American College of Pediatricians links early porn exposure to depression, aggression, sexual violence, and increased risk of molestation and assault.⁷ But for Planned Parenthood, grooming under the guise of “education” is just another business strategy.

The Four Faces of Abortion
Alongside this ideological assault on children, Planned Parenthood remains the largest abortion provider in the United States. Four former abortionists—now all pro-life advocates—have recently explained in grim medical detail the four most common abortion procedures, drawing on thousands of personal cases.⁸

1. The Abortion Pill (Up to 10 weeks)
Dr. Noreen Johnson, who performed over 1,000 abortions, describes how mifepristone starves the embryo of nutrients by blocking progesterone. A second drug, misoprostol, induces violent contractions that expel the embryo, often while the mother is alone on a toilet.
Failure rates increase with gestational age, and nearly 0.5% require hospitalization for heavy bleeding.⁹ Many women see the intact embryo within the gestational sac—an image burned into memory.

2. Suction Aspiration (Up to 14 weeks)
Dr. Beverly McMillan, also a former abortionist, recounts the use of suction cannulas to dismember the fetus. Body parts are often removed piecemeal and must be reassembled to ensure “nothing is left behind.”
Risks include uterine perforation, hemorrhage, and long-term reproductive damage.¹⁰

3. Dilation and Evacuation (14–22 weeks)
Dr. Kathy Altman describes the D&E method, where the abortionist uses a steel clamp to tear limbs from the child’s body.
The skull—“about the size of a large plum”—is crushed to remove it through the cervix. A white substance (the baby’s brain) leaks out as the skull collapses.¹¹ All parts must then be accounted for to prevent infection or sepsis.

4. Induction Abortion (22–39 weeks)
Dr. Patty Giebink details how late-term abortions begin with mifepristone, followed by a lethal injection of digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus’s heart. After 24 hours, the woman is given drugs to induce labor and deliver a dead child.
Risks include uterine rupture, hemorrhage, infection, and death. If the mother’s health were truly endangered and the child desired, a C-section or preterm delivery would be attempted with neonatal care on hand.¹²

“I Once Believed I Was Helping Women…”
All four doctors once performed abortions with clinical detachment, believing they were aiding women. Yet each underwent a conversion—sparked by motherhood, reflection, or horror at the procedures they had committed.

Dr. Altman recalls looking at the dismembered body of a 12-week-old boy and thinking: What is the difference between this child and my four-year-old son?
She answers: none.¹³

“Terms like zygote, embryo, and fetus,” says Dr. McMillan, “are simply like toddler or teenager—age categories that do not diminish humanity.”¹⁴

They now testify not only to the reality of what abortion does to the child—but also what it does to the mother, and to those who participate in it. Trauma, regret, and physical damage haunt many post-abortive women. The physicians’ shift from abortionist to advocate is a call to conscience: anyone can change.

The Moral Imperative
Planned Parenthood’s programs sexualize children, promote gender confusion, sanitize the reality of abortion, and push pornography on minors—all with taxpayer support.
Their practices are not healthcare. They are a multi-front assault on childhood, womanhood, and human dignity.

The response cannot be timid. The Christian duty is to speak the truth: every abortion ends a human life, and every human life—born or unborn, male or female, loved or unwanted—is made in the image and likeness of God.

The time to withdraw public funding from Planned Parenthood is now. The time to defend the innocent is always. 🔝

¹ Live Action, “Planned Parenthood’s sex-ed program claims children are ‘sexual from birth,’” July 17, 2025.
² Ibid. Teacher training module: “Introduction to Effective Sex Education.”
³ Ibid. Lesson: “Teaching Pregnancy, Childbirth, Adoption & Abortion.”
⁴ Live Action News, “MYA Network’s deceptive abortion photos,” 2022.
⁵ Sex Ed To-Go lesson content, as analyzed by Live Action.
⁶ Ibid. “Sex in the Media: What You Need to Know” student module.
⁷ American College of Pediatricians, “The Impact of Pornography on Children,” clinical statement.
⁸ Excerpts from Live Action’s “Abortion Procedures” series, featuring Drs. Noreen Johnson, Beverly McMillan, Kathy Altman, and Patty Giebink.
⁹ Dr. Noreen Johnson, “How the Abortion Pill Works,” Live Action video transcript.
¹⁰ Dr. Beverly McMillan, “Suction Abortion Explained,” Live Action video transcript.
¹¹ Dr. Kathy Altman, “Dilation and Evacuation Procedure,” Live Action video transcript.
¹² Dr. Patty Giebink, “Induction Abortion Procedure,” Live Action video transcript.
¹³ Ibid. Dr. Altman testimony.
¹⁴ Ibid. Dr. McMillan statement on fetal terminology.

---

“Three-Parent Babies” and the Genetic Rewriting of Humanity

Eight children born in the United Kingdom are now living testaments to a controversial frontier of biotechnology: human beings created using the DNA of three people. The technique, designed to prevent mitochondrial disease, involves transferring nuclear genetic material from the egg of a mother with faulty mitochondria into a donor egg with healthy mitochondria, followed by fertilisation with the father’s sperm. The resulting embryo contains nuclear DNA from the parents and mitochondrial DNA—about 0.1%—from a second woman¹.

On the surface, this is hailed as a triumph. Parents, having watched children die or suffer devastating disabilities, now speak of “hope,” “joy,” and being “overwhelmed with gratitude”². But beneath the emotional narrative lies an ethical transformation: this is not medicine restoring the natural order, but science rewriting the human genome.

A Shift from Therapy to Heritable Enhancement

Mitochondrial donation does not merely heal a patient; it produces a genetically novel human being. In contrast to somatic therapy (which treats the individual), this approach alters the germline—passed from mother to daughter—permanently modifying human heredity³. That threshold, long seen as a red line, was crossed in Britain through a 2015 Parliamentary vote without the moral clarity such an act demanded⁴.

The ethical justification rested on the claim that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) does not determine personal identity. But mitochondria, though comprising a small fraction of our genetic material, interact with nuclear DNA and influence health, metabolism, and perhaps even aging⁵. As Mary Warnock once said of embryo research, we are “sliding down a slope,” and each success hastens the slide.

Redefining Parenthood and Procreation
The natural anthropology of the family—father, mother, and child—is quietly rewritten in the laboratory. Three genetic contributors. Dozens of medical personnel. Unnatural conception, selection, and surgical assembly of life. What once was a sacred mystery between man, woman, and God becomes a clinical project aimed at eradicating flaws, producing perfectibility.

That the procedure has yielded children “free of disease” is not irrelevant—but neither is it morally sufficient. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple… are gravely immoral”⁶. Even in the face of suffering, the ends do not justify the means.

Warnings from Tradition
St. John Paul II foresaw the risks of such technologies in Evangelium Vitae, where he warned that “a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold… which gives crimes against life a new and—if possible—even more sinister character… they are being justified in the name of individual freedom”⁷. Pope Benedict XVI echoed this in Dignitas Personae, condemning procedures that “involve the manipulation or destruction of embryos” or treat human life as “a mere object”⁸.

Even where no embryos are discarded—as proponents of this mitochondrial technique claim—profound concerns remain. These include the instrumentalisation of women (egg donors), the commodification of human life, and the introduction of germline changes without knowledge of long-term effects⁹. It is a utilitarian calculation alien to Catholic moral reasoning, which affirms that the human person is not a product but a gift¹⁰.

The “Designer Baby” Door Remains Open
Supporters argue that this technique is specific and tightly regulated. Yet once heritable genetic modification is permitted, the line separating therapy from enhancement becomes one of expediency. Why not use DNA to eliminate predispositions to cancer, or depression, or even select for intelligence? Why not “design” a child free from the burdens of nature?

The very language of “design,” of engineering embryos, is a corruption of the truth that we are not creators, but creatures. That language, now widely accepted in fertility clinics, testifies to a deeper spiritual disorder: man usurping the role of God.

The Need for a Christian Response
As the Church has always taught, compassion for suffering must never eclipse fidelity to the dignity of life and the moral order established by God. The temptation to play saviour through genetic manipulation is ancient—it is the same lie from Eden: you will be like gods¹¹.

Catholics must be clear: the creation of “three-parent babies” is a violation of natural law, of the unity of marriage, and of the integrity of the human genome. That eight children appear healthy is not the measure of righteousness. There are grave risks not only to those individuals but to our understanding of what it means to be human.

The silence of the families is understandable. But the silence of the Church would be a scandal.

As St. Augustine taught: Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum—“with love for men and hatred of their sins.” We must not abandon families affected by mitochondrial disease; rather, we must accompany them with true compassion and moral clarity. But we must also confront with boldness a culture that seeks salvation not in Christ, but in the genome. 🔝

1. Al Jazeera, “Babies born in UK using DNA from three people to avoid genetic disease,” July 17, 2025; The Guardian, “Eight healthy babies born after IVF using DNA from three people,” July 16, 2025.
2. BBC News, “Babies made using three people’s DNA are born free of hereditary disease,” July 16, 2025.
3. New England Journal of Medicine, “Mitochondrial Donation Treatment in the United Kingdom — Outcomes for the First Patients,” July 2025; Newcastle University, “Press release on mitochondrial donation outcomes,” July 16, 2025.
4. Nature, “UK becomes first country to legalize mitochondrial replacement therapy,” Feb 2015.
5. Cell Metabolism, “Mitochondria: In sickness and in health,” Cell Press, 2018; Science, “Mitochondrial-nuclear interactions shape development,” 2020.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2376.
7. Pope St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995, §4.
8. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Personae, 2008, §26.
9. Reuters, “Three-person IVF technique spares children inherited diseases,” July 16, 2025; NEJM, ibid.
10. Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, §75.
11. Genesis 3:5, RSVCE.
12. St. Augustine, Letter 211, “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum.”

---

The Classroom as Ideological Frontline: How England’s New RSHE Guidance Redefines Childhood, Sex, and the Role of the State

In the name of inclusion and safeguarding, the British government has issued new statutory guidance that reshapes the moral and psychological formation of children in English schools. The updated Relationships, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) framework, released by the Department for Education in July 2025, may appear on the surface to be an administrative refinement of the 2019 version. In reality, it entrenches the language and assumptions of gender ideology more deeply into the heart of the state education system.

The new guidance requires that all schools—state, academy, and free schools alike—ensure they comply with the Equality Act 2010, under which “gender reassignment” is a protected characteristic¹. This compliance, however, is not limited to anti-discrimination policy. It is now operationalised in curriculum content and school culture. Teachers are expected to affirm students’ self-declared identities, and the guidance mandates that “all pupils [are] to have been taught LGBT content at a timely point”, integrated throughout relationships and sex education².

The shift is not merely structural but conceptual. The RSHE framework promotes an understanding of identity that is internally defined and potentially fluid. It encourages teaching that resists *“gendered language which might normalise male violence or stigmatise boys,”*³ suggesting a categorical suspicion of traditional gender norms and implicitly presenting sex distinctions as suspect or harmful.

This has immediate consequences for parental rights. While the guidance affirms that parents may request to withdraw their children from sex education up to three terms before the age of 16, it removes any right to opt out of relationships and health education⁴—subjects that now routinely include instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation. From age 15, the child may overrule parental wishes⁵. All of this is framed under the language of autonomy, inclusion, and wellbeing.

Even faith schools are not exempt. While they may teach “the distinctive faith perspective on relationships,” they must do so in a way that complies with the Equality Act⁶. This effectively prohibits presenting a religious view of sex and gender that conflicts with the state-sanctioned ideological consensus. In practice, religious teaching becomes confined to abstract principle, stripped of application in real-life moral questions.

The ideological pressure extends beyond curriculum to physical space. While the RSHE guidance does not directly legislate on facilities, it places significant institutional weight behind “inclusive environments” and protections for trans-identifying pupils. The document fails to reiterate the lawful right of schools to preserve single-sex spaces under Schedule 3 of the Equality Act—a silence that exposes schools to activist pressure while subtly redefining what is assumed to be “best practice.” Yet in law, schools are still permitted to provide single-sex changing rooms and toilets where this is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” such as privacy, dignity, or safeguarding⁷.

In short, England’s new RSHE policy reframes the purpose of education. The traditional model—education as the transmission of knowledge and virtue from one generation to the next—is being replaced by a therapeutic paradigm in which the school affirms and validates personal identity, irrespective of biological, religious, or social realities.

This matters not only for those of religious conviction. It is a question of political philosophy. Who forms the child? What is the nature of human identity? Is there any fixed anthropology behind our moral and civic obligations, or are children to be shaped by ever-evolving ideological trends?

By silently absorbing contested ideas into statutory guidance, the state advances its authority over the minds and moral development of the young. Those concerned with freedom—of thought, conscience, religion, or the family—should not overlook the RSHE guidance. The future of liberty is not only debated in parliaments or courtrooms. It is decided, often imperceptibly, in classrooms and corridors—under the soft but steady pressure of official policy. 🔝

1. RSHE Statutory Guidance – July 2025, p. 36.
2. Ibid., p. 36.
3. Ibid., p. 5.
4. Ibid., p. 6.
5. Ibid., p. 6.
6. Ibid., p. 37.
7. Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, Part 7, Paragraph 27; see also Gender Questioning Children: Non-Statutory Guidance for Schools in England, Department for Education, December 2023.

---

Impartiality on Parade: High Court Judgment on Police at Pride Signals Warning for All Public Bodies

Smith v Northumbria Police sets precedent against ideological partisanship in public institutions—from forces to councils, schools, and services

In a defining moment for the principle of impartiality in British public life, the High Court has ruled that Northumbria Police acted unlawfully by participating in a Pride event in a manner that conveyed ideological alignment with gender identity politics. The ruling in Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin) makes clear that public authorities have no legal entitlement to side with one set of beliefs over another in live political or philosophical debates¹.

While the case concerned a police force, its implications are far broader. It places public authorities—including councils, schools, libraries, NHS Trusts, and publicly funded cultural bodies—on clear notice: you may not lawfully take sides in live political or ideological disputes, even under the banner of “inclusion.”

Mr Justice Linden’s ruling emphasised that the Progress Pride flag is not ideologically neutral, especially given its strong association with trans activism and groups that explicitly exclude gender-critical individuals². Participating in or sponsoring Pride under that symbol, or in association with activist groups that explicitly exclude dissenting views, creates a reasonable perception of partiality. That perception alone is unlawful in many public contexts³.

The Limits of the Equality Act and PSED
The case exposed the misapplication of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by police and other institutions. Northumbria Police had claimed that their support for Pride, and by extension gender ideology, was justified by the need to “advance equality of opportunity.” But the court firmly rejected that reasoning, stating that:

“The Defendant’s actions created the reasonable impression of partiality in a contested moral and political debate. The Equality Act does not override the police duty of neutrality.”⁴

The same logic applies to publicly funded schools who promote Pride Month without balance, councils that fly ideological flags from civic buildings, and leisure centres, libraries, or hospitals that host activist stalls without acknowledging protected beliefs on the other side.

Participation in politically or ideologically aligned events—such as Pride, where gender identity ideology is now deeply embedded—must be scrutinised. Not only must public authorities avoid taking sides; they must not even create the impression that they do⁵.

Schools, Councils, and Cultural Capture
Many public institutions have become complicit in this ideological overreach. Examples include:

• Schools compelling student participation in Pride-themed assemblies or displays, while failing to acknowledge the protected status of gender-critical views under the Equality Act⁶.
• Council-run gyms and swimming pools festooned with Progress flags during June, with no balancing representation of dissenting beliefs.
• Libraries and museums co-hosting drag events, “ally training,” or exhibitions steeped in gender ideology, with no input from alternative perspectives.
• Town halls sponsoring Pride floats while event organisers explicitly bar groups who express biologically grounded views of sex.

All such conduct is now in legal question. The Smith ruling confirms that the appearance of alignment with one side of the gender identity debate is enough to breach duties of fairness and impartiality, even if the underlying intent is framed as “inclusion.”⁷

This is particularly acute in light of recent cases affirming that gender-critical views are protected under UK equality law and the European Convention on Human Rights⁸. Public institutions who display Progress Pride symbols, or participate in events where such beliefs are rejected or excluded, are now vulnerable to legal challenge.

Public Funds, Political Activism
The ruling also intersects with long-standing restrictions on political activity by public bodies. For example, the Education Act 1996 requires schools to maintain political neutrality, especially when teaching controversial topics⁹. The Local Government Act 1986 prohibits councils from spending public funds on material that promotes a political view¹⁰.

The embrace of Pride—especially in its modern, gender-ideological form—may now be viewed not as neutral community engagement, but as partisan expression. Public funds spent on ideological branding, flag raising, or stall sponsorship may constitute misuse of public money.

Towards a Reset in Public Institutions
For years, Pride events have enjoyed automatic institutional support. But as the Smith judgment shows, this support can no longer be taken for granted when such events are clearly aligned with contested political agendas.

This ruling restores an essential constitutional principle: public authorities must serve all citizens impartially, regardless of creed, conscience, or belief.

They must not act as champions of ideologies, no matter how popular or progressive those ideologies claim to be.

What Now?
In light of the Smith judgment, public institutions must:

• Reassess participation in Pride events, especially if official branding, uniformed staff, or sponsored materials are involved.
• Cease use of the Progress Pride flag or similar symbols that imply endorsement of contested ideological positions.
• Review all equality and diversity training to ensure it is ideologically neutral and includes protected belief perspectives.
• Respect political neutrality in schools, ensuring pupils are exposed to all lawful perspectives on sex and gender.
• Apply the Public Sector Equality Duty fairly, acknowledging the rights and dignity of all protected belief groups, not just the fashionable ones.

A Turning Point
This judgment may prove to be a watershed moment in resisting the ideological overreach of state-funded bodies. It affirms that the law is not a tool of cultural revolution but a shield for all citizens, especially those whose views have been maligned or suppressed.

For gender-critical women, for faithful Christians, for traditional moral thinkers, and for ordinary citizens concerned by institutional drift into activism, Smith v Northumbria Police offers a powerful affirmation:

Your beliefs are lawful. The state may not take sides. Impartiality is not optional. 🔝

¹ Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2025] EWHC 1805 (Admin)
² Ibid., §§15–16
³ Ibid., §144
⁴ Ibid., §139
⁵ Ibid., §§63–66
⁶ Equality Act 2010, s.10; Forstater v CGD Europe [2021] UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ
⁷ Smith, §48
⁸ For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16
⁹ Education Act 1996, ss.406–407
¹⁰ Local Government Act 1986, s.2

---

When Protection Becomes Censorship: The Hidden Dangers of Labour’s Islamophobia Definition

Why Catholics and civil society must reject the drift toward ideological speech controls in the name of “cohesion”

In recent months, the Labour government has revived an initiative to define “Islamophobia” through a non-statutory framework, guided by a government-funded working group chaired by Dominic Grieve KC. Although not law in itself, the proposed definition is intended to influence university policy, public sector training, and workplace speech codes. It is being promoted as a way to counter rising anti-Muslim hatred in the UK.

But a growing number of voices—including over thirty peers in the House of Lords—are sounding the alarm: this definition risks replacing protection with censorship. For Catholics, who proclaim truths that sometimes contradict Islam, this matters deeply.

The Illusion of Safety Through Silence
The government’s working group insists that the definition is “non-statutory,” and therefore not a threat to free speech. Yet, as Mr Grieve has stated, the goal is for it to be embedded in university regulations and codes of conduct, including those targeting so-called “micro-aggressions.” The implication is clear: students and faculty could face formal penalties for statements deemed critical of Islam—even if made in good faith, or as part of theological discourse¹.

This is not conjecture. When the Labour Party adopted a similar definition in 2018, it was used to suspend Sir Trevor Phillips—one of the UK’s most prominent race equality advocates—for his candid comments about Islamist extremism and social integration².

Social Cohesion or Civic Division?
One of the central concerns voiced by parliamentarians and civil liberties groups is the definition’s likely impact on community cohesion. While intended to foster harmony, its implementation may achieve the opposite. By prioritising protections for Muslims alone—without extending similar recognition to Jews, Christians, Hindus, or others—the definition risks enshrining religious partiality into public policy.

In cities like Leicester, Birmingham, and Bradford, where religious and ethnic tensions have occasionally erupted into violence, such asymmetry could deepen mistrust between communities. Favouring one group above others in civic life erodes the principle of equal protection under the law—a cornerstone of British justice and a requirement of the Church’s own teaching on the dignity of all peoples³.

Freedom of Religion Includes the Freedom to Dissent
Catholic teaching upholds the freedom of religion—not merely the right to worship privately, but the liberty to speak and act in accordance with one’s beliefs. Evangelisation, public theology, and respectful critique of non-Christian belief systems are part of this freedom. Yet under vague speech codes shaped by a poorly defined notion of “Islamophobia,” even doctrinal truth claims may come under suspicion.

Consider this: Islam explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, His crucifixion, and His resurrection. For Christians, these are non-negotiable truths. But under some interpretations of “Islamophobia,” asserting such claims publicly could be labelled offensive or even hateful. The result is not interfaith understanding, but the silencing of conscience.

From Protection to Ideological Enforcement
The ambiguity of the term “Islamophobia” is at the heart of the problem. As defined by the All-Party Parliamentary Group in 2018, Islamophobia is “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”⁴. But what exactly constitutes “Muslimness”? Dress? Theology? Political views? Social customs? Without clarity, the definition becomes a tool for enforcing ideological conformity rather than protecting individuals from abuse.

Moreover, the attempt to classify criticism of Islam as a form of racism is conceptually flawed. Islam is not a race; it is a belief system with adherents from every ethnicity. To conflate critique of religious ideas with racial hatred is to commit a category error—and one with serious consequences for free inquiry and evangelisation.

The Path Forward: Precision Without Prejudice
The Catholic response must be both principled and prudent. Yes, we reject anti-Muslim hatred. Yes, we affirm the dignity of every person, regardless of faith. But we also insist that freedom of speech, religious debate, and theological truth must not be sacrificed in pursuit of an illusory harmony.

Rather than enshrining “Islamophobia” as a concept into public life, the government would do better to adopt the more accurate and morally defensible language of “anti-Muslim hatred.” This term, already reflected in British law, protects people—without shielding ideologies from scrutiny. It strikes a necessary balance between civil order and civic freedom.

Conclusion: The Cost of Silence Is Too High
Community cohesion is not built on suppression but on shared commitment to the common good. Catholic social teaching urges us to pursue truth in love, to defend human dignity, and to build societies rooted in justice and peace. But peace does not come from muzzling disagreement. It comes from mutual respect, reasoned dialogue, and fidelity to the truth.

If Labour’s definition of Islamophobia becomes the new norm in universities, government departments, and cultural institutions, it will not prevent division—it will deepen it. Catholics, and all who cherish freedom, must resist the temptation to exchange moral clarity for political quietude. 🔝

1. Letter to Dominic Grieve KC, 14 July 2025, p. 3.
2. Ibid., p. 4.
3. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, §§388–391.
4. All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, Islamophobia Defined (2018).

---

Misusing the Gravest Word: Why ‘Genocide’ Does Not Describe the War in Gaza

The distortion of legal language in pursuit of ideological narratives

Among the many tragedies of modern conflict is the loss not only of human life but of truth. In recent months, the accusation that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza has become a rallying cry for student protestors, political activists, and even international bodies. Yet the claim, emotionally resonant as it may be, is factually and legally unfounded. Indeed, its propagation risks trivialising the very concept of genocide itself.

What Genocide Means—And What It Doesn’t
The term genocide was codified in international law by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. According to Article II of the Convention, genocide refers to acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” These acts include:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
• Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction;
• Imposing measures to prevent births;
• Forcibly transferring children to another group¹.

What distinguishes genocide from other forms of warfare or mass atrocity is the intent to destroy a group as such. It is not enough that people die in large numbers—however grievous their deaths may be. Civilian casualties in war, though horrific, do not meet the threshold of genocide unless accompanied by proof of targeted extermination with intent.

The Population of Gaza: What the Numbers Actually Show
Contrary to the genocide accusation, the population of Gaza has not decreased. Quite the opposite. According to the CIA World Factbook and UN OCHA, Gaza’s population stood at around 2.2 million in late 2023, one of the densest populations per square kilometre in the world². Despite the tragic loss of life since October 7, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, widely cited by international agencies, has not recorded a net population decline³. Birth rates remain high—among the highest in the world—and international food and medical aid continues to be delivered via Egypt and other partners.

While any civilian death is grievous, and Israel has faced legitimate criticism for its conduct in some operations, the facts do not support the charge of a systematic attempt to destroy the Palestinian people. If such an attempt were being made, it would be unprecedentedly ineffective: more Palestinians are alive today than before the war began⁴.

Ideological Activism and the Erosion of Legal Truth
The selective and inflated use of the term genocide is not merely an error—it is a tactic. Activists use the word to shut down debate, delegitimise Israel’s right to self-defence, and cast their cause in the moral light of the post-Holocaust consensus. But this rhetorical move collapses when examined alongside the behaviour of the so-called “liberated” Palestinian authorities.

The dominant faction in Gaza, Hamas, has openly called for the annihilation of the State of Israel and the Jewish people⁵. It routinely uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes, places weapons in hospitals and schools, and exploits its own population as human shields. And it governs a society in which the freedoms student activists in the West take for granted—free speech, sexual liberty, religious diversity—would be met with censorship, violence, or worse.

The Tragedy and the Truth
There is no doubt that Gaza is suffering. War always brings ruin, especially when waged in dense civilian areas. But suffering, even on a large scale, does not itself prove genocide. To claim otherwise is to misuse international law for political theatre, and to dishonour those who have died in real genocides—from Armenia and the Holocaust to Rwanda and the Yazidis of Iraq.

Language matters. If every war becomes “genocide,” the term loses meaning. Worse still, justice itself becomes a game of slogans rather than a pursuit of truth. The people of Gaza—and of Israel—deserve better than that. 🔝

¹ Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, Article II.
² CIA World Factbook, “Gaza Strip” (2023 edition); UN OCHA Humanitarian Situation Reports (October 2023–March 2024).
³ Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, “Estimated Population in Palestine Mid-Year by Governorate, 2023.”
⁴ World Bank Gaza Macro Poverty Outlook, 2024; UN OCHA Gaza Emergency Updates, January–June 2024.
⁵ Hamas Covenant, 1988 and updated Charter 2017; numerous statements by senior Hamas officials calling for the destruction of Israel.

---

The Cancelled Interview: Fr Nicola Bux, the Traditional Liturgy, and the Vatican’s Hidden Survey

On July 11, 2025, the influential Italian blog Messa in Latino was abruptly taken offline by Google’s Blogger.com platform. The removal occurred mere hours after the site published a high-profile interview with Fr Nicola Bux, the renowned liturgist and former consulter to several Roman Congregations under Pope Benedict XVI. No specific reason was given for the removal, but sources close to Messa in Latino confirmed that the takedown followed a complaint lodged with the platform. The timing and target suggest that censorship—possibly ideologically motivated—was at play.

The full interview has since resurfaced on Fede e Cultura and was republished in English by Edward Pentin on his Substack the day of the takedown. In it, Fr Bux offers a searing critique of postconciliar liturgical reform, denounces the ideological suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), and appeals directly to Pope Leo XIV to restore liturgical peace in the Church by lifting the restrictions imposed under Traditionis Custodes.

A forgotten report, a forbidden liturgy
Central to Fr Bux’s remarks is his new book—La Liturgia non è uno spettacolo (“The Liturgy is Not a Show”), co-authored with Severino Gaeta—which contains extensive commentary on the Vatican’s confidential 2020 survey of the world’s bishops. The Vatican claimed that survey provided the evidentiary basis for Pope Francis’s July 16, 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which severely curtailed the use of the ancient Roman Rite.

However, as journalist Diane Montagna revealed in a bombshell July 1, 2025 exposé, the survey results directly contradicted the official narrative. The majority of bishops reportedly expressed concerns that restricting the Traditional Latin Mass would “do more harm than good,” and advised preserving the liberalization granted under Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum (2007)¹. The Vatican, when pressed, claimed that “other confidential reports” informed the decision to restrict the TLM—but has offered no transparency or explanation since.

Fr Bux calls the suppression not only unjustified, but dishonest: “Those who conceived Traditionis Custodes and its annexes didn’t practice synodality. Not only that, they falsified the synodality manifested by the bishops in their responses to the questionnaire”².

The liturgy as battlefield: a return to the rights of God
Describing the liturgy today as a “battlefield,” Fr Bux identifies the gravest mistake of the postconciliar reform as its anthropocentric turn. Rather than orienting worship toward the majesty of God, he argues, the reform placed undue emphasis on the “right” of the people to participate—a right understood not theologically, but democratically and emotively. This inversion, he warns, “transformed the sacred liturgy into a public ceremony, subject to display, spectacle, or entertainment—what in America is called ‘litur-tainment’”³.

The solution, according to Fr Bux, lies in a return to obedience—not merely to ecclesiastical authority, but to the authority of the liturgy itself, which comes from above and is not “at our disposal.” He calls for the long-sought but never implemented codice liturgico—a liturgical code with canonical penalties for abuse—to restore order and unity. He criticizes both sides of the current conflict: “Those who advocate deformations in the Novus Ordo are not without sin, but neither are those of the Vetus Ordo proponents who do not adhere to the latest edition of the Roman Missal of 1962”⁴.

The Real Presence and the stewed Mass
Fr Bux also warns of a collapse in belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist—an erosion hastened by desacralized rites and irreverent practices. He sees a “widespread reduction of the Sacrament—Most Holy—to a convivial symbol or common food,” rather than the “medicine of immortality” to be adored before being consumed⁵.

He further criticizes what he calls the “Messa spezzatino” (“stewed Mass”)—a result of symbolic and linguistic fragmentation in the reformed liturgy. The key to recovery, he argues, is a reorientation—literally. He calls for priests to return to facing ad orientem at least from the Offertory to Communion, recovering the “cosmic and eschatological dimension” of divine worship. This, he contends, is more important than even the use of Latin—though he affirms that Latin remains essential to the sacred atmosphere of the Roman Rite⁶.

Francis, Leo, and the liturgical horizon
When asked about the motives behind Traditionis Custodes, Fr Bux is candid and sharp. He sees Pope Francis as suffering from an “ideological prejudice” and perhaps even a “psychiatric problem,” quoting unnamed sources from Buenos Aires who reportedly understand his mentality⁷. He describes Francis’s decision-making style as one where “his will was law,” and laments the presence of sycophantic “courtiers” rather than true collaborators.

In contrast, he expresses hope in Pope Leo XIV, praising what he perceives to be the new pope’s broader vision of ecclesial diversity. “The Church is circumdata varietate—surrounded by variety,” Bux says, noting that multiple liturgical rites coexist in the Church by the will of the Holy Spirit. A true exercise of papal authority, he argues, is not uniformity but “synthesizing charisms for the Church’s mission”⁸.

To fears that restoring the Traditional Mass would undermine the Pope’s authority, Bux responds with the principle of Gamaliel from Acts 5: “If it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it.” He urges the Church to discern whether the survival—and resurgence—of the ancient Rite over sixty years might in fact be providential⁹.

A call for reform and repentance
Fr Bux concludes with a call for a mea culpa from those who falsely invoked synodality while suppressing the very consensus it revealed. He urges a gradual return to the freedoms granted under Summorum Pontificum, arguing that only such a move can bring about genuine “liturgical peace.”

At a time when ideological suppression masquerades as unity, and digital censorship seeks to silence theological dissent, Fr Bux’s voice is both clarifying and prophetic. That his interview was taken down without warning only underscores the truth of his most urgent claim: that the crisis in the Church is not merely liturgical, but moral and spiritual—and that healing begins with truth, reverence, and fidelity to what the Church has always known to be sacred. 🔝

¹ Diane Montagna, “The Vatican’s Hidden Survey: What the Bishops Really Said,” July 1, 2025.
² Fr Nicola Bux, interview with Messa in Latino, July 11, 2025, republished via Fede e Cultura.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ Ibid.
⁹ Acts 5:38–39; cf. interview remarks.

---

The Humiliated and the Hidden: Archbishop of Selsey Issues Pastoral Letter to Clergy

A call to persevere in humility and fidelity
On 16 July 2025, the Feast of Saint Alexius, the Titular Archbishop of Selsey and Primus of the Old Roman Apostolate issued a deeply personal and theologically weighty pastoral letter to his clergy, entitled Humiliati et Absconditi—”The Humiliated and the Hidden.” The letter reflects on the model of Saint Alexius, the Roman nobleman who chose a life of obscurity and humiliation for the sake of Christ, and draws parallels with the trials faced by clergy today who remain faithful to the perennial Tradition of the Church.

Faithfulness amid rejection

In the letter, the Archbishop acknowledges the experience of marginalisation that many clergy suffer today, both from the world and within the visible structures of the Church. He writes, “You bear the ancient rite, the unbroken faith, and the sacred tradition of the ages, yet are treated as if you are irrelevant relics or even rebellious interlopers.” Yet far from discouragement, the Archbishop interprets this humiliation as a sign of authentic conformity to Christ: “This humiliation is not your shame—it is your crown.” Echoing the spiritual logic of the Cross, the letter calls priests to understand their hiddenness not as failure but as purification and union with the Crucified.

A challenge to the narrowness of institutionalism
Addressing the early pontificate of Pope Leo XIV, the Archbishop writes candidly that “it now seems increasingly clear that [he] will not be the restorer of the Church’s integrity nor the repairer of her fractured internal communion.” While this marks a sobering recognition, it does not lead to resignation but to renewed clarity. “We were never promised institutional approval,” the Archbishop insists, “but fidelity.”

The letter then invokes a striking scriptural analogy, recalling the episode in which the Apostle John attempts to forbid a man casting out demons in Jesus’ name. “Forbid him not,” replies the Lord, “for there is no man that doth a miracle in My name, and can soon speak ill of Me. For he that is not against you is for you” (Mark 9:39–40). The Archbishop comments that Christ “did not legitimise schism or self-will, but… rebuked the spirit of narrowness that sees fidelity only where approval is granted.” The implication is that the Apostolate’s irregular status does not equate to disobedience, so long as it remains entirely devoted to the Faith handed down and the honour of Christ’s name.

Patristic and spiritual foundation
Rich in references to the Church Fathers, scholastic theology, and classic works of priestly spirituality, the letter situates its exhortations within the deepest strata of Catholic tradition. Citations include Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas, as well as more recent spiritual authors such as Thomas à Kempis, Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard, and Archbishop Fulton Sheen. In one memorable passage, Sheen is quoted: “The priest is not his own. He is not here to shine, but to burn.”¹

The letter makes clear that such burning may be quiet, unseen, and at times painful—but is no less priestly or fruitful. Chautard’s Soul of the Apostolate is invoked to stress that outward success is empty without a profound inner life, and that “the interior life is the safeguard of every apostolate.”²

Spiritual fatherhood and fraternity
In a pastoral moment of particular tenderness, the Archbishop reflects on the constraints of modern ministry, acknowledging that he may not always be as present to his clergy as they would wish. Yet he assures them of his daily prayers and urges them to reach out to him—“and I will do all in my power to make time for you.” He also encourages mutual support among clergy and calls them to draw upon the wisdom and charity of the bishops of the Apostolate, reminding them that their communion is not merely a matter of governance, but spiritual and fraternal.

A letter for this hour
Humiliati et Absconditi is not a rallying cry to defiance, nor a lament over institutional marginalisation. It is a summons to a deeper priestly identity—one purified by the Cross, strengthened in obscurity, and marked by supernatural hope. In invoking Saint Alexius as the icon of hidden holiness, the Archbishop of Selsey speaks not only to his own clergy, but to any priest or religious who labours in isolation, misunderstood or unrecognised by ecclesiastical authorities, yet resolved to remain faithful to Christ, His Tradition, and His people.

In doing so, the Archbishop articulates with clarity what many faithful have long perceived in practice: that in this time of ecclesial confusion, God is working through humiliation and hiddenness to preserve the witness of His unchanging truth. 🔝

¹ Fulton J. Sheen, The Priest Is Not His Own, Ch. 1.
² Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard, The Soul of the Apostolate, Introduction.

---

When Compassion Becomes Cowardice: Crime, Migration, and the Crisis of Moral Clarity in Britain and Europe

The migration crisis gripping Britain and much of Europe is no longer merely a matter of borders and boats. It is a crisis of civilisational confidence—a confrontation between the inherited moral order of Christian Europe and an imported set of values, behaviours, and loyalties that too often prove incompatible. At the heart of this crisis lies not only demographic transformation but a cultural, legal, and spiritual abdication. The failure to name and address the reality of criminal patterns and cultural conflict among migrant populations, particularly those arriving illegally or under asylum provisions, is no longer merely a failure of policy. It is a failure of moral will.

In Poland, bishops have issued stark warnings of the “Islamisation of Europe,” accusing their own government of endangering national identity and public safety through mass immigration. Bishop Antoni Długosz described Poland’s liberal government as “political gangsters” complicit in a European-wide trajectory that began with border leniency and ended with cultural dissolution¹. He and others recalled the Western European experience: mass migration followed by rising crime, collapsing public trust, and official paralysis. “What we are witnessing now in Poland is only the beginning,” he warned. Bishop Wiesław Mering echoed these fears, stating that Poland’s borders and national identity are under attack. Fr Tadeusz Rydzyk, founder of Radio Maryja, linked the erosion of religious education and Christian values to what he called the deliberate twin impositions of “Islamisation and genderisation”².

In Britain, senior Anglican bishops, joined by Muslim and Jewish leaders, have called on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to moderate his rhetoric around migration. Alarmed by his use of phrases like “island of strangers,” they warned that such language may stoke division and alienation. They urge instead a narrative of compassion and inclusion, framing immigration not as a threat but as an opportunity for moral witness and community renewal³.

Yet beneath this appeal to charity lies an increasingly undeniable reality: the majority of asylum seekers and illegal entrants into Britain today are from Muslim-majority countries. In the first half of 2025 alone, over 20,000 small-boat arrivals were recorded, with Afghans making up 16%—the largest single group⁴. They are followed by large numbers of Iranians, Iraqis, Eritreans, Sudanese, and Syrians. All of these countries are predominantly Islamic in population and culture. While the UK does not officially record the religion of asylum applicants, data from the Home Office, UNHCR, and the Migration Observatory confirms that Islam is the de facto majority religion among illegal and asylum-based entrants into the UK⁵.

The cost of this influx to the British taxpayer is enormous—and growing. According to the Home Office’s own figures, the asylum system now costs the UK over £4.3 billion per year, with over £8 million spent daily on hotel accommodation alone⁶. As of mid-2025, more than 55,000 asylum seekers are housed in hotels, often in towns already struggling with stretched services and economic decline. These costs do not include the hundreds of millions allocated to legal aid, appeals, medical services, welfare, schooling, and local council grants to support those with pending claims⁷.

Moreover, the cost of foreign national offenders is significant. As of 2024, over 12% of the UK’s prison population is foreign-born, many of them from the same national groups arriving illegally⁸. The annual cost of housing a single prisoner is estimated at £48,000, meaning the total cost of incarcerating foreign offenders now exceeds half a billion pounds per year⁹. These figures do not account for the social costs of policing, probation services, or support for victims of migrant-linked crimes.

It is important to state clearly: many asylum seekers are not criminals. But the criminality of a disproportionate subset—and the state’s unwillingness to deport them—imposes a burden not only of money, but of morale. Law-abiding citizens are forced to finance, accommodate, and often live alongside those whose presence in the country is illegal, whose conduct is destructive, and whose values clash with the social norms of a Christian society.

Meanwhile, the British state removes only 4% of small-boat arrivals¹⁰. The rest remain, often indefinitely, adding to a legal and welfare backlog that has overwhelmed immigration tribunals and local councils. Each failed removal represents a failure of political courage, and each successful criminal prosecution, a failure of immigration screening. At every stage, the price is paid not by the government but by the ordinary taxpayer—and most painfully, by the victims of avoidable crimes.

Perhaps nowhere has the British failure of moral courage been more tragically revealed than in the saga of the Pakistani grooming gangs. In towns like Rotherham, Rochdale, and Telford, networks of predominantly Pakistani Muslim men exploited thousands of vulnerable British girls, mostly white and working-class, many in care. These so-called “grooming gangs” were allowed to operate with impunity for years because local authorities feared the racial and religious optics of pursuing them. The 2014 Jay Report revealed over 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone between 1997 and 2013¹¹. The crimes were not isolated but systemic. The cost in human suffering is immeasurable. The cost to public trust in institutions—police, councils, churches—is incalculable.

Today, similar patterns of avoidance and appeasement continue. Despite the lack of crime statistics broken down by religion or immigration status, Freedom of Information requests and independent studies reveal alarming trends. Afghans and Eritreans are over twenty times more likely than native Britons to be convicted of sexual offences¹². Albanians feature disproportionately in gang crime, drug trafficking, and human exploitation networks¹³. These are not merely statistical anomalies. They represent a failure of political seriousness and cultural discernment.

Europe, and Britain in particular, is caught between compassion and cowardice. Compassion, rightly understood, is the duty to seek justice for the weak and the stranger alike. Cowardice is the refusal to act when compassion demands confrontation—when safeguarding requires judgement and truth.

The Church must rediscover its voice. Bishops must be willing to speak not only of inclusion but of limits, not only of hospitality but of prudence. Silence, when crimes multiply and taxpayers weep beneath the burden, is complicity. What the Polish bishops have said plainly must now be said from every pulpit in the West: immigration without discernment is not mercy. It is moral suicide. 🔝

¹ LifeSiteNews, “Polish bishop warns of ‘Islamisation of Europe’ as he denounces open borders,” July 17, 2025.
² Radio Maryja, Homily of Fr Tadeusz Rydzyk at Jasna Góra, July 2025.
³ The Guardian, “Senior faith leaders urge Starmer to tone down migration rhetoric,” May 16, 2025.
⁴ Home Office, Immigration Statistics – Year Ending March 2025, Table Irr_01.
⁵ Migration Observatory, “People Crossing the English Channel in Small Boats,” 2025 briefing.
⁶ Home Office Annual Report, 2024–2025; BBC, “UK spends £8m a day housing migrants in hotels,” March 2025.
⁷ National Audit Office, “Support for Asylum Seekers,” 2024; House of Commons Library, “Asylum support: Accommodation and costs,” March 2025.
⁸ Ministry of Justice, Prison Population Statistics, March 2024; UK Parliament Research Briefing CBP-9050.
⁹ Ibid.; UK Prison Reform Trust, “Costs of Incarceration,” 2024.
¹⁰ Home Office Returns Dataset, March 2025.
¹¹ Alexis Jay, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997–2013), August 2014.
¹² Freedom of Information data summarised by Migration Watch UK and ONS release under FOI request 2024-163.
¹³ National Crime Agency, “Albanian Organised Criminal Networks in the UK,” Strategic Assessment, 2024.

---

UK Government to Lower Voting Age to 16 Ahead of Next General Election

In a landmark move set to reshape British democracy, the Labour government has announced that 16- and 17-year-olds will be granted the right to vote in general elections, with legislation expected to take effect before the next national poll, due by 2029. The reform fulfills a key manifesto promise from Prime Minister Keir Starmer and marks the most significant expansion of the UK franchise since 1969, when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18¹.

The policy brings England and Northern Ireland into line with Scotland and Wales, where 16-year-olds already vote in devolved and local elections. Ministers argue that the extension is both fair and overdue. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the measure would “restore trust in democracy” by empowering young people who already work, pay taxes, and contribute to society². The government also points to international precedent, highlighting the experience of Austria, Argentina, and Germany, where lowering the voting age has not undermined electoral stability and may in fact have strengthened democratic engagement³.

Supporters of the policy hope that early enfranchisement will foster a greater sense of civic responsibility among young adults. Academic studies suggest that 16- and 17-year-olds often vote at higher rates than older first-time voters and are more likely to form lasting civic habits if included earlier in political life⁴. Christine Huebner, writing in The Guardian, notes that “when given the right tools and support, younger voters have demonstrated high levels of political maturity and motivation”⁵. The underlying idea is that by being treated as responsible citizens, teenagers will rise to meet the expectations placed upon them.

Whether this sense of responsibility might extend into family life is a deeper and more uncertain question. Advocates for the change often speak of contribution and agency, but a society that affirms teenagers as old enough to vote, yet continues to delay or inhibit their ability to marry, work in stable vocations, or form households, sends a conflicted message. The policy could be a step toward rebuilding a culture of early responsibility—but only if paired with reforms that promote marriage, accessible housing, and dignified employment. Without this wider support, the danger remains that enfranchisement becomes a symbolic gesture, burdening the young with adult obligations while denying them the rights and supports necessary to embrace adult life fully.

Alongside the age reform, the government is introducing broader changes to the electoral system. These include expanding the range of acceptable voter identification—such as bank cards and digital IDs—streamlining the registration process through automation, and introducing enhanced protections against foreign interference and campaign harassment. New measures will impose fines of up to £500,000 on individuals or organizations found violating campaign finance or transparency laws⁶.

Nevertheless, the decision has provoked criticism, particularly from Conservative politicians and right-leaning commentators. They argue that the move is politically motivated, pointing out that younger voters tend to support left-wing parties. Some have also highlighted the perceived inconsistency of allowing 16-year-olds to vote while maintaining age restrictions on activities such as alcohol consumption, tobacco use, and certain forms of military service⁷.

Nigel Farage, speaking on GB News, condemned the change as a cynical attempt to tilt future elections. Others have raised concerns that the measure further undermines the notion of adulthood as a coherent legal and moral threshold, fragmenting the concept into piecemeal privileges granted by political fiat⁸.

The legislation will require full passage through Parliament, but given Labour’s current majority, its approval is all but certain. If enacted as planned, the policy will add over 1.6 million young people to the electoral roll in time for the next general election⁹.

Whether the reform will inspire greater political engagement or merely accelerate existing generational divides remains to be seen. For now, it signals a decisive shift in the British political landscape—one that assumes the voice of the young is not only valid, but vital. 🔝

¹ The Guardian, “Voting age to be lowered to 16 across UK by next general election,” 17 July 2025.
² UK Government Press Release, “16-year-olds to be given right to vote through seismic government election reforms,” 17 July 2025.
³ AP News, “Britain will lower its voting age to 16 in a bid to strengthen democracy,” 17 July 2025.
⁴ Markus Wagner, “Lowering the Voting Age to 16: Does It Lead to Higher Turnout?” Electoral Studies, 2012.
⁵ Christine Huebner, The Guardian, “What happens when 16-year-olds get the vote?”, 17 July 2025.
⁶ Gov.uk, “Seismic government election reforms,” 17 July 2025.
⁷ The Times, “General election vote to be given to 16-year-olds,” 17 July 2025.
⁸ Nigel Farage, interview on GB News, 17 July 2025.
⁹ The Guardian, op. cit.

---

---

COMMENT

---

The Arancel System and the Mission of the Church: A Traditional Catholic Reflection on the Philippine Debate

The call to abolish the “arancel system” in the Philippine Church—where fixed fees are charged for sacraments and spiritual services—has gathered renewed urgency. Bishop Patrick Daniel Parcon of Talibon has drawn attention to the heartbreaking case of a widow unable to provide a funeral Mass for her husband because she lacked the means to pay for it. Such moments expose the scandal of a sacramental economy that appears to operate on a principle contrary to the Gospel: that grace has a price tag.

But this is not merely a pastoral problem; it is a theological and ecclesiological crisis. It strikes at the heart of what the Church is, and whom she is for.

The Right of the Baptized to the Sacraments
According to Canon 843 §1 of the Codex Iuris Canonici, “Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.” The faithful—especially the poor—have a right to the sacraments. This is not a favour the clergy bestow in exchange for payment; it is an obligation they owe by reason of their ordination and the Church’s divine constitution.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent is clear: the sacraments were instituted by Christ for the sanctification of souls, not as sources of revenue. While voluntary offerings and stipends have a venerable place in Catholic tradition, they must never become a condition for receiving grace. As the Decretum Gratiani reminds us, “The sacraments are not to be sold.” This is not only a matter of justice but of avoiding the grave sin of simony.

A Legacy of Poverty and Privilege
The Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (1991) rightly envisioned a “Church of the Poor,” echoing Our Lord’s Beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3). The Council noted that the Church must ensure that “those who cannot pay the usual stipends or stole fees because of poverty will not be deprived of the sacraments.” Yet, more than three decades later, the system remains entrenched.

Critics—justly—observe that this practice leads to functional inequality. The rich can access baptisms, funerals, and weddings in ornate settings; the poor are driven to forgo them, or settle for truncated rites without the full dignity owed to every soul. Some even cohabit in informal unions, deterred from entering sacramental marriage not by a lack of faith but by a lack of funds.

This fosters not only alienation but scandal. As Pope Francis has repeatedly warned, when the Church appears to side with wealth and power, she “ceases to be the Church of Jesus.” And yet, paradoxically, the very system which enables this appearance is justified in the name of financial sustainability.

The Guild of Holy Souls and the ORA Alternative
In stark contrast, the Old Roman Apostolate (ORA)—which includes missions in the Philippines, such as in Santa Rosa, Laguna—has long operated without the arancel system. Sacraments are never denied due to poverty. Clergy are sustained through voluntary offerings, local stewardship, and international support, reflecting a trust in Divine Providence and the generosity of the faithful. Importantly, the ORA demonstrates that traditional Catholicism and radical inclusion of the poor are not incompatible but mutually reinforcing.

Among its most notable initiatives is the Guild of Holy Souls, an apostolate founded under the ORA’s Titular Archbishop of Selsey. Its mission is to offer:

• Monthly Requiem Masses for the departed enrolled in the Guild;
• A permanent Chantry Book listing the names of the dead;
• Financial assistance for traditional funerals, ensuring that no soul is denied a holy burial due to material poverty;
• Promotion of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, especially through prayer and material support for grieving families.

This model demonstrates that it is possible to both maintain the beauty and integrity of the traditional Roman Rite and provide the sacraments free of financial coercion. Parishes under the ORA operate as true spiritual homes, not commercial services.

Theological Ironies and Sacramental Classism
What is particularly troubling is the persistence of hierarchical classifications of liturgical celebrations: “first-class” vs “ordinary” weddings, or “premium” funeral options. This betrays a consumerist model foreign to Catholic theology and dangerously close to ecclesial commodification.

The sacraments are not luxury goods to be upgraded by wealth; they are ordinary means of sanctification for all the faithful. As St. Leo the Great teaches, “What was visible in our Saviour has passed over into his sacraments.” To treat them as scalable services based on payment is to obscure their origin in Christ’s freely given passion.

Tradition and Trust: A Viable Way Forward
The abolition of the arancel system must not be seen as a utopian dream but as a return to apostolic and patristic norms. The ORA and the Guild of Holy Souls offer a tested alternative: a Church sustained by charity, not commerce. Pastors, in collaboration with faithful lay experts in finance and administration, can develop stewardship models based on tithing, voluntary almsgiving, and fundraising—without ever holding the sacraments hostage.

Such reform also provides a spiritual opportunity: to renew the Church’s witness to the poor, to foster lay responsibility, and to rediscover the Church’s true treasures—Christ, the Cross, and the sacraments—freely given to those who seek them in faith.

Conclusion: A Church of the Cross, Not of Commerce
The Cross was not purchased; it was embraced. The early Christians sold their possessions not to buy grace, but to make space for grace in the lives of others. That spirit must animate the Philippine Church’s reform.

To abolish stole fees is not merely a matter of economic justice. It is an act of fidelity—to Christ, to the poor, and to the sacramental mission of the Church. In doing so, the Church may rediscover not only her credibility, but her true strength: in serving without counting the cost.

If the Philippine Church is to be truly a Church of the Poor, it must follow the path already illuminated by those like the ORA and the Guild of Holy Souls: offering sacraments as spiritual necessities, not financial transactions. Therein lies the only true economy of grace. 🔝

1. ORA Mission Summary, Philippines. https://selsey.org/ministry/
2. Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), canon 843 §1.
3. Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, On the Sacraments.
4. Gratian’s Decretum, Causa 1, Q.1, c.1.
5. Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (1991), Final Document, §§123, 128.
6. Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis, §198.
7. St. Leo the Great, Sermon 74: On the Ascension.
8. “The Guild of the Holy Souls,” Old Roman Apostolate, Selsey. https://selsey.org/2022/11/21/guild-of-holy-souls/

---

Credo and Non Credo: Why Catholicism Builds and Protestantism Reacts

There is a wry but revealing observation, coined by the Archbishop of Selsey, that captures a profound truth about the contrast between Catholicism and Protestantism:

“The Catholic Church is proscriptive in what it affirms; Protestants are proscriptive in what they deny.”

In other words, Catholicism defines herself by the truths she proclaims, the mysteries she reveres, and the positive content of divine revelation she transmits through time. Protestantism, especially in its formative and more radical expressions, defines itself largely by rejection — of Rome, of hierarchy, of sacramentality, of Tradition.

The Catholic says:
Credo — “I believe…”
and proceeds to confess the fides quae creditur, the content of the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), handed down through Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, safeguarded by the Magisterium. The Protestant, by contrast, often begins from Non credo — not in the papacy, not in the Mass, not in Marian devotion, not in the Real Presence.

This contrast is not mere satire. It reflects a genuine theological and historical divergence in the structure of belief.

A Church That Builds
Catholicism is not static but organic; her doctrines develop, not through invention, but through a deepening understanding of the unchanging deposit of faith. This is expressed magisterially by the First Vatican Council:

“That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother Church, and there must never be a deviation from that meaning under the pretext or in the name of a deeper understanding.”¹

The development of doctrine, as St Vincent of Lérins affirms, is like the growth of a living body:

“It is necessary that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and progress strongly and mightily… but only in its own kind, namely, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same meaning.”²

Thus the Church’s affirmations are cumulative and integrative. Councils such as Nicaea, Chalcedon, and Trent clarified truths already believed and lived. Each solemn definition adds new expression to perennial faith — never reversing or abolishing what came before.

Even the Church’s anathemas are ultimately affirmative. To condemn Arianism is to affirm the full divinity of Christ; to reject Pelagianism is to proclaim the necessity of grace; to anathematise iconoclasm is to affirm the Incarnation’s implications for Christian art and worship.

A Movement That Protests
Protestantism, by contrast, was born in protest and largely remains defined by it. Luther did not set out to offer a new ecclesiology, but to repudiate existing authority. Calvin and Zwingli systematically stripped away the sacramental and ecclesial structure of the historic Church. Even where Protestant bodies retain creeds, those creeds were shaped as correctives to Catholic doctrine rather than expressions of continuity with it.

Where Catholicism affirms the whole Christ — the Head and His Body, the visible and the invisible, the spiritual and the sacramental — Protestantism, from its inception, tended toward theological subtraction: sola Scriptura, sola fide, and the rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchy.

It is telling that the Augsburg Confession, the foundational document of Lutheranism (1530), begins not with positive dogmatic proclamation, but with a declaration of compatibility with Catholic faith wherever possible — followed by a series of protestations and rejections. Its purpose was not to build something new but to distance itself from perceived Catholic errors.

The Instability of Denial
Protestantism’s negating impulse has not brought unity but fragmentation. As the Second Vatican Council noted:

“The rise of various Christian communities… resulted from the fact that in subsequent centuries more profound disagreements appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”³

Without a binding magisterium or living tradition, Protestantism has fractured into tens of thousands of denominations, each asserting their own interpretation of Scripture, and many defined by what they are not. As St. Irenaeus warned:

“Where the charismata of the Lord have been deposited, there it is necessary to seek the truth, namely, from those who preserve the succession of the Church from the apostles.”⁴

Catholic Affirmation and Cultural Fruitfulness
Catholicism’s positive structure — her “yes” to divine revelation in all its fullness — has given rise not only to coherent theology, but to the flourishing of Christian culture: liturgy, law, sacred art, religious life, education, philosophy, and social order.

The affirmation of sacramentality, especially, has preserved a robust incarnational faith. As Pope St Leo the Great famously taught:

“What was visible in our Savior has passed over into his mysteries [sacraments].”⁵

The Catholic worldview affirms both the spiritual and the material, the individual and the communal, the mystery and the rational. Protestantism, particularly in its iconoclastic and individualist forms, has often severed these vital connections — leading not only to doctrinal minimalism, but to a loss of the sense of the sacred.

Conclusion: A Satirical Truth with Theological Depth
The Archbishop of Selsey’s witticism may raise a smile, but it contains a deeper insight: a faith that builds upon Christ must do more than reject error — it must affirm the fullness of truth. Catholicism’s identity is not derived from opposition but from fidelity — a fidelity to the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church (1 Tim 6:20), preserved and proclaimed without diminution.

In a fragmented and disoriented age, the Catholic Church continues to say Credo, and in doing so, invites a weary world into the fullness of truth, sacramental life, and communion. 🔝

1. Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 4, §13.
2. St Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 23.
3. Unitatis Redintegratio, §3.
4. St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III.3.1.
5. St Leo the Great, Sermon 74: On the Ascension, PL 54, 398.

---

Blood, Brotherhood, and the Collapse of Formation: The Yeti Ritual and the Crisis of Contemporary Seminaries

The recent scandal at Denver’s St. John Vianney Seminary—now grimly nicknamed the “yeti blood oath” incident—offers a surreal yet revealing window into the collapse of priestly formation in the postconciliar Catholic Church. On the surface, it seems absurd: seminarians blindfolded, doused with fake bear blood, and urged to scream into the Colorado night, all under the direction of a vice rector and a man in a yeti costume. But beneath the absurdity lies a deeper tragedy: the replacement of sacred formation with therapeutic theatrics, bureaucratic euphemisms, and spiritual confusion.

Ritualism Without Reverence
According to a detailed report by The Pillar, the December 2023 event was organized as part of a seminary ski retreat. Video evidence reveals seminarians being led through a mock initiation involving bloodied rags, duct tape, a dagger, and ritualized gestures of “brotherhood.” While the Archdiocese of Denver insists it was “a farce,” the presence of the diocesan exorcist, called in afterward “out of an abundance of caution,” speaks volumes¹.

Even more concerning is the documented retaliation against at least one seminarian who refused to participate. He was placed on a so-called “human year”—a newly coined euphemism for a suspension from seminary life, justified as time to “re-examine one’s humanity.” In reality, it was a clear disciplinary signal: dissent from institutional absurdity, and your conscience will be punished².

The Theatrics of Postconciliar Formation
While defenders of the retreat described the ritual as nothing more than a joke or bonding exercise, this scandal cannot be brushed aside so easily. Traditionalist observers have rightly pointed out that such theatrics are the natural consequence of formation divorced from asceticism, doctrine, and sacred liturgy. As Dr. Peter Kwasniewski remarked in a recent interview, “You cannot form men to be priests of the Most High God by clericalizing banality and masking disorder with sentimentality. Men need beauty, clarity, sacrifice—not therapy and trust falls.”³

The post-Vatican II model of formation increasingly emphasizes psychological development, emotional transparency, and pastoral flexibility, often to the detriment of doctrinal clarity and liturgical discipline. The result, as the Denver scandal shows, is a system where young men are no longer being configured to Christ the High Priest but are instead formed to become institutionally adaptable functionaries—sacramental social workers, not spiritual fathers.

A System That Protects Itself
The administrative response to the incident is as revealing as the event itself. Fr. John Nepil, the vice rector who facilitated the ritual, remained on faculty after the incident. His apology focused on his own emotional distress at being “misunderstood,” despite video evidence of his active involvement⁴. Meanwhile, the seminarian who refused to participate was quietly removed from formation. The message is unmistakable: preserving appearances matters more than upholding integrity.

This is not new. Traditional seminaries and clergy have long warned of a culture in diocesan formation that privileges institutional loyalty over fidelity to Christ. Seminarians who question liturgical abuse, challenge doctrinal ambiguity, or express reverence for the Traditional Latin Mass often find themselves labeled “rigid,” “immature,” or “pastorally unfit.” The yeti ritual merely made visible what has long been hidden: a formation culture hostile to seriousness and allergic to the sacred.

Traditionalist Seminaries as a Counter-Witness
In the wake of this scandal, many faithful Catholics are turning their attention to traditional seminaries such as those run by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), the Institute of Christ the King (ICKSP), and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). These seminaries continue to emphasize the very elements discarded in much of the modern Church: spiritual discipline, Thomistic theology, traditional liturgy, daily Eucharistic adoration, and a spirit of sacrifice⁵.

At these institutions, “fraternity” is not constructed through cosplay initiation rites but through shared prayer, penance, and devotion. Silence, not screaming into the snow, is the foundation of spiritual brotherhood. As one FSSP seminarian recently wrote, “You don’t need fake blood to bind men together. You need the Precious Blood.”⁶

This is not mere nostalgia. It is a return to what works—what formed centuries of saints and martyrs. As vocations to traditional seminaries continue to grow, and mainstream seminaries struggle with both enrollment and credibility, it is increasingly clear that the traditional model of formation is not a liability but a remedy.

What the Yeti Revealed
Chris Jackson, writing with scathing precision in Hiraeth in Exile, concluded: “If you’re forming priests in a system that doesn’t believe in the sacred, they’ll eventually invent something to fill the void. Even if it involves a yeti.”⁷ This quip, while humorous, cuts to the heart of the matter. When the supernatural is evacuated from seminary life—when mystery is stripped from the liturgy, discipline from the moral life, and doctrine from the curriculum—something else rushes in to take its place. In Denver, it was parody. Elsewhere, it may be ideology, narcissism, or despair.

True seminary reform will not come through better HR protocols or rebranded emotional development plans. It will come through conversion—of rectors, bishops, and the Church herself—back to what the priesthood is: a sacrificial participation in the one Priesthood of Christ. This means rigorous prayer, authentic asceticism, theological precision, and above all, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered with reverence and awe.

Until that happens, no policy reform will suffice. No bishop’s apology will convince. No retreat will heal. The seminarian who walks into formation must be taught to walk toward Calvary, not toward a cabin in the woods where a man in a fur suit awaits him. 🔝

¹ Ed. Condon, “‘Yeti blood oath’ divides Denver seminary,” The Pillar, July 15, 2025.
² Ibid. One seminarian who declined to participate was placed on a “human year,” effectively suspending him from seminary formation.
³ Peter Kwasniewski, interview with Catholic Family News, June 2025.
⁴ Chris Jackson, “Knives, Bear Blood, and Yetis,” Hiraeth in Exile, July 16, 2025.
⁵ For a comparative study of traditional seminaries, see Fr. William Barker, FSSP, “The Spiritual and Intellectual Formation of the Priest,” Adoremus Bulletin, 2023.
⁶ Personal correspondence with seminarian, anonymized for publication, June 2025.
⁷ Chris Jackson, op. cit.

---

Confessions of a Revolutionary: How the LGBT Movement Destroyed What It Claimed to Defend

Andrew Sullivan now admits the LGBT movement has gone too far — but fails to see that its original premise was already a rejection of nature, morality, and God.

In a lengthy New York Times essay, Andrew Sullivan — one of the chief architects of the gay rights movement — laments what he sees as the betrayal of the original cause. What began as a campaign for “tolerance,” he argues, has morphed into an intolerant, ideological machine demanding uniformity of thought, compulsory speech, and the dismantling of biological sex. But for all his candour, Sullivan cannot admit the deeper truth: that the seeds of today’s gender radicalism were planted in the very soil he helped till.

From a traditional Catholic standpoint, the moral error was never merely the excesses of the LGBT movement, but its very foundation: the normalisation of disordered sexual proclivities as a basis for identity, rights, and civil law.

The Illusion of a Noble Beginning
Sullivan presents the homosexual cause as a once noble civil rights movement — focused on dignity, equality, and marriage. But this is historical revisionism. From the outset, the so-called “gay liberation” movement was not simply about freedom from unjust discrimination. It was a revolt against the natural moral law. It demanded the declassification of homosexual acts as sinful, the celebration of promiscuity, and ultimately, the decoupling of sexuality from procreation and marriage from its divine institution.

The campaign for same-sex “marriage” was never merely about “joining” an existing institution. It was about redefining it. Catholic doctrine teaches that marriage is the indissoluble union of one man and one woman ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the mutual sanctification of the spouses¹. Sullivan and others helped substitute a sterile parody of this — a legal fiction founded not on complementarity and life-giving love, but on emotional subjectivity and sexual autonomy.

Promiscuity, Frivolity, and the Public Good
Even in the so-called “moderate” gay movement, there was no serious call to virtue or chastity. The normalization of male-male relationships came with the normalization of sexual excess: casual hook-up culture, open relationships, pornography addiction, public displays of lewdness, and the commodification of the human body. The “Pride” festivals — now embedded in public life — are not celebrations of dignity but parades of vice.

Far from being a private matter, these lifestyles were promoted through media, education, and corporate branding. The result is not merely moral confusion, but social decay. Civil laws that once reflected moral truths now enshrine confusion. Children are taught in schools that they can “choose” their gender and that love has no form but desire.

Adoption and the Denial of Parenthood
Sullivan proudly points to gay men raising children, as if this were evidence of progress. But Catholic teaching insists that no adult has a right to a child. Children, however, have the right to a mother and a father². Same-sex adoption deprives a child of either maternal or paternal love and role modelling. It is a form of emotional and psychological colonisation. Worse, it is often used as a badge of bourgeois respectability to sanitise lifestyles that remain intrinsically disordered.

The consequences are real. Studies, including those suppressed or dismissed by ideological gatekeepers, show higher rates of mental health problems, identity confusion, and instability in children raised by same-sex couples³. To deny this is not compassion — it is cruelty.

Gender Ideology: Inevitable Outgrowth, Not Betrayal
Sullivan sees the current trans extremism as a betrayal of gay rights. But it is in fact its logical consequence. Once sexual identity is detached from biological sex and moral teleology, why should gender not also be fluid, subjective, and chosen? If the moral law is negotiable, and if bodies are mere instruments of the will, then there is no barrier to self-reinvention — even mutilation — in the name of “authenticity.”

The tragic irony is that this ideology now targets the same young people Sullivan once claimed to represent. As he admits, increasing numbers of children undergoing “transition” are same-sex attracted — and might otherwise have grown up to embrace a stable sexual identity. Instead, they are now medicalised, sterilised, and sometimes surgically altered before they even understand what sexuality is. The so-called cure for dysphoria becomes a form of gay eugenics. This is not progress; it is abuse.

From Civil Rights to Civil Collapse
Sullivan insists that “we won.” But if “victory” means collapsing public morality, redefining family, mutilating children, and provoking a just backlash, then such victory is pyrrhic indeed. Even Gallup now shows a decline in support for same-sex “marriage” and LGBT acceptance — not because of bigotry, but because of excess⁴. What was once sold as tolerance has revealed itself as totalitarianism.

Faithful Catholics warned this would happen. The moral law is not arbitrary. When a society redefines sin as identity and builds civil rights upon disordered desires, it will reap confusion, injustice, and collapse. The decline of marriage, the rise of fatherlessness, the erosion of moral formation, and the crisis in youth mental health are all intimately connected to this rebellion.

The Real Way Forward
Sullivan hopes for a “civil” return to liberalism, but liberalism untethered from truth cannot save us. What is needed is not accommodation, but repentance. Not moderation, but reparation.

The Church does not hate persons with same-sex attraction. She calls them to the same path of holiness, chastity, and salvation as all people. True dignity is found not in indulgence but in self-mastery. The Cross, not the rainbow, is the path to freedom.

The gay rights movement did not lose its way — it began on the wrong road. Andrew Sullivan’s essay is a revealing self-indictment. But the answer lies not in going back to 2015, but in going back to Christ. 🔝

¹ Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1601, §2335.
² Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2003.
³ See: Regnerus, M. “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships?” Social Science Research 41 (2012): 752–770.
⁴ Gallup Poll, “Support for Gay Marriage,” January 2025.

---

Brendan O’Neill on Post-Catholic Ireland: Immigration, Ideology, and the Collapse of Cultural Confidence

When a nation loses its religion, it does not become neutral. It becomes vulnerable.

This is the warning sounded by Brendan O’Neill in a July 2025 interview on The Winston Marshall Show, offering a withering analysis of Ireland’s rapid transformation—from a deeply Catholic country with a robust national identity to a hollowed-out society animated by guilt, inversion, and ideological submission. The faith of Patrick and Brigid has not been replaced with reason or restraint, but with a substitute religion of moral posturing.

Ireland’s Cultural Collapse
“There was a time when almost every Irish person went to Mass,” O’Neill reflects. “Catholicism was the architecture of life.”¹ But this architecture has crumbled. Since the 1970s, Ireland has plummeted from one of the most devoutly Catholic nations in Europe to one of the most militantly post-Christian. Weekly Mass attendance has collapsed from over 90% in 1973 to around 27% by 2020².

What replaced the old faith is not just secularism, but hostility. Irish elites now present Catholicism not merely as outdated, but as corrupt and oppressive—a past to be disavowed, erased, and replaced. Crucifixes vanish from classrooms; church buildings are converted; and children are catechised not into truth, but into shame.

“They’ve gone from worshipping the Holy Family to idolising moral transgression,” O’Neill remarks.³

Immigration Without Integration
O’Neill sees immigration policy as a key symptom of this cultural hollowing. He does not oppose immigration per se, but argues that Western societies—Ireland included—are welcoming newcomers into a moral vacuum.

“You can’t integrate people into a society that doesn’t believe in itself,” he says. “You can’t integrate people into a void.”⁴

In Catholic Ireland, immigrants were once invited into a shared moral universe: the sacraments, the saints, the spiritual language of daily life. In post-Catholic Ireland, the dominant narrative is one of national guilt and self-repudiation. The result is not integration, but fragmentation—parallel communities loosely held together by bureaucratic slogans about “diversity.”

Between 2016 and 2022, Ireland’s population increased by nearly 8%, driven primarily by immigration. Today, approximately 15% of Irish residents are foreign-born⁵. Yet rather than articulating a coherent moral or cultural framework for unity, the state retreats into platitudes—and anyone who asks whether Irish identity is being eroded is denounced as “far-right.”

Mary Lou McDonald and Leo Varadkar have both embraced expanded asylum quotas while dismissing public concern about cohesion. O’Neill identifies this as elite doublethink: borderless idealism at the top, confusion and resentment at the grassroots.

Elite Guilt and the Politics of Inversion
This crisis of integration stems from something deeper: a loss of moral self-understanding. According to O’Neill, Irish and British elites have absorbed a narrative in which Western civilisation is inherently wicked—tainted by whiteness, empire, and Christianity. History is something to apologise for, not inherit.

“The West is evil. The developing world is innocent,” he summarises. “That’s the moral order they now teach.”⁶

In Ireland, the effect is magnified by postcolonial mythology. The Irish once saw themselves as a proud, Christian nation overcoming oppression. Now they see themselves as permanently guilty—and align instinctively with any group labelled “oppressed,” even when the moral parallels are incoherent.

“Ireland sees itself in the Palestinians,” O’Neill notes. “Israel becomes the new Britain.”⁷

A Generation Catechised in Shame
The ideological shift has been deeply embedded in Irish education. In schools and universities, the Christian moral tradition has been replaced with a pedagogy of self-recrimination.

“They’re not being educated,” he says. “They’re being catechised into a religion of guilt.”⁸

Education Minister Norma Foley has advanced curricula focused on “global citizenship,” decolonisation, and diversity. But these are not neutral ideas. They function as dogma: a new orthodoxy that sanctifies victimhood, condemns tradition, and replaces national memory with ideological rituals. Students learn not to love Ireland, but to suspect it.

The Rise of Anti-Israel Sentiment
This new moral framework finds its most potent expression in Ireland’s growing hostility to Israel. Palestinian flags hang from Dublin City Hall. State-funded schools hold “solidarity days.” Parliament passes motions denouncing Israeli “genocide” while remaining silent on Hamas atrocities.

Ireland once had a notably pro-Israel political culture. In the early decades of statehood, Irish leaders saw in Zionism a reflection of their own struggle for independence. But that sympathy has been inverted. Today, Israel is cast as the villain of a global morality play. Mary Lou McDonald and Sinn Féin speak of Palestine with quasi-liturgical reverence; centrist leaders follow their lead for fear of being labelled reactionary.

“Ireland has a new religion,” O’Neill says. “Palestine is the crucified Christ. Israel is the new Rome.”⁹

Correcting the Narrative on Irish Antisemitism and Catholicism: From Blood Libel to Blood Libel

Progressives often claim that Catholic Ireland was quietly antisemitic, and that today’s anti-Israel consensus represents moral growth. O’Neill challenges this as a dangerous distortion.

He acknowledges that some Irish Catholics in past centuries believed in the medieval Blood Libel—the baseless myth that Jews murdered Christian children. “There was belief in the Blood Libel,” he says. “Let’s be honest about that.”¹⁰ But this was never Catholic doctrine. Antisemitism never embedded itself in Irish Catholic dogma as it did in continental Europe. Dublin’s Jewish community was never ghettoised or massacred. Robert Briscoe, an Orthodox Jew, was elected Lord Mayor in 1956.

More importantly, the Catholic Church explicitly condemned racial antisemitism. Pope Pius XI’s 1938 declaration—“Spiritually, we are all Semites”—was not merely rhetorical. Catholic theology upheld the spiritual dignity of the Jewish people and rejected racial hatred as heretical.

What O’Neill sees today is not a break with bigotry but its mutation. “The new left-wing Blood Libel,” he warns, “paints Israel as child killers, bloodthirsty monsters. It’s the same trope dressed in human rights language.”¹¹

Anti-Israelism: The New Theology of the State
For O’Neill, the Israel-Palestine obsession is not about foreign policy—it is a moral ritual. Palestine becomes the sacred victim; Israel the scapegoat. Schools, councils, and NGOs adopt the iconography. To dissent is heresy.

But unlike the Christian tradition it supplanted, this religion offers no forgiveness. It demands endless penance, but has no Redeemer.

“It’s a religion of permanent guilt,” he says. “But with no possibility of redemption.”¹²

A Civilisation That Forgets Will Not Survive
What Brendan O’Neill describes is not unique to Ireland, but Ireland’s story is among the most vivid. It is the story of a people who forgot who they were, and so could be told they were anything. When a nation abandons its faith, its history, and its confidence, it does not gain freedom. It gains fragility.

And in that fragility, it will believe anything—except the truth. 🔝

1. Brendan O’Neill, The Winston Marshall Show, YouTube, 12:20–13:10.
2. America Magazine, “The Catholic Church in Ireland is close to death,” Feb 15, 2024.
3. The Winston Marshall Show, 14:45–15:30.
4. Ibid., 21:10–22:00.
5. Central Statistics Office Ireland, Census 2022 summary.
6. The Winston Marshall Show, 25:10–26:20.
7. Ibid., 19:45–21:00.
8. Ibid., 28:30–29:00.
9. Ibid., 16:20–17:40.
10. Ibid., 32:10–32:30.
11. Ibid., 32:30–33:40.
12. Ibid., 33:45–34:00.

---

Erased for Believing: What the Smith Judgment Means for Me

How the misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty erased my voice—and why the courts now agree it was wrong
by The Titular Archbishop of Selsey, Dr Jerome Lloyd

As someone who has spent decades serving the common good in civic and interfaith life in Brighton and Hove, the recent Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police High Court judgment stirred something deeply personal in me. It affirmed a principle I’ve long held but which, until now, had no formal legal footing: public authorities have no right to exclude or marginalise individuals simply because of their legally protected beliefs.Subscribed

The ruling is a landmark for freedom of belief in Britain. Mr Justice Swift ruled that “public authorities must remain neutral as between competing political or moral positions”¹. This includes religious and philosophical convictions, even those that others might find uncomfortable. No public body has the right to punish a citizen for lawful, sincerely held beliefs.

This matters to me because in 2022, I was effectively excluded from civic representation in Brighton & Hove on precisely these grounds.

I had served as a long-standing community leader, having chaired both the Brighton and Hove Faith Council and Brighton and Hove Faith in Action (BHFA), a recognised partner in the city’s Third Sector Investment Programme (TSIP). In fact, I am the only individual to have chaired both organisations—roles to which I was elected by peers from across faith traditions, not political allies². I was also elected by the members of Community Works—the city’s umbrella network for voluntary and community sector organisations—to represent faith communities on their Representative Committee³.

The catalyst for my exclusion was my decision to sign, in late 2021, an open letter to the Government expressing concern about its proposed legislation on so-called “conversion therapy.” This term—ill-defined and ideologically loaded—was being used to describe a wide spectrum of activity, from coercive and abusive practices (which I wholeheartedly reject and condemn) to consensual pastoral conversations, prayer, or the teaching of biblical doctrine on sex and identity.

My concern, shared by many respected clergy and legal professionals, was that the proposed law could criminalise the freedom of individuals to seek help in living according to their faith and conscience⁴. The letter was co-signed by more than 2,500 clergy, rabbis, imams, and other religious leaders, representing a broad and diverse interfaith coalition united in their concern for freedom of belief and pastoral care⁵. I believed, and still do, that to forbid prayer, pastoral care, or spiritual counsel offered freely and without coercion would not only breach religious liberty but violate common sense and compassion. I signed the letter not as Chair of BHFA or the Faith Council, but as a Christian bishop acting in a personal and representative religious capacity.

Nonetheless, BHCC officers demanded meetings with BHFA trustees and expressed concern about my continued leadership. At those meetings, council officers not only criticised me personally but also made broader criticisms of mainstream religious doctrine—including the notion of sin. They cited the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) as justification for their concerns, implying that the presence of someone holding my views might place BHFA in breach of equality expectations. On that basis, they suggested that the organisation’s eligibility for TSIP funding might be subject to review if I remained in post⁶.

My fellow trustees, anxious about funding and reputational damage, began to feel the pressure. Though there was no formal allegation, vote of no confidence, or challenge to my elected standing, I stepped down as BHFA Chair to avoid causing division—citing health and time commitments. But the truth is, this was a courteous act in the face of real coercion⁷.

What followed was more disconcerting. Though I had been re-elected by Community Works’ membership as Faith Representative, the organisation refused to ratify or publicise my appointment. I was delisted, emails went unanswered, and I was excluded from all activities—without explanation, consultation, or even a conversation. At a private meeting, their then-CEO disclosed that an LGBT-identified faith group had raised objections to my views, and that CW was informally reviewing my position. That process was never explained, nor was I ever given an opportunity to respond. My removal was silent and total—an erasure⁸.

This case also draws attention to a broader and increasingly well-documented problem: the misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) by ideologically motivated activists embedded within public bodies. Originally designed to protect individuals from discrimination, the PSED is now often interpreted expansively and subjectively by equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) officers to suppress dissenting views—especially traditional religious or conservative beliefs. Critics have warned that the duty is being applied not with neutral procedural intent, but as a tool to enforce political conformity. This includes instances of compelled speech, censorship of alternative moral or philosophical positions, and the institutional marginalisation of those who dissent from prevailing ideologies concerning gender, sexuality, or race⁹. A Policy Exchange report specifically highlights how the PSED has been “instrumentalised” to sideline religious or conservative perspectives under the guise of inclusion¹⁰. It is a striking irony that a law meant to ensure equality is now being used to undermine pluralism and civic impartiality.

The Smith judgment has now made clear that public authorities and those acting on their behalf must not discriminate on the basis of lawfully protected beliefs. The High Court has affirmed that impartiality is not optional. In my case, BHCC acted improperly in pressuring BHFA trustees over my Christian views. Community Works, in turn, acted improperly in excluding me from the faith representative role to which I had been duly elected¹¹.

Unfortunately, the legal time limits to bring a formal claim under the Equality Act 2010 have now expired. Nevertheless, I have instructed legal counsel to write once again to Brighton & Hove City Council, Community Works, and BHFA requesting a public apology and formal acknowledgment of the wrongdoing I suffered. I do so not for personal vindication, but in the hope that future acts of exclusion and quiet discrimination may be prevented¹².

The Smith judgment has implications not only for local councils but for national government policy. The original consultation response to the proposed conversion therapy ban, like the behaviour of Brighton & Hove officials, seemed more responsive to activist pressure than to reasoned and representative religious voices¹³.

What happened in Brighton is not isolated. It reflects a broader trend in British public life: the narrowing of acceptable opinion under the guise of inclusion, and the ideological capture of civic institutions once committed to impartiality.

Faith representation, especially in a city like Brighton and Hove, should not mean conformity to a narrow ideological script. It should mean real diversity, robust dialogue, and equal dignity for people of all sincerely held beliefs.

The Smith ruling gives fresh hope that this may one day be true again.

It is now imperative that a proper and principled understanding of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) be restored and consistently applied across all institutions and public bodies. The PSED must not serve as a pretext for ideological enforcement, but as a genuine safeguard for fairness, impartiality, and lawful pluralism. Unless this corrective takes place, the Duty risks becoming an instrument of coercion rather than protection, accelerating the damaging and disruptive advance of harmful ideologies—particularly within schools, councils, and civic spaces—where genuine diversity of thought and belief ought to flourish. 🔝

Selsey Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

1. Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police, [2025] EWHC 1782 (Admin), para. 95.
2. “Concerning the Minister’s Consultation Response,” Selsey.org, 16 Sept 2023, https://selsey.org/2023/09/16/concerning-the-ministers-consultation-response/.
3. Community Works coordinates the faith sector and manages Brighton and Hove’s Third Sector Investment Programme (TSIP).
4. Ibid.
5. The open letter was submitted to Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, then Minister for Women and Equalities, by the Christian Legal Centre and a coalition of religious leaders.
6. Correspondence and trustee accounts confirm BHCC officials invoked the PSED during meetings with BHFA in early 2022.
7. “Concerning the Minister’s Consultation Response,” section: Unlawful discrimination in civic society?
8. Ibid., section: The erosion of civic neutrality.
9. See e.g. Joanna Williams, How Woke Won (2022), and recent EDI audits critiqued in The Critic, March 2023.
10. “Fair Equality or False Neutrality? The Misuse of the Public Sector Equality Duty”, Policy Exchange, 2020.
11. Smith, paras. 79–96; also Equal Treatment Bench Book (Judicial College), February 2021, on impartiality and freedom of belief.
12. The limitation period under the Equality Act 2010 is three months less one day from the last act of discrimination, subject to discretion of the Tribunal.
13. Selsey.org, ibid., final section reflecting on institutional neutrality and ideological capture.

---

---

🔝

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

🔝

---

Old Roman TV

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

🔝

---

Litany of St Joseph

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

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

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

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

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

---

🔝