Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time: Get Behind me, satan!

Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time (August 30, 2026)  

Jeremiah 20:7-9 · Psalm 63 · Romans 12:1-2 · Matthew 16:21-27

The readings today confront a tension every disciple eventually faces: God’s call is both a gift and a fire. It draws us close and it costs us something.

Jeremiah’s complaint is raw and honest. He feels deceived, overpowered, and mocked because the word he must speak is “violence and outrage.” He tries to quit—“I will speak in his name no more”—but he cannot. The word becomes “like fire burning in my heart, imprisoned in my bones.” He grows weary holding it in. This is not the language of a man who enjoys being a prophet. It is the language of someone who has been claimed. The vocation will not let him go, even when it brings derision.

Psalm 63 answers that weariness with thirst. “My soul is thirsting for you, O Lord my God.” The psalmist’s body and soul pine like parched earth. Yet the same psalm moves from longing to clinging: “My soul clings fast to you; your right hand upholds me.” Desire and dependence belong together. The God who kindles the fire also holds the one who burns.

Paul names the practical shape of this life: “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice… Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” Discipleship is not an idea we admire from a distance. It is the whole self—body, habits, judgments—placed on the altar. The world has its own logic of success, comfort, and self-preservation. The renewed mind learns to see what is “good and pleasing and perfect” according to God, not according to the age.

The Gospel makes the cost unmistakable. Jesus begins to speak of Jerusalem, suffering, death, and resurrection. Peter, who has just confessed him as Messiah, now rebukes him: “God forbid, Lord!” Jesus’ reply is severe: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Then he turns to all the disciples: whoever wishes to follow must deny himself, take up his cross, and lose his life in order to find it. The one who tries to save his life on his own terms will lose it. The Son of Man will come in glory and repay each according to his conduct.

Peter’s mistake is not lack of love. It is thinking in merely human terms. He wants a Messiah without the cross. We do the same whenever we want faith without conversion, worship without sacrifice, or discipleship that never collides with the world’s measure of success. Jesus does not soften the demand. He places the cross at the center of following him and then promises that losing life for his sake is the way it is found.

These readings belong together. Jeremiah’s inner fire is the same fire that will not let us remain silent or comfortable. Paul’s living sacrifice is the daily form of taking up the cross. The psalm’s thirst is what keeps us clinging when the cost feels too high. And Jesus’ words to Peter are spoken to us whenever we prefer our own plans to God’s.

The invitation this Sunday is not first to admire the saints or the prophets. It is to ask, honestly: Where am I still thinking as human beings do? What part of my life am I still trying to save on my own terms? The fire in the bones, the living sacrifice, and the cross are not punishments. They are the way the Lord claims us, transforms us, and leads us to the life that cannot be lost.

Science This Week: From a Star Skimming a Black Hole to Plastic That Becomes Engine Oil

Science This Week: From a Star Skimming a Black Hole to Plastic That Becomes Engine Oil

Science does not pause for weekends. In late August 2026, researchers reported findings that stretch from the center of the Milky Way to the iron-rich rocks of Western Australia, and from the aging of family dogs to the stubborn problem of PVC waste. Taken together, they are a reminder that discovery is not a single headline. It is a pile of careful measurements that quietly rewrite what we thought we knew.

Here are six recent results worth sitting with.

 A star that races around the Milky Way’s black hole

Astronomers have identified S301, the closest and fastest star yet seen orbiting Sagittarius A, the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. It completes an orbit in about 8.7 years and, at closest approach, reaches roughly 25,000 kilometers per second — about 8.5 percent of the speed of light. That tight path is more than a curiosity. Over the next decade, it may let scientists measure the black hole’s spin directly, a quantity that still sits just out of reach.

The result is part of a longer campaign to use stars as probes of extreme gravity. Each new orbiting object is a laboratory we cannot build on Earth.

 Early galaxies may have been far more massive than they looked

The James Webb Space Telescope continues to unsettle the early-universe story. A new analysis finds a surprisingly large population of faint, low-mass stars in distant galaxies. Some of the biggest galaxies in the young cosmos may contain up to three or four times more stellar mass than earlier estimates suggested.

That does not overturn cosmology overnight. It does mean that models of how stars assembled after the Big Bang still have missing pieces — hidden stars that older telescopes simply could not see.

 Cosmic acceleration is still the leading story

A major new analysis challenges recent claims that the universe’s expansion is slowing. The evidence for cosmic acceleration remains strong, the authors report, which keeps dark energy in its uncomfortable starring role: the dominant ingredient in the cosmos, and still poorly understood.

In other words, the universe is still speeding up. We still do not know why.

 Dogs as a map of human aging

The Dog Aging Project has found that patterns of small molecules in dogs’ blood track longer or shorter lifespans in ways that look remarkably similar to human aging chemistry. Because dogs share our homes, our food environment, and many of our diseases — but live those lives on a compressed timeline — they may become one of the most practical models for studying longevity.

This is not a fountain-of-youth paper. It is a quieter, more useful claim: the biochemistry of growing old may be more conserved across species than we assumed.

 Turning unrecyclable plastic into lubricant

PVC is one of the hardest common plastics to recycle. Researchers now report a method that converts it into a key ingredient used in high-performance lubricants, including engine oil. If the process can be scaled, it would give a second life to a material that usually ends as landfill or incinerator feedstock.

Waste-to-value chemistry rarely sounds glamorous. It is one of the few kinds of discovery that can change both industry and the landscape outside the lab.

 Natural hydrogen under Australia’s red rocks

Western Australia’s iron-rich formations appear able to generate hydrogen naturally, and researchers say the process may be boosted to produce much larger amounts. If that holds at scale, the Pilbara could become more than a source of iron ore. It could become a geological battery for a clean fuel.

Natural hydrogen — sometimes called white or gold hydrogen — has moved in a few years from rumor to field science. This is another data point in that shift.

 Medicine at the edge of approval and experiment

Not every advance is a telescope image. In August 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved daraxonrasib, a RAS inhibitor, for metastatic pancreatic cancer — one of the hardest solid tumors to treat. Separately, the agency cleared a first-of-its-kind nonmedication system for PTSD that uses brain-activity data to personalize magnetic stimulation.

And in the lab, a nanoparticle approach in mice with Alzheimer’s-like disease improved memory-test performance while reducing inflammation and amyloid-beta, in part by converting astrocytes into functioning neurons. That work is still preclinical. It is also a sign of how aggressively researchers are trying to reprogram damaged brain tissue rather than only clear plaques.

 What ties these stories together

None of these findings is a finished story. S301 still has years of orbits to give. Dark energy is still a name for our ignorance. PVC-to-lubricant chemistry still has to survive the factory floor. Hydrogen in rock still has to be extracted without wrecking the landscape that holds it.

That incompleteness is the point. Recent science is less a list of miracles than a set of better questions: How massive were the first galaxies, really? Can companion animals teach us how humans age? Can geology and chemistry do work that policy alone cannot?

The next decade will not be defined by a single discovery. It will be defined by how many of these open doors we walk through.

---

 References

1. SciTechDaily. “Hidden Deep Beneath Mars, Scientists Find Evidence of a Vast Magmatic System”; “FDA Clears First-of-Its-Kind Nonmedication Treatment for PTSD.” August 28–29, 2026. https://scitechdaily.com/

2. Sci.News. “Webb Find Hidden Stars Making Early Galaxies Far More Massive than Thought”; “Nanoparticle Therapy Reverses Alzheimer’s Progression in Mice”; “CERN Physicists Hunting for Pairs of Higgs Bosons.” August 2026. https://www.sci.news/

3. ScienceDaily. “Dogs May Hold Surprising Clues to Human Longevity”; “Scientists Turn One of the Hardest Plastics to Recycle Into High-performance Engine Lubricant”; “The Universe Is Still Speeding Up, but Nobody Knows Why”; “Australia’s Red Soil May Be Hiding a Massive Clean Energy Source.” August 29, 2026. https://www.sciencedaily.com/

4. Wikipedia contributors. “2026 in science.” Entries for August 17–26, 2026, including S301 and FDA approval of daraxonrasib. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_in_science

5. Science / AAAS. News and journal coverage, late August 2026. https://www.science.org/

6. Nature. News and News & Views, August 2026. https://www.nature.com/news

Actus Purus: Why Classical Theism Calls God “Pure Act”

Actus Purus: Why Classical Theism Calls God “Pure Act”

If you have ever heard a philosopher say that God is actus purus—pure act, or pure actuality—you may have assumed it was a piece of medieval jargon with little relevance to modern debates about God, science, or atheism. It is not. The claim is one of the most tightly argued ideas in Western metaphysics: that the ultimate source of reality cannot be a being that is still “on the way” to being something. It must already be everything it is, without remainder.

The phrase is Latin. The idea is older than Latin.

 Where the idea comes from

The roots are Aristotelian. In the Physics and Metaphysics, Aristotle analyzes change with a pair of concepts: dynamis (potentiality, potency) and energeia / entelecheia (actuality, act). An acorn is actually an acorn and potentially an oak. Wood is actually wood and potentially a table. Change is the reduction of a potency to act. Nothing reduces itself from potency to act in the relevant sense; what is merely potential does not yet have the actuality needed to confer that actuality. Act is prior to potency.

From this Aristotle argues to an unmoved mover: a first principle of motion that is not itself in motion, because if it were, it would still need a further actualizer. That first principle cannot have unrealized potency. It must be actual through and through. Aristotle even calls this principle “God,” though his God is not the personal Creator of Genesis. It is more like eternal self-thinking thought that moves the cosmos as a final cause—as an object of desire—rather than as a craftsman pushing matter around.

Medieval Christian, Jewish, and Islamic thinkers took the act–potency analysis and applied it to the God of revelation. Thomas Aquinas is the classic synthesizer. For Aquinas, every finite thing is a composite of essence and existence, form and matter, act and potency. Its existence is received; it does not explain itself. Trace the chain of actualization far enough—not merely backward in time, but here and now, in the present dependence of things that need to be kept in being—and you reach a reality that is not composed of potency and act at all. That reality is actus purus: Pure Act. Aquinas also names it ipsum esse subsistens, subsistent existence itself. God does not have being as an added property. God is Being. The biblical “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14) is read as pointing in the same direction.

Two distinctions matter immediately.

First, passive potency is the capacity to be changed or completed by another. Active potency is power to produce an effect. Classical theism denies passive potency in God. It does not deny that God has power. Pure active power with no passive potency is pure actuality.

Second, the argument is not “everything has a beginning, therefore God began the universe.” It is more austere: whatever is a mixture of act and potency needs an actualizer distinct from itself. An infinite series of such mixtures still does not explain why there is any actuality at all. The series requires a terminus that is not mixed.

From Pure Act a cluster of attributes follows almost at once: simplicity (God is not assembled from parts), immutability (nothing in God is waiting to be actualized), eternity (no succession of unrealized states), necessity (God cannot fail to be), and perfection (there is no better state God could “grow into”).

 The logic, stated without ornament

1. Change is the actualization of a potency.

2. A potency is actualized only by something already actual in the relevant respect.

3. A being that is itself a mixture of act and potency needs a further actualizer.

4. An explanatory regress of mixed actualizers cannot terminate in another mixed actualizer.

5. Therefore there is a first actualizer with no potency to be actualized: Pure Act.

6. That Pure Act is what classical theists mean by God.

The argument is metaphysical, not a lab result. That is not a defect. Questions about why there is any actuality rather than a heap of unrealized possibilities are not questions a spectrometer answers.

 Challenges—and why they do not land as advertised

 1. “An infinite regress is possible.”

Hume and Russell treated causal series as if they were like a row of books leaning on each other across infinite time. If each member is explained by the previous one, the whole chain is explained.

The reply is that not every series is the same kind of series. A per accidens series (fathers begetting sons across generations) can, in principle, run backward without a first father. A per se series cannot. The present actuality of a stick moving a stone depends, right now, on a hand, which depends on muscles, which depend on the organism, which depends on conditions that keep it in being. Remove the primary actualizer and the whole instrumental chain goes dark at once. Pure Act is offered as the terminus of that kind of dependence, not as “the first event in time.” Even a beginningless universe would still need an account of why contingent actuality exists at all.

 2. “Science already explains origins: quantum fields, inflation, a universe from ‘nothing.’”

Lawrence Krauss and others have popularized the idea that physics can get a cosmos from nothing. The “nothing” in question is almost never metaphysical nothing—the absence of being. It is a vacuum state, a quantum field, a law, or a fluctuation in a prior structure. That is a something. David Albert’s well-known criticism of Krauss made the point sharply: you have not explained why there is anything if you start with physical laws and a quantum vacuum. You have redescribed a physical process.

Quantum indeterminacy also does not abolish act and potency. A radioactive atom is actually an atom in a certain state and potentially decayed. The probability distribution is itself an actual feature of the system. “Uncaused” in physics usually means “not determined by a prior local event in a clockwork way.” It does not mean “actualized by non-being.”

Science describes how one actual physical state relates to another. It does not replace the question of why there is a field of actuality in which those relations obtain.

 3. “An immutable Pure Act cannot create, love, answer prayer, or become incarnate.”

This is the most common religious objection, and it is serious. If God cannot change, how can God do anything new?

Classical theism answers by locating change on the side of the creature, not in God’s essence. God’s single, eternal act is identical with God’s being. What is “new” is the temporal effect: a world that begins, a people that is called, a nature that is assumed. Creation does not actualize a slumbering potency in God. God does not become a Creator the way a carpenter becomes a carpenter. The change is that there are now creatures. The Incarnation, on this view, is the assumption of a human nature, not the acquisition of a missing divine part. Whether one finds that account theologically adequate is a further question; it is not an obvious contradiction with Pure Act. The doctrine was developed precisely to keep divine action from implying divine incompleteness.

Process theology and open theism take the opposite road: God must change in order to be personal. That is a different metaphysics. It buys divine responsiveness by making God a being among beings—another item in the cosmos with a career. That is exactly what actus purus refuses.

 4. “A perfect Pure Act is incompatible with an imperfect world.”

If God is the fullness of perfection, why is there evil, waste, and suffering?

Pure Act is a claim about the source of being, not a claim that every finite effect is infinitely perfect. A cause can be perfect while its effects are limited by the natures that receive being. The problem of evil is real, and no honest theist should treat it as a word game. But it is a problem about providence, permission, and the goods of a world of finite agents. It is not a disproof of the act–potency analysis. An imperfect world is exactly what one would expect if creatures are mixtures of act and potency rather than little gods.

Arguments that “perfection entails that a perfect being would make only a perfect world, and this world is not perfect, therefore no perfect being exists” assume that “perfect cause” means “cause of only perfect products.” That is not the classical claim. The classical claim is that the cause lacks no actuality in itself.

 5. “Philosophers have moved on. Most academic philosophers are atheists.”

Survey numbers are not arguments. Many contemporary philosophers reject classical theism because they reject the older metaphysics of essence, act, and potency, or because they treat “God” as a super-person inside the universe rather than as esse. The New Atheist literature, as Edward Feser and others have documented, often attacks a Paley-style designer or a cosmic watchmaker and then assumes Aquinas has been refuted. Aquinas’s First Way is not Paley’s watch. Confusing them is a category error, not a scientific result.

You can reject act and potency. What you cannot do is reject them and then pretend you have answered the argument that uses them. You have changed the subject to a different ontology.

 6. “Everything science studies is in process; therefore there is no Pure Act.”

Of course everything in the empirical order is in process. That is the data from which the argument starts. The conclusion is that the empirical order is not self-explanatory. Pointing at more process does not exhibit a first actualizer that is itself only process. Matter and energy, as endlessly reconfigurable, are almost the definition of mixed act and potency. They are poor candidates for actus purus.

 Why the idea still matters

Actus purus is not a slogan for “God is static and bored.” It is a claim that the source of all becoming cannot itself be a case of becoming. If God were a mixture of act and potency, God would be one more item in the inventory of the world, needing an explanation of the same kind that tables, stars, and quantum fields need. That is not a God anyone could reasonably worship, and it is not a terminus of explanation.

You may still reject the argument. You may prefer a universe that is a brute fact, or a God who grows, or a metaphysics with no room for act and potency. What you should not do is treat Pure Act as a pious metaphor with no structure. It is a structured answer to a structured question: how can there be any actuality at all if every actuality we meet is only partial?

That question did not expire when the last scholastic left the room. It is the same question as “Why is there something rather than nothing?” asked in the vocabulary of change rather than of existence. Classical theism’s answer is stark: because there is a reality that is not a “something among somethings,” but Act itself.

---

 References

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae I, qq. 2–9, especially I.2.3 (Five Ways) and I.3 (divine simplicity).  

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles I, chs. 13–28.  

Aristotle. Physics III, VIII; Metaphysics IX (Theta), XII (Lambda).  

Catholic Encyclopedia. “Actus Purus.”  

Feser, Edward. Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. Heusenstamm: Editiones Scholasticae, 2014.  

Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017.  

Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition. South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2008.  

Gilson, Étienne. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.  

Krauss, Lawrence. A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press, 2012. (See also David Albert’s review in The New York Times, 2012.)  

Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. s.v. “actus purus,” “actus purissimus.”  

“Actus purus.” Wikipedia.  

“Pure Act.” Encyclopedia.com.

Dancing, Chastity, and Catholic Prudence: A Response to Noah Bieser’s “Dancing Is Sinful… Most of the Time”

Dancing, Chastity, and Catholic Prudence: A Response to Noah Bieser’s “Dancing Is Sinful… Most of the Time”

Noah Bieser, better known online as Jesus and Whatnot, has become one of the more recognizable young Catholic voices in digital apologetics. Coming from a Presbyterian and Calvinist background before entering the Catholic Church, he has spent years arguing for the papacy, the Real Presence, the Deuterocanon, Marian doctrine, and the necessity of baptism, often in long-form debates with Protestants, atheists, and Eastern Orthodox interlocutors. That work has real value. Many people first encounter a confident, Scripture-literate case for Catholicism through his videos. He takes doctrine seriously, he is willing to debate, and he is not embarrassed by the supernatural claims of the faith. Those are gifts the Church can use.

Precisely because his broader project is serious, his recent video Dancing is sinful… Most of the time deserves a careful Catholic reply rather than either uncritical applause or a dismissive eyeroll. The video is not a cartoonish “dancing is of the devil” rant. Bieser quotes St. John Vianney, the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, early Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Scripture. He grants that some dancing can be good. He distinguishes married from unmarried couples. He is especially concerned about school slow dances and the sexualization of young people on TikTok. Those concerns are not imaginary. A Catholic response should keep what is true and reject what overreaches.

The overreach is this: the video often treats mixed-sex social dancing—especially any close or “round” dancing—as if it were, in ordinary circumstances, a near occasion of sin that must be avoided “at all costs.” That tone can sound more Puritan or Jansenist than Catholic. Catholicism is not a religion of maximum suspicion toward the body. It is a religion of the Incarnation. The body is good. Joy is good. Recreation is good. Chastity governs these goods; it does not abolish them.

 What the video gets right

First, dancing is not morally neutral in every form. Some dances are constructed to arouse. Some clothing is constructed to display the body as a sexual object. Some settings—dark clubs, heavy drinking, music whose lyrics are pornographic—make chastity unusually difficult. Social media dance trends have, in many cases, trained teenagers to treat their bodies as content for strangers. A Catholic who shrugs at that is not being “balanced.” He is being naive.

Second, saints and pastors have always warned about particular dances of their own time. St. John Vianney’s pastoral experience in nineteenth-century rural France was not abstract. Village dances were often late, mixed, poorly supervised, and spiritually costly. The Fathers who condemned theatrical or cultic dance were looking at pagan spectacle, not a parish hall Virginia Reel. Local councils that warned against “fashionable dances… as at present carried on” were reacting to concrete abuses of dress, hours, and manners. Those warnings still teach us something: pastors may and should condemn this dance, in this culture, when it is immodest.

Third, St. Thomas himself, whom Bieser cites, does not treat recreation as an excuse for lust. Eutrapelia—the virtue of play—is a mean. Too little recreation makes a person harsh. Too much, or the wrong kind, makes a person dissipated. Aquinas is not a 21st-century dance-floor libertine.

So the video is not wrong to say that Catholics should think harder than the surrounding culture about what they do with their bodies.

 Where the argument becomes rigorist

The problem is the slide from “some dances are dangerous” to “most dancing, especially mixed dancing with contact, is to be treated as sinful or nearly so.” That is not how Catholic moral theology works.

Catholic moral theology distinguishes:

1. Acts that are intrinsically evil.

2. Acts that are good or indifferent in themselves but can become sinful by intention, circumstance, or scandal.

3. Occasions of sin that are proximate (likely to lead to sin here and now) versus remote.

Dancing belongs in the second category. Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary states the ordinary teaching plainly: “In itself dancing is perfectly licit. It may, however, become a source of evil either because of the way in which it is done or because it is an occasion of sin for some particular individual.” That is the Catholic sentence. It is not “dancing is sinful most of the time.”

Catholic Answers makes the same point in its Q&A on ballroom dancing. The Church has never issued a universal ban on ballroom dancing. The Second Plenary Council of Baltimore warned against fashionable dances as then practiced—with décolleté dress, late hours, masked balls, and a loss of delicacy—not against the waltz as a metaphysical species of sin. Protestant sects have sometimes banned dancing categorically. The Catholic Church has not.

When a creator treats Baltimore 1866, or a sixth-century disciplinary canon, or St. John Vianney’s parish policy, as if they were timeless dogmatic definitions, he is doing what traditionalists sometimes accuse liberals of doing: isolating texts from their genre. A regional council’s pastoral decree is not Lumen Gentium. A saint’s severe sermon is not the Catechism. Discipline changes. Moral principles do not. The principle is chastity and prudence. The discipline of “no public mixed dancing under pain of excommunication” is not a living law of the Latin Church.

 Scripture does not support a general ban

Bieser is honest enough to list the positive texts: David before the Ark (2 Samuel 6:14), Psalm 149:3, Jeremiah 31:13, and the warning in Ecclesiastes against the seductive dancing girl. The interpretive key he offers is that biblical dances were “for the Lord,” modest, and bodily separated, whereas modern dances aim at the opposite.

That contrast is too neat.

Jeremiah 31 does not describe a liturgical ballet of same-sex groups standing three feet apart. It describes young women, young men, and old men rejoicing together in the restoration of Israel. Luke 15 puts music and dancing inside the father’s house as the image of heavenly joy at a sinner’s return. Exodus 15 is Miriam and the women with timbrels after deliverance. These texts do not give a choreography manual. They do show that rhythmic bodily joy, including among the young, can be an appropriate human and even religious response.

Ecclesiastes 9 (or the related wisdom warnings about the seductress) condemns allurements that destroy, not every festive movement. Using that verse against a modest contra dance is like using Proverbs against wine to forbid the wedding at Cana.

A Catholic reading of Scripture holds both sides: the body can praise God, and the body can become an idol. The Church does not resolve that tension by declaring most dancing suspect.

 Aquinas is more permissive than the video allows

Bieser cites Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 168 on eutrapelia, then immediately hedges it until almost nothing social survives except the most antiseptic “cultural” dance. Aquinas’s actual concern is whether play is ordered to rest and cheerfulness without obscenity or cruelty. He knows that jokes and games can be sinful. He does not conclude that Christians should therefore treat ordinary festive dancing as a spiritual hazard to be avoided unless sin is “not reasonably possible.”

That last phrase is the rigorist tell. Catholic moralists do not require the absence of all reasonable possibility of sin before an activity is allowed. If they did, mixed conversation, mixed workplaces, dating, beaches, theaters, and smartphones would all fall under the same ban. The standard is whether an activity is a proximate occasion of sin for this person in these circumstances, and whether there is a proportionate reason and means of making the occasion remote.

A three-minute waltz in a well-lit hall, with defined steps, modest dress, and other couples present, is not the same moral object as grinding in a nightclub or filming a sexually suggestive TikTok. Collapsing them into “round dances / embracing / attraction to the body” flattens moral analysis.

Peter Kwasniewski’s “Go Forth in Dance” (Crisis Magazine, 2024) makes this point from inside a traditionalist milieu. Formal social dancing—country dance, contra, a restrained waltz—can teach courtesy, timing, restraint, and ease between the sexes. It is structured touch, not private groping. Young men who never learn how to stand near a woman without panic or lust do not become more chaste; they often become more awkward and more interiorly obsessed. Catholic culture historically included village dances, wedding feasts, and courtly forms. An imagination that can only see lust there is, as that essay argues, out of touch with Christian humanism.

 The married/unmarried distinction is too crude

The video says the prohibition “pertains mainly to the unmarried,” while married couples “can certainly enjoy each other’s presence in the form of dance.” There is a truth here: spouses have rights to one another that the unmarried do not. But public dancing has its own rules of decency for everyone. A married couple performing bedroom intimacy on a dance floor would still be indecent. Conversely, an unmarried man and woman dancing a figured reel with brief, conventional handholds are not thereby imitating the marital act.

Dominic Prümmer’s classic Handbook of Moral Theology treats familiarity between persons contemplating marriage with the sobriety one would expect from a pre-conciliar manual: intended venereal pleasure is gravely sinful; signs of affection that are not intended as such and are not a proximate occasion can be licit; if something is only an occasional danger, the confessor does not immediately treat it as an absolute ban. That is the Catholic casuistry of real life. It is not “avoid all bodily contact between unmarried persons.”

If the standard becomes “no proximity that could possibly stir attraction,” courtship itself becomes unintelligible. Holding a hand, a formal dance, a goodbye embrace at the door—all of these can be chaste or unchaste. The Church teaches people to govern desire, not to pretend they have no bodies until the wedding night.

 Saints are not a substitute for the magisterium of today

This is the methodological issue behind many internet-traditionalist videos, including this one. A catena of severe quotations looks like “the tradition.” Sometimes it is only a catena of severe quotations.

St. John Vianney is a canonized pastor of souls, not the universal ordinary of every diocese in 2026. The Cure of Ars also imposed penances and parish rules that no bishop would impose today. Origen and Tertullian said many true things and some things the Church later refused. Constantinople III’s disciplinary line on public dances does not function as a current penal canon. Benedict XV’s complaint about exotic salon dances in Sacra propediem is a papal warning about a fashion, not a definition of dancing as such.

Catholics honor the saints by receiving their end—the protection of purity—without freezing their means. The same Church that produced Vianney produced Catholic wedding receptions, Polish polkas, Mexican folklórico, Irish céilí, and centuries of court dance. A theology that can only process the first half of that history is truncated.

 Social media dancing is the stronger part of the case

Here Bieser is at his best, and the criticism should be lighter. Platforms reward provocation. Young girls learn that a certain hip movement plus a trending audio equals attention. Influencers who began with relatively innocent short dances often escalate into more sexual content because the algorithm pays for it. Parents who hand a child an unfiltered phone and then act shocked are failing in their duty.

Even here, though, the remedy is formation and limits, not a metaphysics in which “moving one’s body on camera” is the newest and most evil species of dance. A high-school liturgical choir’s modest praise dance in a gym, a ballet class, or a family video of children jumping around the kitchen are not Charli D’Amelio’s business model. Moral theology lives on distinctions.

 Why the Puritan note is un-Catholic

Puritanism, in the popular sense, treats created goods as guilty until proven innocent. Jansenism treated frequent communion and ordinary human cheer as spiritually dangerous. Catholicism does the opposite with created goods: they are innocent until a specific disorder is shown. The Catechism presents chastity as the successful integration of sexuality within the person, not as the subtraction of all delight (CCC 2337). It presents recreation and rest as part of a human life. It presents the body as a temple, which means it is holy, not merely a trap.

A young apologist who has seen the sexual chaos of the last fifteen years can be forgiven for overcorrecting. The culture is not modest. Schools sometimes are reckless. Pornography has deformed desire. In that climate, “just don’t dance” feels like a clean rule. Clean rules are pastorally tempting. They are also how scrupulosity is born.

Catholics already know the pattern. Some communities treat alcohol as practically forbidden because drunkenness exists. Some treat mixed swimming as forbidden because lust exists. Some treat novels, theater, or sports as worldly. Each time, a real vice is met with a false universal. The Catholic answer is virtue: temperance, modesty, custody of the eyes, honest friendship, early marriage when appropriate, and the sacraments. It is not a new commandment against the waltz.

 A more Catholic way to talk about this

If Noah Bieser wanted to keep the force of his warning without the rigorist frame, the thesis would sound more like this:

- Dancing is a created good that can express joy, skill, courtship, and even thanksgiving.

- Many contemporary forms are immodest or are proximate occasions of sin, especially for the young and for those already struggling with lust.

- Parents and pastors should forbid particular events, playlists, and platforms when they are corrupting.

- Modest, structured social dancing is not forbidden by the Church and can even serve formation in courtesy.

- Clothing, music, alcohol, hours, and supervision often matter more than the name of the step.

- Married and unmarried people alike must practice public decency.

- No one is obliged to attend a dance; some people should stay away because they know their weakness. That is personal prudence, not a law for the whole Church.

That position is stricter than the average American high school and looser than the video. It is also closer to Aquinas, to the Catholic Encyclopedia, to Catholic Answers, and to the lived practice of Catholic cultures.

 In praise of the work—and a request

Jesus and Whatnot exists because Noah Bieser decided, while still in high school, that Christ and the Church were worth defending in public. He has argued the Filioque, the papacy, the canon of Scripture, and the deity of Christ in front of audiences that would rather mock than listen. That is harder than posting a video about dancing. The Church needs more converts who can speak the language of the internet without dissolving doctrine into vibes.

The request is simply that the same precision he brings to Trinitarian and ecclesial debates be brought to moral theology of the sixth commandment. Quoting saints is not the same as weighing them. A local council is not a dogma. “Near occasion of sin” is a technical phrase, not a mood. And Catholicism is not safest when it most resembles a sect that is afraid of ordinary human joy.

The Word became flesh. He attended a wedding and provided the wine. He let a woman anoint his feet. He rose with a glorified body. A Church formed by those mysteries will be severe with lust and generous with legitimate gladness. That is not laxism. It is the Catholic mean.

Dancing is not the heart of the Gospel. Neither is avoiding dancing. The heart of the Gospel is Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, who claims the whole person—including the body that can kneel, work, embrace a spouse, carry a child, and, at the right time and in the right way, move for joy.

---

References

- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 168 (on modesty in outward movements and eutrapelia).

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2337–2359 (chastity); 1809 (temperance).

- “Dancing,” Catholic Encyclopedia, via Catholic Answers.

- Tom Nash, “No Ban on Ballroom Dancing,” Catholic Answers Q&A.

- Catholic Answers Staff, “How can your Church condone dancing?”

- John A. Hardon, S.J., “Dancing, Morality of,” Modern Catholic Dictionary.

- Second Plenary Council of Baltimore (1866), pastoral warnings on fashionable dances “as at present carried on.”

- Peter Kwasniewski, “Go Forth in Dance,” Crisis Magazine, September 9, 2024.

- Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology, on familiarity between persons of different sex.

- Scripture: Exodus 15:20; 2 Samuel 6:14; Psalm 149:3; Ecclesiastes 3:4; Jeremiah 31:4, 13; Luke 15:25.

- Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, Dance in the Liturgy (1975), on why Western liturgical dance is generally excluded—an important distinction from social dancing outside Mass.

Tim Curry Dead at 80

Tim Curry, the unforgettable star of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and so many other indelible roles, has died at 80. He passed away peacefully at his home in Toluca Lake, Los Angeles, on August 25, 2026. His longtime manager and friend Marcia Hurwitz confirmed the news. A major stroke in 2012 had left him using a wheelchair, yet he continued working, writing his 2025 memoir Vagabond, and making select public appearances, including a Rocky Horror 50th-anniversary reunion.

He leaves no immediate family survivors. He never married and guarded his private life closely. What he shared publicly was a life of restless creativity, mischief, and a distinctive voice that could charm, terrify, or make you laugh in the same breath.

 A Life Shaped by Movement and Performance

Timothy James Curry was born on April 19, 1946, in Grappenhall, Cheshire, England, to James Curry, a Methodist chaplain in the Royal Navy, and Patricia (Maura “Pat”) Curry, a school secretary. The family moved frequently with his father’s postings. After James Curry suffered a stroke and died in 1958 when Tim was 12, the family settled and Tim won a scholarship to Kingswood School in Bath. There he sang as a boy soprano and discovered acting. He later earned a combined BA in English and Drama from the University of Birmingham in 1968.

His first professional job was in the original London production of Hair in 1968. He bluffed his way in by claiming he already had an Equity card; the producers were so impressed they sponsored him. That production introduced him to Richard O’Brien, who later invited him to audition for a new show at the Royal Court’s Theatre Upstairs. Curry originated Dr. Frank-N-Furter in The Rocky Horror Show in 1973. The role followed him to Los Angeles, Broadway, and the 1975 film The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which became a midnight-movie phenomenon.

 Famous Portrayals That Defined a Generation

Curry’s gift was for larger-than-life characters delivered with precision and wit. Frank-N-Furter remains his signature: the “sweet transvestite from Transsexual Transylvania,” equal parts seductive, monstrous, and theatrical. He brought the same electricity to Pennywise the Dancing Clown in the 1990 IT miniseries, Wadsworth the butler in Clue (1985), Cardinal Richelieu in The Three Musketeers (1993), and Long John Silver in Muppet Treasure Island (1996).

He was a prolific voice actor—Nigel Thornberry in The Wild Thornberrys, Hexxus in FernGully, and many others—and a three-time Tony nominee for stage work that included Amadeus, The Pirates of Penzance, and Spamalot. He also released albums and, late in life, his memoir. Even after the stroke limited his mobility, he returned as the Criminologist in the 2016 Rocky Horror television remake.

 Religious Beliefs

Curry grew up in a Methodist household. His father was a naval chaplain, and young Tim sang in church choirs. He later said he was “not particularly God-fearing” but respected faith and absorbed Methodist values of living simply. He described himself as a cheerful agnostic and did not believe in heaven or hell, though he remained curious about what might come after death. He kept his inner life private and never made religion a public part of his identity.

 A Prayer and a Farewell

May the God of all comfort grant rest to Tim Curry’s spirit and peace to those who loved him and were changed by his work. May whatever mystery awaits him be kind. We give thanks for the laughter, the chills, the songs, and the fearless performances he left behind.

He will be deeply missed. The Time Warp will never be quite the same. Rest in peace, Tim.

Dolly Parton, Dead at 80

Dolly Parton, the beloved queen of country music, philanthropist, and enduring American icon, has passed away at the age of 80. She died peacefully in Nashville on August 25, 2026. Her nephew Bryan Seaver announced the news in a video message, noting that she had “lived in the light and is in the arms of Jesus.”

Born Dolly Rebecca Parton on January 19, 1946, in a one-room cabin in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee as one of 12 children, she rose from poverty to become one of the most successful and cherished figures in entertainment. Her career spanned more than six decades, producing timeless hits such as “Jolene,” “Coat of Many Colors,” “9 to 5,” and “I Will Always Love You”—the latter a powerful ballad of love and farewell that Whitney Houston later turned into a global phenomenon. Parton’s songwriting captured the hardships, hopes, humor, and heart of everyday life, blending country roots with broad pop appeal. She sold tens of millions of records, won numerous Grammys and other awards, starred in films, and built an empire that included Dollywood, all while remaining grounded in her Appalachian heritage and signature wit, style, and warmth.

Central to Parton’s life was her deep Christian faith. Raised in a Pentecostal family—her maternal grandfather was a preacher—she grew up singing gospel in church and absorbing Bible stories. She often described herself as “not that religious, but very, very spiritual,” emphasizing a personal relationship with God over formal denominational ties. She prayed daily, credited her faith with guiding her decisions and sustaining her through challenges, and recorded gospel and faith-inspired music throughout her career. In recent comments reflecting on belief, she said: “Even if I knew there was no God, I’d choose to believe it, because I want to believe there’s something out there. And I do believe it.” She added that people need something bigger than themselves—whether called God, science, nature, or a higher force—and hoped her own light might point others toward hope.

Parton had no formal connections to Catholicism. She was raised in the evangelical Pentecostal tradition of the Church of God and later described her faith in broader spiritual terms. She once humorously noted in a performance setting that her large family was not Catholic but “just a bunch of horny hillbillies,” while affirming shared Christian hopes of reaching heaven and celebrating differences under God’s love. She performed at Catholic church fundraisers and expressed inclusive respect for others’ beliefs, but her own roots and practice remained outside Catholicism.

Her philanthropy matched the generosity of her spirit. Through the Dollywood Foundation and her Imagination Library—founded in 1995 as a tribute to her father, who could not read—she gifted hundreds of millions of free books to children from birth to age five across the United States and other countries, fostering literacy and dreams for generations. She also supported disaster relief, education, and medical causes. In 2020, she donated $1 million to Vanderbilt University Medical Center for COVID-19 research; that contribution helped fund early critical work tied to the development of Moderna’s vaccine. She later received the shot herself and encouraged others with characteristic humor, adapting “Jolene” into a playful “Vaccine” refrain.

Dolly Parton’s music, faith, and giving created a legacy of uplift. She made millions feel seen, entertained, and hopeful. Her rhinestone sparkle never outshone the genuine light of kindness and belief she shared.

As we mourn her passing, we offer this prayer for her soul:

Heavenly Father, we thank You for the gift of Dolly Parton—the voice that sang of coats of many colors and unbreakable love, the heart that poured out books for children and support for healing science, and the faith that trusted You even in the face of doubt. Receive her now into Your eternal light. May she rest in the arms of Jesus, reunited with loved ones who went before her, and may her example continue to inspire us to dream more, learn more, care more, and be more. Comfort those who grieve, and let her song of hope endure. Amen.

We will always love you, Dolly.  

Rest in peace.

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is a Triumph: Movie review

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is a triumph—an emotionally resonant, beautifully crafted, and deeply human superhero film that elevates the genre while delivering pure cinematic joy. Directed with heart and precision, this latest entry starring Tom Holland as Peter Parker is not only thrilling and visually spectacular but profoundly moving. It is a tear-jerker of the highest order, a masterclass in storytelling that left me wiping my eyes more than once, and it stands as one of the most well-made superhero movies in years. Every frame feels intentional, every performance rings true, and the film’s themes of brokenness, purpose, healing, and quiet faith land with extraordinary power.  

From the opening moments, the movie immerses us in Peter’s world with remarkable care. The cinematography captures New York City in all its gritty beauty and everyday wonder—rain-slicked streets reflecting neon lights, quiet rooftops under vast skies, and intimate interiors that feel lived-in and real. The action sequences are exhilarating without ever feeling empty; they serve character rather than existing for spectacle alone. Web-slinging has rarely looked this graceful or this weighty. Michael Giacchino’s score swells with both heroic grandeur and aching vulnerability, underscoring the film’s emotional core perfectly. Destin Daniel Cretton’s direction balances large-scale set pieces with quiet, character-driven moments so seamlessly that the 145-minute runtime flies by yet never feels rushed. This is filmmaking of the highest caliber: polished, thoughtful, and emotionally generous.  

At the center of it all is Tom Holland’s career-best performance as a broken man. Peter Parker is no longer the bright-eyed teenager or the somewhat settled young adult of previous films. He is fractured—grieving, isolated, and quietly desperate for meaning. The film portrays him as someone who has chosen solitude as both shield and burden. He patrols the city alone, handles crises alone, and seeks purpose through solitary acts of heroism, convinced that connection only brings pain or danger to others. Holland conveys this with heartbreaking authenticity: the slight stoop of the shoulders, the forced smiles that never reach his eyes, the way he moves through crowds as if invisible even when in the suit. You feel every ounce of his loneliness and his stubborn determination to keep going.  

Peter’s journey is one of seeking healing. He is a man who has been shattered by loss and the consequences of his dual life, and he tries to put himself back together by doing everything on his own. The film never romanticizes this isolation; instead, it gently, powerfully shows its cost. Yet it also honors the sincerity of his struggle. Peter is not wallowing—he is trying, imperfectly and courageously, to find purpose in a world that no longer remembers him as Peter Parker. That quest for meaning drives every quiet scene and every high-stakes confrontation.  

One of the film’s most moving and unexpected strengths is its respectful inclusion of Catholic elements. God is mentioned not as a punchline or an afterthought, but with genuine weight. Characters speak of Him in moments of crisis and quiet reflection, grounding the story in a larger sense of providence and grace. These references feel organic to the characters’ lives and to Peter’s internal search. In a genre often allergic to sincere faith, Brand New Day treats belief with dignity and warmth.  

Particularly poignant is the presence of a statue of Our Lady of Lourdes. Known throughout the world for her association with healing and miraculous intercession, the statue appears in a quietly powerful sequence. Peter, at one of his lowest points, finds himself near it. The camera lingers with reverence—soft light catching the statue’s serene face and the traditional details that evoke Lourdes’ famous grotto. There is no heavy-handed speech, no forced conversion moment. Instead, the film simply allows the image to resonate. For a broken man seeking meaning, purpose, and healing while insisting on doing everything alone, the presence of Our Lady of Lourdes becomes a silent invitation. It suggests that healing is available, that one does not have to carry every burden in isolation, and that grace can meet us even when we believe we must face the world alone. The scene is handled with such restraint and beauty that it feels like a gift—both to Catholic viewers and to anyone who has ever longed for restoration.  

These Catholic touches never overwhelm the story; they enrich it. They deepen Peter’s arc without turning the film into a sermon. The result is a narrative that speaks to universal human longings while offering something specifically hopeful for those of faith. Peter’s solitary struggle is shown as both noble and incomplete. The film understands that true healing often involves openness—to others, to community, and, quietly, to something greater.  

The supporting cast is excellent. The returning and new characters provide texture and contrast without distracting from Peter’s journey. Moments of connection, when they finally come, feel earned and deeply satisfying. The script balances humor, action, and pathos with rare skill. There are genuine laughs that never undercut the emotional stakes, and the dramatic beats land with force precisely because the film has earned them.  

I found myself tearing up multiple times. Not from cheap manipulation, but from recognition. The portrayal of a young man trying so hard to be strong on his own, searching for purpose in service while carrying invisible wounds, is profoundly moving. When the film allows space for hope and healing—symbolized so effectively by the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes and the mentions of God—it feels like a genuine brand new day. The emotional payoff is tremendous. Audiences around me were sniffling and smiling through tears by the end.  

Technically, the film is a standout. The visual effects serve the story rather than drowning it. The practical locations mixed with seamless digital work create a tactile New York that feels alive. Editing is sharp yet patient, knowing when to linger on a face or a quiet moment. Production design, costumes, and sound design all contribute to a cohesive, immersive experience. This is blockbuster filmmaking done right—ambitious, polished, and deeply felt.  

What elevates Spider-Man: Brand New Day above many of its peers is its willingness to sit with brokenness. Peter is not instantly fixed. He does not suddenly become whole through a single heroic act. The film respects the slow, sometimes painful process of seeking meaning and healing. His insistence on doing things alone is portrayed with empathy even as the story gently reveals its limitations. The Catholic elements—God’s name spoken with sincerity, the healing associations of Our Lady of Lourdes—offer a quiet counterpoint: that help and restoration can come from beyond ourselves.  

By the final act, the tears flow freely and joyfully. The film delivers catharsis without abandoning its honesty. It is uplifting in the best sense—rooted in the reality of human struggle yet radiant with hope. Tom Holland has never been better. The direction is assured. The themes of loneliness, purpose, and healing resonate long after the credits roll.  

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is more than a great superhero movie. It is a well-made, emotionally rich, and spiritually attuned film that treats its audience with respect. It made me laugh, hold my breath during the action, and cry genuine tears of recognition and hope. For anyone who has ever felt broken and tried to piece themselves together alone, for anyone seeking meaning and purpose, and for those who appreciate when faith is woven into storytelling with care, this film is a gift.  

It is a tear-jerker done right. It is cinematic craftsmanship of a high order. And in its quiet Catholic moments—especially that evocative statue of Our Lady of Lourdes—it offers something rare and beautiful: the suggestion that healing is possible, that purpose can be found, and that even a broken man does not have to walk the path entirely alone.  

Go see it. Bring tissues. Leave encouraged. This is Spider-Man at his most human, and cinema at its most generous. A brand new day, indeed—and a thoroughly wonderful one.  I saw it with my nephew and we loved it. I cried several times!  

Is Liturgical Dance Allowed in the Roman Rite?

Is Liturgical Dance Allowed in the Roman Rite? An Examination of Liturgical Documents, Historical Context, Scholarship, and Comparative Practice Across Rites

The question of whether liturgical dance is permitted in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church remains one of the more frequently raised and contested issues in contemporary liturgical practice, particularly in parishes influenced by post-conciliar experimentation. Advocates often present it as an embodiment of active participation called for by the Second Vatican Council, a recovery of biblical models such as David’s dance before the Ark, or a legitimate expression of cultural identity and joy. Opponents argue that it introduces secular performance aesthetics into the sacred action, distracts from the objective character of the rite, and contradicts the received tradition of the Latin Church. A careful reading of official documents, supported by historical evidence and theological scholarship, yields a clear conclusion for the ordinary celebration of the Roman Rite in Western cultural contexts: choreographed or free-form liturgical dance is not authorized within the Mass or other liturgical celebrations. Unauthorized introduction constitutes an abuse. This expanded treatment draws more extensively on primary sources, additional historical testimony, the specific provisions of approved inculturated uses, scholarly analysis, and the contrasting practices of Eastern rites in order to provide a fuller account.

 Biblical, Patristic, and Early Historical Foundations

Scripture contains positive references to dance in contexts of praise. Miriam the prophetess led the women of Israel with timbrels and dances after the crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20–21). King David danced before the Lord with all his might as the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14–16). The Psalms exhort the people to praise God with timbrel and dance (Psalm 149:3; 150:4). These passages demonstrate that bodily expression of joy before God is not alien to revelation. Yet they do not prescribe the form of the Christian eucharistic liturgy that developed from the Last Supper and the apostolic breaking of the bread. The New Testament itself contains no directive to incorporate dance into the Lord’s Supper or the assemblies described in Acts and the Pauline letters.

In the early Church, the attitude toward dance was predominantly cautious or prohibitive when it risked association with pagan cults, theatrical spectacle, or moral disorder. Church fathers such as St. John Chrysostom warned that “where there is dance, there is the devil,” while elsewhere acknowledging that God gave feet so that human beings might dance with the angels. St. Basil the Great could speak of dancing as a noble activity of the angels, yet practical discipline restricted its place. Councils of the fourth through seventh centuries repeatedly addressed dances connected with weddings, vigils, or festivals that had entered or threatened to enter ecclesiastical settings. Canons condemned saltationes (leaping dances) linked to pagan customs or excess, seeking to protect the sobriety of Christian worship and the dignity of sacred space. Scholarly studies of conciliar canons and papal letters from this period (for example, analyses of texts from the fourth to seventh centuries) show that while Christians continued to dance in social and even some popular religious contexts, the hierarchy sought to exclude disorderly or secular forms from the formal liturgy and church buildings.

Medieval Western sources reveal a more nuanced picture. Twelfth-century liturgists such as John Beleth and Sicard of Cremona discussed the circular dance (chorea) metaphorically in relation to the Easter liturgy, drawing on earlier monastic writers such as Honorius Augustodunensis. They noted that certain churches permitted limited festive games or circular movements in cloisters during the “December freedom,” yet they also recorded prohibitions against dances in churches, cemeteries, and processions. Later councils, including Vienne (1311–1312) and Basel (1431–1436), renewed condemnations of dissolute circular dances and entertainments that had crept into churches on certain feast days, describing them as abuses that turned the house of prayer into a place of spectacle. These historical layers explain why the Latin tradition developed a preference for regulated, sober gestures—processions, genuflections, bows, and the ordered movements of ministers—rather than free or choreographed dance within the Mass itself.

 The Second Vatican Council and the Framework of Adaptation

Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC), the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963), provides the foundational principles. The liturgy is the exercise of the priestly office of Jesus Christ; in it the sanctification of humanity is signified by signs perceptible to the senses and is effected in a manner proper to each of these signs (SC 7). The Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious, and active participation which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy (SC 14). At the same time, the Council declares that the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters that do not involve the faith or the good of the whole community; she respects and fosters the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Whatever in their way of life is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact; sometimes she even admits such things into the liturgy itself, provided they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit (SC 37). Provisions are to be made for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in mission lands, provided that the substantial unity of the Roman Rite is preserved (SC 38–40).

These texts open the door to cultural adaptation but close it against unilateral innovation. No person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority (SC 22 §3). The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) develops the Council’s teaching on gesture: the gestures and bodily posture of the priest, deacon, ministers, and people must be conducive to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, clarifying the true and full meaning of its different parts, and fostering the participation of all. Attention must be paid to what is determined by the GIRM and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite, and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice (GIRM 42). Dance is simply not among the gestures foreseen by the liturgical books of the Roman Rite.

 The 1975 Notitiae Essay: Authoritative Point of Reference

The most direct treatment of the question appears in an essay published by the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship in its official journal Notitiae 11 (1975), pages 202–205, under the title “The Religious Dance, an Expression of Spiritual Joy.” The Congregation explicitly labeled it a “qualified and authoritative sketch” and “an authoritative point of reference for every discussion on the matter,” recommending it for study by diocesan liturgical commissions. English translations circulated widely, including in The Canon Law Digest and reprints by the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy.

The essay acknowledges that dance can be an art that expresses human feelings, particularly joy, and that mystics have known moments of dancing as an overflow of divine love. It then draws a crucial cultural distinction. In certain cultures, dance remains reflective of religious values and becomes a clear manifestation of them. The Ethiopian tradition is cited at length: even today there exists a religious ritualized dance, clearly distinct from martial or amorous dance, performed by priests and levites before beginning a ceremony and in the open area in front of the church; the dance accompanies the chanting of psalms during the procession. When the procession enters the church, the psalmody continues with bodily movement. Similar elements appear in the Syriac liturgy through psalmody, and a highly simplified form occurs in the Byzantine wedding rite when the crowned spouses make a circular revolution around the lectern with the celebrant. Among the Israelites and certain primitive peoples, continuous bodily movement accompanies prayer.

The essay then states the decisive judgment for Western culture: “However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture. Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.”

It further rejects so-called artistic ballet because it would present a spectacle at which one merely assists, whereas a fundamental norm of the liturgy is the participation of all. The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worship of the Latin Church. Where local churches have accepted dance, sometimes even in the church building, it was on the occasion of feasts to manifest joy and devotion, but always outside of liturgical services. Conciliar decisions have often condemned religious dance because it conduces little to worship and can degenerate into disorder. If a proposal for religious dance in the West is to be acceptable, it must occur outside the liturgy, in assembly areas that are not strictly liturgical, and priests must always be excluded from the dance.

This text remains the baseline reference. Subsequent official responses treat it as controlling for the Roman Rite in Western settings.

 Later Clarifications from the Holy See and National Conferences

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, addressed the issue repeatedly. In a 2003 interview he stated: “There has never been a document from our Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments saying that dance is approved in the Mass. The tradition of the Latin Church has not known the dance. It is something that people are introducing in the last ten, or twenty years.” He emphasized that the Mass is primarily for the adoration of God (the vertical dimension), not mutual entertainment, and that most dances staged during Mass belong in the parish hall—if they are suitable even there. Some he had witnessed were offensive.

In 2012 the Congregation issued a formal reply (Prot. n. 544/12/L) to a query about a parish “liturgical dance and drama ministry”: “The liturgical law of the Roman Rite does not foresee the use of dance or drama within the Sacred Liturgy, unless particular legislation has been enacted by the Bishops’ Conference and confirmed by the Holy See. Any other practice is to be considered an abuse.” Such activities could be useful outside the Sacred Liturgy for catechesis and evangelization if directed by the bishop and clergy.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum reinforces the general principle. It condemns elements of spectacle and recalls that no one may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on personal initiative (citing SC 22 §3 and canon 846 §1). Although dance is not named, any insertion of elements not contemplated by the liturgical books falls under its prohibitions.

The 1994 Instruction Varietates legitimae (On Inculturation and the Roman Liturgy) provides the positive criteria for cultural adaptation. Among some peoples, singing is instinctively accompanied by hand-clapping, rhythmic swaying, and dance movements. Such forms of external expression can have a place in the liturgical actions of these peoples on condition that they are always the expression of true communal prayer of adoration, praise, offering, and supplication, and not simply a performance (VL 42). Adaptations depend entirely on the authority of the Church—the Apostolic See through the Congregation, and within legal limits the conferences of bishops and the diocesan bishop. Inculturation is never left to personal or collective initiative (VL 37).

National conferences have applied these norms. After reprinting the 1975 essay, the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy directed that all dancing (ballet, children’s gesture as dancing, clown liturgy) is not permitted to be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind. Similar clarifications appear in other Western conferences. Practices such as Matachines dances in Hispanic communities are typically limited by diocesan guidelines to before or after Mass and outside the liturgical action proper.

 Theological Scholarship: Ratzinger and Others

Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) offered one of the most influential theological critiques in The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000). He wrote: “Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy... The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes—incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy—none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy of the ‘reasonable sacrifice.’ It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy ‘attractive’ by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals’ point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment... None of the Christian rites includes dancing.”

Ratzinger distinguished carefully between the rhythmic processional movements found in certain African or Ethiopian contexts and the Western-style dance performances that turn the liturgy into a show. Scholarship continues to explore the tension between embodied expression and the structured, hierarchical character of traditional liturgy. Some recent academic work examines the potential of liturgical dance as a research field while acknowledging that within the Roman Catholic Church it remains constrained by official norms. Other studies document the historical presence of limited festive or metaphorical dance imagery in medieval Western sources without overturning the practical exclusion from the Mass.

 Approved Inculturation: The Zairean (Congolese) Use

The Zairean Use (also called the Zairean Rite or Congolese Rite), officially the Missel romain pour les diocèses du Zaïre, was approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1988 after lengthy dialogue. It remains within the framework of the Roman Rite while incorporating Congolese cultural elements. Features include an entrance procession with singing and clapping according to the rhythm of the hymns, the Gloria accompanied by dancing around the altar (symbolizing Christ as the living stone), lively music with traditional instruments, and congregational movement. Dancing among the congregants is permitted as an expression of faith and joy, performed with dignity and without the disorder of secular forms. Pope Francis has praised the Zairean Rite as a promising model of inculturation, noting that it was the first and, until recently, the only fully approved inculturated rite of the Latin Church after Vatican II, and citing it in connection with calls for similar attentiveness in other cultural contexts such as the Amazon.

This approved use illustrates the proper path: hierarchical study, experimental stages, and formal confirmation by the Holy See, ensuring that movements remain expressions of communal prayer rather than performance.

 Practices in Non-Roman Rites and Eastern Traditions

Eastern Catholic Churches and their Orthodox counterparts present a different picture because their rites developed in cultural matrices where ritualized movement retained religious significance.

In the Ethiopian (Ge’ez) tradition, shared by Ethiopian Catholics and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, liturgical dance is an established and highly codified element. The dabtara (cantors) perform aqwaqwam (or ‘aqwaqwam), a complex system of rhythmic bodily movements accompanying chant, using the prayer stick (maqwamiya), sistrum (sanasel), and drum (kebero). Dancers form parallel lines or circles, moving in stylized patterns that tradition traces to a heavenly revelation received by St. Yared. These dances occur especially in the Mahlet (night office) and on solemn feasts, before or in connection with the Qeddase (Mass). They are distinct from secular dance, taught in specialized church schools, and regarded as a terrestrial participation in the dance of the twenty-four elders of heaven. The 1975 Notitiae essay explicitly recognized this tradition as a legitimate cultural expression.

Syriac traditions incorporate movement with psalmody. In the Byzantine Rite (used by numerous Eastern Catholic Churches as well as the Orthodox), a simplified circular procession of the newly crowned spouses around the analogion with the celebrant occurs in the wedding service; it is sometimes described as a dance, though brief and highly ritualized. Historical Byzantine sources record occasional festive dancing in churches on great solemnities in certain periods, yet the Divine Liturgy itself does not feature free choreographed dance. Cultural and folk dances commonly accompany parish festivals outside the formal liturgy. Church authorities historically regulated dances that risked disorder (for example, canons of the Council in Trullo).

Armenian tradition preserves processional and festive movements with pre-Christian roots reinterpreted in a Christian key. In general, Eastern rites possess richer ceremonial movement than the classical Roman sobriety, yet their dance-like elements are traditional, regulated by the rite’s own books and customs, and ordered to prayer rather than modern expressive performance.

 Outside the Liturgy: Popular Piety, Catechesis, and Pastoral Practice

The 1975 essay and later responses leave limited space for religious dance outside the Sacred Liturgy. It may occur on feast days to express joy and devotion, preferably in non-strictly liturgical spaces, with priests excluded. Catechetical and evangelizing uses are possible under episcopal direction. Popular piety—processions, ethnic religious dances such as the Matachines, or festival celebrations—often accompanies the liturgical year. Diocesan norms typically insist that these remain distinct from the Mass itself so that the integrity of the rite is preserved.

 Conclusion

In the Roman Rite as ordinarily celebrated in Western cultural contexts, liturgical dance is not permitted within the Mass or other liturgical actions. The 1975 Notitiae essay, reinforced by Cardinal Arinze’s statements, the 2012 Congregation response, Redemptionis Sacramentum, the GIRM’s regulation of gesture, and the criteria of Varietates legitimae, establishes that unauthorized introduction is an abuse. Genuine inculturation, exemplified by the approved Zairean Use, can admit communal rhythmic movements when they express true prayer and receive hierarchical confirmation that preserves the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. Eastern rites such as the Ethiopian, and to a more limited extent the Syriac and Byzantine, incorporate traditional ritualized movements rooted in their own histories; these are not equivalent to contemporary Western “liturgical dance” performances.

The deeper theological issue, articulated by Ratzinger and others, concerns the nature of the liturgy as the opus Dei—God’s work—rather than a human production or entertainment. The authorized gestures of the Roman tradition already engage the body in a manner ordered to adoration, thanksgiving, and communion. Adding forms culturally associated with the secular, the romantic, or the spectacular tends to obscure the sacred mystery. Fidelity to the liturgical books, the authentic teaching of the Holy See, and the common spiritual good of the faithful remains the sure guide.

 References

- Sacrosanctum Concilium, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Second Vatican Council, 1963, especially nos. 7, 14, 22, 37–40.

- General Instruction of the Roman Missal (third typical edition), especially no. 42.

- Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, “The Religious Dance, an Expression of Spiritual Joy,” Notitiae 11 (1975) 202–205 (English in Canon Law Digest VIII, 78–82).

- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Varietates legitimae, 1994, especially nos. 37, 42.

- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum, 2004.

- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Prot. n. 544/12/L, 10 September 2012.

- Cardinal Francis Arinze, interview in National Catholic Register, 5 October 2003, and related addresses.

- Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (Ignatius Press, 2000), especially pp. 198–199.

- Missel romain pour les diocèses du Zaïre (Zairean Use), approved 1988; related commentary by Pope Francis and Congolese liturgical studies.

- Scholarly works on Ethiopian aqwaqwam and dabtara traditions (ethnomusicological and liturgical studies).

- Historical studies of medieval liturgists (John Beleth, Sicard of Cremona, Honorius Augustodunensis) and conciliar canons on dance.

- Secondary resources: Adoremus Society analyses; Catholic Answers Q&A; U.S. Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy directives (early 1980s); diocesan guidelines on Matachines and similar practices; academic treatments of dance in early and medieval Christianity.

 

Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A: Jesus and the Keys

Reflection for the Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A – August 23, 2026

As we gather for the Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time, the Church invites us to contemplate authority, faith, and the unsearchable wisdom of God. These readings follow closely on the Memorial of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary (August 22), offering a beautiful continuum: Mary, exalted as Queen of Heaven through her humble “yes,” points us toward the keys of the Kingdom entrusted by her Son.

In the first reading from Isaiah 22:19-23, the Lord deposes the unfaithful steward Shebna and elevates Eliakim, placing “the key of the House of David on Eliakim’s shoulder.” When he opens, no one shall shut; when he shuts, no one shall open. This image of stewardship and authority prefigures the Gospel. God chooses not the proud or self-promoting, but the one who will serve as a father to the people—a reliable peg fixed in a sure place. True authority is a gift for the building up of God’s household, not for personal glory.

Saint Paul’s hymn in Romans 11:33-36 deepens this mystery: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!” All things are from him, through him, and for him. God’s plan often confounds human expectation. The same God who raised the lowly Virgin of Nazareth to the dignity of Queen Mother is the One who reveals the Messiah not through flesh and blood, but through the Father’s grace.

This revelation reaches its climax in the Gospel (Matthew 16:13-20). At Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asks, “Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter’s inspired confession—“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”—draws Jesus’ solemn reply: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” The keys once promised to Eliakim are now given to Peter, establishing the enduring foundation of the Church. Authority here is rooted in faith, sustained by divine revelation, and ordered toward service and the binding and loosing of sin for the sake of salvation.

Peter and the Papacy

This passage stands at the heart of the Church’s teaching on the papacy. Jesus deliberately changes Simon’s name to Petros (Peter, “rock”) and declares that upon this rock He will build His Church. The gift of the keys evokes the authority of the royal steward in Isaiah—symbolizing full governing power in the household of the King. The power to bind and loose refers to the authority to teach, govern, and forgive sins in Christ’s name.From the earliest centuries, the Church has understood Peter as the first among the apostles, endowed with a unique primacy of leadership and pastoral care. This primacy did not end with Peter’s martyrdom in Rome; it continues in his successors, the Bishops of Rome. The Pope, as successor of Peter, serves as the visible principle of unity for the entire Church, the guardian of the deposit of faith, and the servant of the servants of God. 

Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church is tied to this Petrine office: the rock remains firm because it is sustained by the Lord’s own word and the Holy Spirit.The papacy is therefore not a human invention or a claim to worldly power, but a gift of Christ for the safeguarding of the Gospel and the pastoral care of His flock. Like Eliakim of old, the Pope is called to be a father to God’s people—opening the doors of mercy, teaching with authority, and strengthening the brethren in faith. When we look to the Chair of Peter, we see not merely a man, but the enduring presence of Christ’s own pastoral care for His Church until the end of time.Just yesterday we celebrated Mary as Queen—crowned not by worldly power but by her intimate share in the redemptive work of her Son. As Queen Mother she intercedes for us with a mother’s solicitude, guiding us to the same Christ whom Peter confessed. Her queenship reminds us that the greatest in the Kingdom are those who humble themselves. Mary’s fiat made her the perfect disciple; 

Peter’s confession made him the rock. Both point us to Jesus, the true King, whose Church stands firm against every assault through the ministry of Peter’s successors.As we receive the Eucharist this Sunday, may we renew our own confession of faith. Who do we say that Jesus is—not merely with our lips, but with our lives? May Our Lady, Queen of Heaven and Earth, intercede for us, and may the successor of Peter continue to strengthen us in unity and truth, that we may remain faithful stewards of the keys entrusted to the Church, living in the unsearchable wisdom and eternal love of God. Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands. Amen.

Just yesterday we celebrated Mary as Queen—crowned not by worldly power but by her intimate share in the redemptive work of her Son. As Queen Mother she intercedes for us with a mother’s solicitude, guiding us to the same Christ whom Peter confessed. Her queenship reminds us that the greatest in the Kingdom are those who humble themselves. Mary’s fiat made her the perfect disciple; Peter’s confession made him the rock. Both point us to Jesus, the true King, whose Church stands firm against every assault.

As we receive the Eucharist this Sunday, may we renew our own confession of faith. Who do we say that Jesus is—not merely with our lips, but with our lives? May Our Lady, Queen of Heaven and Earth, intercede for us, that we may remain faithful stewards of the keys entrusted to the Church, living in the unsearchable wisdom and eternal love of God. Lord, your love is eternal; do not forsake the work of your hands. Amen.

Hallow Survey Reveals Surging Catholicism on College Campuses

A New Wave of Faith: Hallow Survey Reveals Surging Catholicism on College Campuses

In an era often marked by stories of declining religious affiliation, secularization, and spiritual disconnection among young people, a striking counter-narrative is emerging from American college campuses. A recent survey conducted by Hallow, the leading Catholic prayer and meditation app, has documented a remarkable increase in interest in Catholicism among university students. The data points to substantial growth in participation in the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults (OCIA)—the process through which adults and older youth enter the Catholic Church through baptism, confirmation, and first Eucharist, or complete their initiation if already baptized in another Christian tradition.

This development is not isolated. It forms part of a broader pattern of growth within the Catholic Church, both in the United States and globally. The Church continues to experience immense expansion, sustained by the action of God and the Holy Spirit who was sent to guide and animate the Church from its earliest days. Far from the narratives of inevitable decline sometimes advanced by critics, the evidence shows vitality and renewal. Vatican II, often unfairly maligned by some traditionalist voices, has coincided with extraordinary numerical growth. The humble and pastoral approach of the late Pope Francis further inspired many, including non-Catholics, who recognized in him an authentic reflection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, while beautiful liturgy, solid preaching, and clear catechesis play important roles, what draws people most powerfully back to Rome—or to the Church for the first time—is authenticity: Catholics who live the faith daily, demonstrating that it truly works, transforms lives, and produces lasting fruit.

 The Hallow College Survey: What the Data Shows

Hallow surveyed approximately 60 colleges and universities across the United States, encompassing institutions of varying sizes, geographic locations, and affiliations—both Catholic and secular. The findings, reported in mid-August 2026, focus on OCIA participation during the 2025-26 academic year compared with the prior year. On average, the schools that provided data reported a 115 percent increase in OCIA numbers. Participation more than doubled in many cases.

Specific examples illustrate the scale. At the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) in Oxford, Mississippi—a region not traditionally viewed as a Catholic stronghold—OCIA participation rose from 25 students in 2024-25 to 86 in 2025-26, a 244 percent increase. The University of Alabama saw its OCIA population double from 41 to 82. At the University of Tennessee, numbers grew from 25 to 40. The University of Southern California has experienced dramatic multi-year growth in its OCIA program, largely through word-of-mouth rather than formal advertising. Catholic institutions also registered gains: the University of Notre Dame increased from 52 to 76 candidates and catechumens; Boston College rose modestly from 28 to 31; and The Catholic University of America climbed from 4 to 14.

These campus figures build on earlier Hallow data from Easter 2026 showing an average 38 percent increase in people entering the Church through OCIA across more than 140 of the approximately 175 U.S. dioceses (representing the vast majority of American Catholics). Large archdioceses posted notable gains, including Los Angeles at +139 percent (welcoming over 8,000), Chicago at +52 percent, and New York at +36 percent. Smaller dioceses also surged, with Duluth, Minnesota, recording +145 percent. College Newman Centers and campus ministries have reported parallel “staggering” interest in recent years, with some centers seeing hundreds of students in formation.

Hallow personnel have linked the campus growth in part to pervasive loneliness and disconnection among students. Rebekah Smith, a senior partner success lead at Hallow working with college students, observed that young people are lonelier than ever, yet stories of community found within the Catholic Church offer real hope. In a culture of digital isolation, algorithmic feeds, and fragmented social lives, the Church’s sacramental life, communal prayer, and clear moral and spiritual framework provide belonging and purpose that many are actively seeking.

 What Is Going On: Broader Context and Trends

This campus surge does not occur in a vacuum. It reflects wider patterns of spiritual searching among Generation Z and young adults. Many students arrive at college having experienced the disruptions of the COVID-19 years, cultural polarization, mental health challenges, and a sense that secular materialism fails to answer deeper questions about meaning, suffering, identity, and destiny. Some young men in particular have been drawn toward traditional values and institutions that offer stability and welcome after feeling sidelined by certain cultural currents. Social media discussions, Catholic influencers, and encounters with practicing peers have played roles. Yet the data suggests something more fundamental: an openness to transcendence and a hunger for truth that the Catholic tradition is uniquely positioned to address.

Campus ministries, Newman Centers, and Catholic student groups have responded with intentional outreach, hospitality, and formation. Partnerships between Hallow and various universities have made guided prayer resources widely available, helping students build daily habits of prayer amid academic pressures. The growth appears strongest in unexpected places, indicating that the appeal of Catholicism is not limited to historic ethnic or regional strongholds. Students are discovering the richness of the sacraments, the intellectual tradition of the Church, the beauty of its liturgy and art, and the witness of ordinary Catholics living with integrity.

Importantly, this is occurring alongside continued global expansion of the Catholic Church. Official statistics and analyses consistently show the worldwide Catholic population rising. At the time of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), estimates placed the number of Catholics around 500–560 million. Today the figure exceeds 1.4 billion, with recent reports citing approximately 1.39 to 1.42 billion baptized Catholics. Growth has been particularly robust in Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America and the Americas, outpacing overall population growth in many periods. The Church has become more truly universal, a “world Church,” as theologians have noted.

 Immense Growth and the Role of God and the Holy Spirit

The Catholic Church’s continued immense growth is, first and foremost, the work of God. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to empower the apostles and to remain with the Church as its advocate, guide, and sanctifier. The Spirit continues to call people to conversion, to convict hearts of truth, and to build up the Body of Christ across cultures and generations. Numerical expansion is one visible sign of this ongoing divine action, even as the Church faces internal challenges, scandals, and external pressures.

Critics sometimes claim that modern developments represent failure or dilution. Yet the raw demographic reality points otherwise. From roughly half a billion Catholics around the time of Vatican II to well over a billion—and approaching or surpassing 1.4 billion in recent tallies—the Church has grown substantially. This expansion has occurred despite secularization in parts of Europe and North America, persecution in some regions, and the complexities of modernity. The Holy Spirit was sent to the Church not merely for a golden age of the past but for every age, including our own. The Spirit works through the sacraments, through the preaching of the Gospel, through the quiet fidelity of ordinary believers, and through moments of cultural openness such as those now visible on college campuses.

 Vatican II Was Not a Failure

Some traditionalist voices have portrayed the Second Vatican Council as a catastrophe that precipitated decline. The data does not support that sweeping judgment. Vatican II opened the Church more fully to the modern world while reaffirming core doctrines. It emphasized the universal call to holiness, the role of the laity, liturgical renewal aimed at fuller participation, dialogue with other Christians and with the broader culture, and a missionary posture suited to a global era. The Council’s documents, including Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Dei Verbum, sought to equip the Church for the challenges of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

The growth from approximately 500 million to over 1.4 billion Catholics since that period demonstrates that the Council did not destroy the Church. It helped foster a more international Church, with vibrant communities in the Global South driving much of the numerical increase. Challenges in the post-conciliar period—implementation difficulties, cultural upheavals of the 1960s and beyond, declines in practice in some Western countries—are real and must be addressed honestly. Yet attributing overall institutional failure to Vatican II ignores the evidence of expansion and the Council’s own call to fidelity and renewal. The Church’s vitality is not measured solely by European or North American Mass attendance rates but by the global body of believers and the ongoing conversion of hearts. Vatican II was not a failure; it was a moment of the Spirit guiding the Church into a new phase of its mission.

 The Pope Francis Effect

The late Pope Francis left a distinctive mark that contributed to the Church’s attractiveness, especially among those outside formal Catholic circles. His humble nature, simplicity of life, and consistent emphasis on mercy and pastoral care resonated widely. Non-Catholics frequently remarked that they saw in him an authentic portrayal of Jesus Christ—reaching out to the marginalized, emphasizing encounter over ideology, and prioritizing the person in front of him.

Francis embodied the Gospel call of Duc in altum—“Put out into the deep” (Luke 5:4)—encouraging the Church to move beyond comfortable shores into deeper waters of mission and mercy. He spoke of pastors acquiring “the smell of the sheep,” remaining close to the people they serve, sharing their realities, and meeting them where they are in life’s complexities. This approach of accompaniment, without compromising doctrine, inspired many who had felt distant from institutional religion. His gestures—washing the feet of prisoners, visiting refugee camps, speaking frankly about poverty and exclusion—communicated the Gospel in accessible human terms. For young people and seekers on college campuses, such authenticity can lower barriers and open doors to deeper exploration of the faith. The “Francis effect” helped humanize the papacy and the Church for a generation wary of institutions, demonstrating that Catholic leadership could be both orthodox in essentials and radically open in pastoral charity.

 What Ultimately Draws People Home to Rome

Liturgy matters. Beautiful, reverent worship—whether in the ordinary form celebrated with care or in the extraordinary form—can captivate the senses and point the soul toward the transcendent. Many young people are drawn by the beauty of traditional elements, incense, chant, silence, and the sense of the sacred. Good preaching that unpacks Scripture and applies it to contemporary life, along with solid catechetics that explain the “why” behind the “what” of Catholic teaching, are essential. Intellectual rigor and clear formation help students integrate faith with reason in a university setting.

Yet what truly drives people back home to Rome, or into the Church for the first time, is authenticity. When Catholics live the faith daily—not as a cultural inheritance or a set of obligations confined to Sunday Mass, holy days, and occasional prayers, but as a living, transformative relationship with Jesus Christ—it becomes visible. The faith works. It changes people from the inside. It produces the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). It enables people to navigate suffering with hope, to practice forgiveness, to serve the poor, to uphold the dignity of every person, and to find meaning that secular alternatives cannot supply.

Authenticity is contagious. A roommate who prays consistently, a classmate who treats others with consistent charity, a campus minister who listens without judgment yet holds firm to truth, a friend whose life has been visibly healed by the sacraments—these witnesses speak louder than arguments alone. They show that Catholicism is not merely a system of rules or a historical institution but a path of encounter with the living God that actually transforms. In an age of curated online personas and widespread skepticism, genuine lived faith cuts through the noise. Students notice when the faith is not compartmentalized but integrated into study, friendships, relationships, and responses to the world’s brokenness.

This authenticity flows from the same sources that have sustained the Church for two millennia: the Eucharist as the source and summit, frequent confession, prayer (including the rich treasury made accessible by tools like Hallow), devotion to Mary and the saints, and active charity. When these are lived, the Church becomes a home that people want to enter and remain in.

 Looking Ahead with Hope

The Hallow survey on college campuses offers a snapshot of hope amid broader cultural challenges. Lonely students are finding community. Seekers are finding answers. Young adults are discovering that the Catholic faith is not outdated but perennially relevant because it is rooted in the person of Jesus Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit. The Church’s global numbers continue to rise. Vatican II’s vision of a missionary, engaged, and holy people of God continues to bear fruit. The pastoral example of Pope Francis reminded the world of the face of Christ in the Church’s leaders. And the quiet, daily authenticity of countless Catholics remains the most powerful invitation of all.

The growth is real. The Spirit is at work. For those on campuses and beyond who are searching, the doors of the Church remain open. Come and see. The faith is living and transformative. It changes people—and through them, it changes others. It produces fruit that endures.

 References

- Catholic Herald. “US colleges report surge in OCIA participation.” August 20/21, 2026. Reporting on Hallow’s survey of approximately 60 colleges showing average 115% growth in OCIA participation for 2025-26, with specific campus examples.

- Hallow. “Catholic Church Sees Massive Growth in New Members in 2026.” March 31, 2026. Analysis of data from more than 140 U.S. dioceses showing average 38% increase in OCIA entries at Easter 2026.

- America Magazine. “Unpacking the data behind the ‘Catholic revival.’” April 30, 2026. Discussion of Hallow’s diocesan findings and contextual analysis with CARA data.

- Additional reporting from Washington Times, Religion News Service, JubileeCast, and related outlets on the 2026 Easter convert surge and campus trends.

- Vatican statistical yearbooks and analyses of global Catholic population growth from the era of Vatican II (approximately 500–560 million) to recent figures exceeding 1.4 billion.

- Scriptural references: Matthew 16:18; Luke 5:4; Galatians 5:22-23; accounts of Pentecost and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

- Teachings and examples drawn from the pontificate of Pope Francis regarding pastoral closeness, Duc in altum, and acquiring the “scent of the sheep.”