Importance of Vigilant Maintenance of Church Properties

Stewarding Sacred Spaces: The Urgent Call for Vigilant Maintenance of Church Properties

Churches are more than buildings. They are places where communities gather to pray, baptize, marry, bury, and celebrate the Eucharist. They hold the weight of generations of faith, memory, and hope. Because of that sacred role, the physical fabric of church properties—walls, roofs, statues, crucifixes, altars, and the systems that support them—demands careful, ongoing attention. Neglect is not merely a practical failure; it can become a betrayal of the trust parishioners place in those who care for these spaces.

The death of Father Patricio Alfredo Sánchez Molinari on October 17, 2026, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, has brought this responsibility into sharp and painful focus. During a livestreamed Mass at Nuestra Señora del Perpetuo Socorro (Our Lady of Perpetual Help), a large wooden crucifix mounted on the wall behind the altar detached, fell forward, and struck the 52- or 53-year-old Redemptorist priest on the head. He died from the injuries. Minutes earlier, he had preached on the finitude of life, reminding the congregation that “one day all of us who are here are also going to die” and urging them to spend their time with God and family rather than on trivial things. The Archdiocese of Guayaquil confirmed his death, and the Redemptorist community expressed profound sadness. Authorities have not publicly identified the precise cause of the detachment, and investigations continue.

This tragedy is a stark reminder that heavy liturgical objects and aging or stressed structures can pose real hazards. Dioceses and parishes everywhere have a duty to ensure that properties are regularly inspected, properly maintained, and brought up to—or kept at—applicable building codes and safety standards. Stewardship of sacred space includes protecting the people who enter it.

Why Church Properties Present Unique Risks

Many churches are old. Some date to the 19th or early 20th century; others are far older. Even modern buildings face stresses from weather, seismic activity, soil movement, humidity, temperature cycles, and ordinary wear. Ecuador sits in a seismically active region; many other places face hurricanes, heavy snow loads, flooding, or simply the cumulative effects of decades of deferred maintenance.

Heavy objects are common: large crucifixes, statues of saints or the Virgin Mary, stone or wood altars, pulpits, and decorative elements high on walls or suspended from ceilings. These items are often anchored into masonry or timber that has deteriorated, or fixed with metal hardware that corrodes over time. A seemingly secure mount can fail when vibration, moisture, corrosion, or gradual structural shift weakens the connection. Walls themselves can develop cracks from foundation settlement, water infiltration, or seismic stress. Roofs can leak, leading to rot in structural timber or corrosion of metal supports. Bell towers, pinnacles, and exterior monuments add further weight and leverage.

Beyond structural elements, infrastructure systems matter. Electrical systems in older buildings may not meet modern codes. Plumbing can fail and cause water damage. Heating and ventilation systems affect both comfort and the long-term preservation of interiors. Fire safety, emergency exits, and accessibility features protect lives during ordinary use and emergencies. When any of these systems is compromised, the risk multiplies.

The incident involving Fr. Patricio illustrates how quickly a latent problem can become catastrophic. A crucifix that had presumably hung securely for years suddenly failed during the most public and sacred moment of the week. Parishioners watched in horror as the livestream captured the moment. Such events are rare, but rarity does not eliminate the obligation to reduce the chance of recurrence.

Monitoring Statues, Crucifixes, and Heavy Liturgical Elements

Statues and crucifixes deserve particular attention because of their weight, location, and symbolic importance. Large wooden or composite crucifixes can weigh hundreds of pounds. Stone or cast statues are heavier still. When mounted on walls above or behind altars, or suspended in naves, they sit directly above or near people.

Effective monitoring begins with a clear inventory. Every parish should know the weight, material, mounting method, age, and last inspection date of every significant statue, crucifix, and decorative object. Mounting hardware—bolts, brackets, anchors, chains, or wires—should be examined for corrosion, looseness, fatigue, or improper installation. Wooden elements should be checked for rot, insect damage, or splitting. Masonry around anchors should be probed for softness, cracking, or spalling.

In seismic zones, or in buildings that experience vibration from traffic, bells, or construction, fixings must be engineered for dynamic loads, not merely static weight. Even in stable regions, gradual wall movement or differential settlement can stress anchors. Professional structural engineers or conservation specialists familiar with historic or religious buildings should evaluate high-risk items periodically—ideally as part of a broader inspection program, and more frequently if any warning signs appear.

Warning signs include visible cracks radiating from mounting points, rust stains, gaps between the object and the wall, movement when gently tested (by qualified personnel only), or evidence of previous repairs that may have been inadequate. After major weather events, earthquakes, or nearby construction, targeted re-inspections are prudent. Temporary supports or removal for conservation may be necessary while permanent solutions are designed.

Liturgical art is not disposable decoration; it is part of the church’s teaching and beauty. Proper care preserves both the objects and the people who gather beneath them. When mounting systems are renewed, the work should respect the artistic and historic character of the piece while meeting current structural standards. Diocesan art and architecture commissions or equivalent bodies can help balance these priorities.

Broader Structural Stability and Building Systems

The stability of the building itself underpins everything else. Foundations can shift, especially on expansive soils or in areas with high water tables. Walls can develop cracks from thermal movement, water, or structural overload. Roofs are frequent points of failure; missing tiles, blocked gutters, or deteriorated flashing allow water to enter, damaging timber, plaster, and electrical systems far below. Bell frames, towers, and high-level masonry features require specialized attention because of height and wind loads.

Regular visual inspections by trained volunteers or staff can catch early problems. Walk the exterior and interior systematically. Look for new cracks, bulging masonry, damp patches, peeling paint, efflorescence, or misaligned elements. Check roofs from the ground with binoculars or after storms for missing or slipped coverings. Inspect gutters and downspouts to ensure water is directed away from foundations. Inside, examine ceilings for stains, floor levels for unevenness, and structural timber for signs of decay.

Professional inspections provide the deeper assessment. In many Anglican dioceses, quinquennial (five-year) inspections by approved architects or surveyors are mandatory. Catholic dioceses often have analogous requirements or recommendations through facilities offices, insurance carriers, or local building codes. These reports identify priority repairs, estimate costs, and guide long-term planning. They should be reviewed by parish leadership and diocesan staff, with action plans and funding strategies developed accordingly.

Infrastructure systems require their own schedules. Electrical installations should be tested and certified at intervals recommended by codes and insurers—often every three to five years for older buildings. Fire detection and suppression systems, emergency lighting, and extinguishers need regular testing and servicing. Plumbing, HVAC, and accessibility features must be maintained so that the building remains usable and safe. Asbestos registers, where relevant, must be kept current. Documentation of all inspections, repairs, and tests creates a continuous record that protects the parish and informs future work.

Climate change adds urgency. More intense rainfall, temperature extremes, and wind events stress roofs, walls, and drainage. Parishes in vulnerable areas should incorporate resilience measures—improved waterproofing, drainage upgrades, or reinforced mounting systems—into their maintenance plans.

Best Practices for Regular Inspections and Maintenance

A practical program combines frequent local checks with periodic professional review.

- Monthly or quarterly visual checks: Designated volunteers or staff walk the property with a simple checklist covering exits, lighting, obvious structural issues, and high-risk objects. Record findings in a logbook.

- Seasonal maintenance: Clear gutters in spring and fall. Service heating systems before winter. Address minor leaks and paint failures promptly.

- Annual comprehensive review: Parish facilities or property committees, ideally with diocesan support, review the building’s condition, outstanding recommendations from prior reports, and insurance requirements.

- Professional inspections every five years (or more frequently for high-risk buildings): Qualified architects, structural engineers, or surveyors examine the entire fabric. Their reports prioritize work into categories such as urgent, within 12 months, or desirable. Follow-up ensures recommendations are addressed.

- Specialized assessments: Statues, crucifixes, bells, organs, and stained glass may require conservators. Seismic evaluations are essential in active zones. After any significant event, targeted inspections should occur.

Documentation is essential. Maintain a church logbook of repairs, a file of inspection reports, warranties, and as-built drawings where available. Insurance carriers often require evidence of maintenance; compliance can affect coverage and premiums. When major work is needed, involve diocesan facilities staff early for guidance on permissions, funding, and contractors experienced with ecclesiastical buildings.

Funding remains a challenge for many parishes. Deferred maintenance compounds costs. Dioceses can help by offering grants, low-interest loans, shared consultant pools, or training for parish property committees. Some establish endowment funds or capital campaigns specifically for building care. Partnerships with historical societies or government preservation programs can unlock additional resources, provided they respect the building’s liturgical purpose.

The Role of Dioceses and Parishes

Responsibility is shared. Parishes know their buildings intimately and manage day-to-day care. Dioceses provide expertise, standards, oversight, and resources. A strong diocesan facilities or property office can supply model inspection checklists, lists of approved professionals, training workshops, and technical advice. It can also enforce minimum standards so that no parish is left without a basic safety program.

Insurance requirements and local building codes set a floor, not a ceiling. Churches should exceed minimums where people gather regularly and where heavy or elevated objects are present. Diocesan policies can require documented inspections of high-risk elements and review of major mounting systems before installation or after significant time has passed.

Transparency and accountability matter. When problems are identified, they should be addressed promptly rather than deferred indefinitely. Communication with parishioners about maintenance needs builds understanding and support for necessary fundraising. After incidents such as the one in Guayaquil, dioceses can issue guidance reminding parishes of inspection protocols and offering assistance with assessments.

Pastoral leaders set the tone. When bishops, pastors, and property committees treat building care as integral to mission rather than a distraction from it, the culture shifts. Safety becomes part of hospitality: a well-maintained church welcomes people without exposing them to unnecessary risk.

A Call to Action

The death of Fr. Patricio Sánchez Molinari is a profound loss for his community, his religious order, and the Church. His final homily on the preciousness of time now carries an unintended weight. We honor his memory not only by praying for the repose of his soul and comfort for those who mourn him, but by ensuring that the spaces where we worship are as safe as human diligence can make them.

Dioceses and parishes should review their inspection and maintenance programs immediately. Inventory heavy objects and their mountings. Schedule professional assessments where records are outdated. Address any known deficiencies. Train local volunteers. Document everything. Budget for ongoing care rather than crisis repairs.

Sacred spaces exist so that people can encounter God and one another without fear. Maintaining their structural integrity, the security of their statues and crucifixes, and the reliability of their systems is an act of love for the living and respect for those who built and sustained these places before us. In the wake of a tragedy that should never have occurred, the duty is clear: inspect, maintain, repair, and protect. The faithful who gather under our roofs deserve nothing less.

Eternal rest grant unto Father Patricio, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his death strengthen our resolve to care well for the houses of prayer entrusted to us.

Fr. Chad Ripperger’s Year of Silence: Popular Piety, Personal Theories, and the Boundaries of Catholic Teaching

Fr. Chad Ripperger’s Year of Silence: Popular Piety, Personal Theories, and the Boundaries of Catholic Teaching

On October 19, 2026, reports emerged that Denver Archbishop James Golka had asked Fr. Chad Ripperger, the widely known American exorcist and superior of the Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother (the Doloran Fathers), to take a one-year “fast” from public speaking and interviews. The Archdiocese of Denver stated that the request came during a meeting about his ministry and community so that he could devote himself more fully to the Society and those it serves. Fr. Ripperger “readily agreed,” with a review planned at the end of the year. The archdiocese expressed gratitude for his priestly service and exorcism ministry and asked the faithful to pray for him and the Society.

LifeSiteNews framed the development more starkly, reporting that it had confirmed with the priest himself that the restrictions covered public appearances, online homilies, writings, and already-booked talks, lasting until September of the following year. Fr. Ripperger informed the outlet he could not fulfill a speaking engagement at its anniversary gala, directing questions to the Archbishop. The timing coincided with his recent high-profile appearances on the Shawn Ryan Show and with Tucker Carlson, which drew millions of views on topics including possession, the occult, addiction, communism, the mark of the beast, and end-times speculation.

No public canonical decree, finding of heresy, or formal penalty has been announced. The distinction between an agreed temporary withdrawal and a silencing order has itself become part of the online discussion. What is clear is that one of the most visible living English-speaking voices on spiritual warfare has been asked to step back from the public square.

 Resources Associated with Fr. Ripperger’s Work

Fr. Ripperger’s influence rests partly on accessible materials. His books include Deliverance Prayers for Use by the Laity, Dominion: The Nature of Diabolic Warfare, Introduction to the Science of Mental Health, and Minor Exorcisms and Deliverance Prayers. He promotes the Auxilium Christianorum association and its daily prayers intended to support priests engaged in deliverance work while remaining within legitimate authority. The Society of the Most Sorrowful Mother focuses on traditional liturgy and assistance in cases of spiritual need, working under local bishops. Recorded talks appear primarily on Sensus Fidelium and related channels.

These resources emphasize frequent confession, the state of grace, the Rosary, holy water, blessed salt, the St. Michael Prayer, and sacramentals. They also stress that deliverance prayers are not magic and that living the sacramental life is primary. At the same time, critics note that some of the material presents speculative or private opinions—on generational spirits, specific demon hierarchies, or mental-health causation—with the authority of settled Catholic teaching.

Official Church resources remain the safer baseline for most Catholics: the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the reality of angels and demons, the Rite of Exorcism (which requires episcopal faculties for solemn exorcism), approved manuals used by designated exorcists, and ordinary pastoral guidance from one’s own pastor or diocesan office. Discernment of spirits is a traditional practice, but it is not a license for every priest or layperson to diagnose and command in every case. USCCB guidelines on exorcism stress that dioceses should establish protocols requiring medical, psychological, and psychiatric evaluation before referral to an exorcist, precisely to distinguish natural causes from extraordinary demonic activity.

 Troubling Statements and Claims, and What the Church Teaches

Several of Fr. Ripperger’s public statements have drawn sustained criticism for potential harm or for stretching beyond what the Church formally teaches.

On mental health, he has repeatedly described diagnosable bipolar disorder as a form of demonic obsession. In one talk he stated that every person diagnosed as bipolar who came to him and followed his instructions was able to come completely off medication and be “straightened out” within about three months. He has said he has had “phenomenally good success” using an older-rite blessing that “drives out the demonic,” and that this affirms the obsession diagnosis. He has also remarked that every form of mental illness can be caused by demons. While he distinguishes patterns of psychological versus diabolical affliction in other talks and acknowledges real psychological illness, the practical claim that bipolar patients can routinely discontinue medication under spiritual protocols has alarmed clinicians and some Catholic observers. Untreated or abruptly discontinued treatment for bipolar disorder carries well-documented risks of relapse, hospitalization, and suicide.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1673) draws a clear line: “Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness.” Official Church practice requires moral certitude that the affliction is demonic, reached only after medical and psychiatric evaluation. The Church does not treat recognized psychiatric conditions as routinely or primarily demonic, nor does it authorize priests to instruct the faithful to abandon prescribed medication on the basis of private spiritual protocols. Fr. Ripperger’s confident generalizations sit outside this framework.

On non-Catholics, he has asserted that a single deviation from an attribute of God means a person is not worshiping the same God, and that “not a solid theologian before Vatican II would have ever said that the Muslims worship the same God that we do,” despite the language of Nostra Aetate. He has further claimed that religious acts performed outside the Church (such as baptizing someone) are “actually offensive to God” because they are done contrary to the rights of those who possess the elements of sanctification.

Nostra Aetate 3 states that the Church “regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.” Lumen Gentium 16 similarly notes that Muslims, “together with us…adore the one, merciful God.” The Catechism (841) echoes this language. The Church teaches that monotheists who acknowledge the Creator are related in various ways to the People of God, even while affirming that the fullness of revelation is in Christ and that Islam does not accept the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus. Fr. Ripperger’s stricter formulation goes beyond, and at points against, these conciliar and catechetical statements.

Regarding Harry Potter, Fr. Ripperger has said that J.K. Rowling “went to witch school” before writing the books, that some of the spells are real (because witches say so), that a woman in Spain burned down her house attempting one, and that an exorcist told him roughly 60 percent of the character names are actual demon names encountered in exorcisms. He has also recounted a possession case in which demons claimed they inspired the books. Apologists such as Trent Horn have pointed out the lack of corroborating evidence for the witch-school claim, noted that the “spells” are largely invented or broken Latin, and questioned the wisdom of treating demons’ self-descriptions as reliable. The Church has no official condemnation of the series. The Catechism (2116–2117) rejects superstition, divination, and recourse to demons, but leaves judgments about particular works of fiction to prudence. Believing the unverified claims of demons about cultural artifacts, or treating fictional Latin phrases as functional spells, is not part of Catholic teaching.

He has also rejected evolution as contrary to reason and theologically problematic, and he has described alien-abduction scenarios as identical to demonic activity once the “alien” veneer is stripped away. The Church permits a range of views on the scientific theory of evolution compatible with the creation of the soul by God; it does not require rejection of the theory as contrary to reason.

 Sensationalist Elements of Popular Piety

Fr. Ripperger frequently discusses sacramentals and sacred language in ways that strike some Catholics as dramatic. He has explained that historically church bells were exorcised so that their ringing would drive demons from the surrounding area. He has described cases in which simply ringing an exercised bell produces an immediate manifestation (“Jack-in-the-box”). Other exorcists have similarly noted that demons dislike bells, beautiful music, and objects that direct attention to divine worship; the phenomenon is not unique to him. Nonetheless, the vivid anecdotes can leave the impression that these objects function almost mechanically against the demonic.

On Latin, he has stated that demons find the sacred languages—especially Latin spoken with ecclesiastical pronunciation—particularly difficult to tolerate. Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are fixed to the instrument of salvation (the Cross), according to the Fathers; the ecclesiastical pronunciation appears to matter. He has recounted demons who were fluent in Latin and fussy about grammar, or who spoke long-dead languages. Reports of xenoglossy during possession are part of the traditional literature of exorcism. The risk in popular presentation is that ordinary Catholics may conclude Latin Masses or prayers possess an automatic, near-magical superiority that vernacular ones lack, or that the precise pronunciation is decisive in a way that eclipses the Church’s actual teaching on the efficacy of the sacraments and prayer offered in faith. The Church has always valued the sacred languages, yet the Second Vatican Council and subsequent liturgical law affirm the legitimacy of the vernacular for the liturgy while preserving Latin as a privileged language. Efficacy is not tied to one pronunciation in the mechanical manner sometimes suggested.

 Anecdotes That Have Caused Contention

Many of the most contested claims rest on what demons allegedly said or did during sessions. Fr. Ripperger has spoken of a hierarchy of “five generals” immediately under Satan (Baal for fornication and impurity in culture, Asmodeus for male homosexuality, Leviathan for one form of female homosexuality, Lilith for another, and Baphomet for child sacrifice/abortion). He has linked specific political and legal developments in the United States to the cultural delivery of the country into their hands. Traditional Catholic demonology acknowledges hierarchy among fallen angels (mirroring the angelic choirs), often associating principal demons with the capital sins. However, the specific roster of “five generals” with these precise functions and names does not appear in the Fathers, the Doctors, or magisterial teaching. Fr. Ripperger has indicated that the scheme emerged from discussions among exorcists rather than from established texts. Some priest-theologians have described it as constructed rather than traditional.

He has described conversations in which demons identified themselves or made claims about cultural artifacts. Traditional authors such as St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Liguori caution strongly against unnecessary dialogue with demons; some critics argue that public retelling of such exchanges, even when framed as pastoral data, risks giving the demons the attention they seek or presenting their statements as credible. The Church’s official approach to exorcism prioritizes the authority of Christ and the Church over curiosity about demonic self-descriptions.

Political anecdotes have also circulated. After the 2020 election, a “Prayer of Command” associated with him circulated in some Catholic circles with “Stop the Steal” language. He later clarified that a political group had modified a deliverance prayer he composed and that he had only encouraged prayer for the integrity of the election. Similar material has reappeared in subsequent cycles. Whether or not the original intent was political, the episode illustrated how spiritual-warfare language can be appropriated for partisan ends.

 Imposition of Personal Views and Theories

A recurring critique is that Fr. Ripperger presents highly specific theories—on family structure, psychology, demonology, and culture—as if they were simply Catholic teaching rather than his own synthesis or opinion.

On marriage and women, he has spoken of “the curse of Eve,” whereby women after the Fall strive to dominate their husbands and must work against this tendency. He has stated that it is a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the home without sufficient reason, citing older moral manuals, and that a wife’s perfection in marriage includes piety toward her husband’s God-given authority regardless of his personal merits. He has described feminism as an inversion of the original order exploited by Satan, and has linked the movement of women into the workforce with communist-inspired attacks on the family. In one talk he remarked that giving women the right to vote divided the basic building block of society, because the husband formerly cast the vote for the family.

Catholic teaching affirms the complementary roles of husband and wife, the husband’s headship in the domestic church, and the importance of a mother’s presence. Familiaris Consortio 23, however, states that “the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women fully justifies women’s access to public functions,” while insisting that society must be structured so that wives and mothers are not compelled to work outside the home and that the maternal role is properly valued. The Church does not teach that ordinary employment by a wife is mortal sin. Older moral manuals reflecting different economic and social conditions are not the last word of the Magisterium. Fr. Ripperger’s stronger formulations can become prescriptions that collapse mutual counsel and charity into unilateral submission and that risk spiritualizing ordinary marital disagreements.

Generational spirits or “generational wounds” form another area of private theory presented with considerable confidence. Fr. Ripperger teaches that demons can attach to family lines through grave sin, curses, or the authority of a parent, producing recurring patterns of vice or affliction across generations. The idea is not defined or condemned by the Magisterium; it appears in neither the Catechism nor the writings of the Doctors of the Church in the form he develops. Multiple bishops’ conferences have addressed related practices. The Spanish bishops in 2024 stated that “intergenerational healing” has no basis in Catholic doctrine, that sin is personal, that only original sin is transmitted (and not as personal guilt), and that Baptism forgives all sins. Polish, French, and other conferences have reached similar conclusions, warning that such theories can contradict the efficacy of the sacraments and the personal nature of sin. While patterns of sin and dysfunction clearly pass through families by example, trauma, and environment, the claim of specific demonic transmission that can be identified and expelled by particular protocols remains speculative and, in its stronger forms, has been judged by Church authorities to lack foundation.

Binding prayers for the laity, detailed demon taxonomies, and confident assertions about the precise spiritual causes of widespread cultural or medical phenomena similarly move from the common teaching of the Church into the realm of one experienced practitioner’s working theories. Experience in the ministry of exorcism is valuable; it does not automatically confer the charism of infallibility on every observation or every causal explanation.

 Conclusion

Fr. Chad Ripperger has spent decades in a difficult and necessary ministry. Many Catholics have found his emphasis on the reality of the demonic, the importance of the sacraments, traditional liturgy, and concrete spiritual practices helpful. The request from his archbishop for a year focused on his own community rather than the public stage may simply reflect pastoral priorities. It may also reflect concern that certain statements and anecdotes, once amplified by large platforms, have generated confusion, contention, or potential harm.

Catholics who encounter his material are free to weigh it against the broader tradition, the Catechism, the guidance of their own pastors, and, where health is involved, competent medical advice. Popular piety that multiplies bells, Latin phrases, and dramatic stories can awaken zeal; it can also slide into superstition when it is detached from the Church’s measured teaching. Personal theories about family order, mental illness, or demon hierarchies, however confidently stated, remain personal until the Church teaches otherwise. The year of reduced public ministry offers an opportunity for both the priest and his audience to distinguish more carefully between what the Church proposes for belief and what an individual exorcist has found useful in his own practice.

Priest Killed by Crucifix During Mass

A Priest Dies Under a Falling Crucifix in Ecuador: Facts, Mockery, and Why This Does Not Disprove God

On the evening of Saturday, October 17, 2026, Father Patricio Alfredo Sánchez Molinari was celebrating Mass at Nuestra Señora del Perpetuo Socorro (Our Lady of Perpetual Help) in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The Mass was livestreamed. He stood at the altar, facing the congregation, and had just delivered a sermon reflecting on the fleeting nature of life. Drawing on Jesus’ words, he urged people not to waste their days scrolling on phones but to give their best time to God and to their loved ones. “One day, all of us here will also die,” he said, “and sometimes the time we’ve spent on things doesn’t have as much meaning as the time we spend with God.”

Minutes later, a large wooden crucifix mounted on the wall behind the altar detached and fell forward, striking him on the back of the head. He collapsed. Parishioners screamed and rushed to help; the livestream captured their cries for an ambulance. The Archdiocese of Guayaquil confirmed that Father Sánchez Molinari, a member of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorists) and the parish priest, had died. A memorial Eucharist was held the following evening in the same church. He had been congratulated by the archdiocese only the day before on the anniversary of his ordination. He was about 53 years old and had previously served in Vinces.

Authorities and the Church have not publicly stated a definitive cause for the crucifix’s detachment. Reports note that church and police were looking into the mounting. Possible explanations include material fatigue, age of the fittings, vibration, improper installation, or wood deterioration—ordinary structural failures that can affect any heavy object hung on a wall. There is no confirmed evidence of an earthquake or deliberate act. The video shows a sudden, unheralded fall.

The footage spread rapidly on social media. Alongside genuine grief and prayers for the priest and his community, a familiar stream of mockery appeared: claims that “Jesus killed the priest,” that God is not real because this happened during Mass in front of the Blessed Sacrament, that the crucifix itself “proved” the emptiness of faith, or that the precision of the impact was somehow funny or damning. Some treated the tragedy as a dunk on Catholicism or theism. Others speculated about divine punishment. Such remarks are common whenever religious people suffer; they require little originality and less empathy.

These reactions fail for straightforward reasons. A crucifix is a wooden (and sometimes metal) object subject to the same physical laws as any other heavy fixture. Gravity, wood rot, failed fasteners, and material fatigue do not pause because someone is celebrating the Eucharist. Churches are not force fields. Priests, nuns, and laypeople have died in churches from falling objects, fires, structural collapses, lightning, and ordinary accidents for centuries. The same world that contains Mass also contains gravity and imperfect human craftsmanship. Pointing at a tragic accident inside a church and declaring “therefore God does not exist” is no more rigorous than pointing at a doctor dying of cancer and declaring medicine is a fraud, or at an engineer dying in a bridge collapse and declaring physics is false.

The symbolism is not the own some imagine. Christianity’s central image is the crucifixion: God incarnate suffering and dying under Roman execution. The cross is already a reminder of mortality, injustice, and redemptive suffering. A priest dying under a falling representation of that cross is horrifying and ironic in the ordinary human sense; it is not a logical refutation of the faith that treats the cross as the instrument of salvation rather than a lucky charm. Christians do not claim that church attendance or clerical status grants physical invulnerability. The New Testament and Church history are full of faithful people who suffered violent or sudden deaths, including in places of worship.

Why would God allow this—during Mass, in the presence of the Eucharist? This is a version of the problem of evil and suffering. Christian answers, classical and contemporary, do not claim that every particular tragedy is fully explained by human observers. They generally include several interlocking points.

God sustains a world of regular natural laws rather than constant miraculous intervention that would make ordinary human life and responsibility impossible. Those laws permit both life and death, both stability and accident. Free agents (and the secondary causes they create, such as poorly maintained fixtures) operate within that world. God permits suffering and death as part of a fallen order; Scripture and tradition treat them as real evils, not illusions, while holding that they do not have the final word. Jesus himself suffered and died; the Eucharist is the sacramental presence of the crucified and risen Christ. A death in his presence can be understood, in Christian categories, as a participation in his passion rather than a contradiction of it. Sudden death can also be a mercy: the priest had just preached precisely on the certainty of death and the value of time given to God. From the standpoint of Christian hope, he died in the exercise of his vocation, in the midst of the liturgy.

None of this makes the event less terrible for those who loved him or less shocking for those who watched. Providence does not mean every detail is painless or immediately intelligible. Romans 8:28 speaks of God working all things for good for those who love him; it does not promise that every intermediate step will look like good to us. Job’s friends were rebuked for claiming too much knowledge of why the righteous suffer. Isaiah 55:8–9 notes that God’s thoughts and ways are higher than ours. The Christian response is not to pretend the horror is fine, but to mourn, to pray for the dead and the living, to care for the community, and to trust that death is not the end for those who belong to Christ.

The priest’s own last recorded words already pointed beyond the accident: life is short, time with God and with people matters most. The mocking online comments miss both the human tragedy and the theological point. A falling piece of wood does not settle questions about the existence of God or the truth of the Gospel any more than a plane crash settles questions about aerodynamics. What it does is remind everyone—believer and skeptic—that we are mortal, that physical objects fail, and that whatever one believes about ultimate reality, the call to use one’s days well remains.

Protestant Critiques: “Punishment for Idolatry and Pagan Statue-Worship”

A distinct line of online reaction has come from some Protestant voices (especially certain evangelical and iconoclastic strains). They have framed Father Sánchez Molinari’s death as divine judgment for the Catholic use of statues and images, calling the crucifix itself an idol and the practice “pagan.” Comments along the lines of “this is what happens when you worship statues,” “the cross fell because God forbids graven images,” or “idolatry is punished” have appeared under videos and posts. The accident is treated as evidence that the Catholic Church is engaged in forbidden paganism.

This reading rests on a series of misunderstandings.

Catholic teaching has never equated the use of sacred images with the worship of idols. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicaea (787), explicitly addressed the iconoclast controversy and defined the Church’s position. It taught that images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, angels, and the saints may be placed in churches and homes and given “due salutation and honorable reverence,” but that this is not the true worship (latria) that belongs to the divine nature alone. The honor shown to an image “passes on to that which the image represents.” The Council of Trent later restated the same distinction: images are retained and honored not because any divinity or power is believed to reside in the wood, paint, or plaster itself, and not as the pagans placed hope in idols, but because the honor refers to the prototype. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2129–2132) repeats this teaching: the Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the First Commandment because it is directed to the person depicted, not to the material object.

A crucifix is a representation of the Incarnate Word—Jesus Christ, true God and true man—who suffered and died under a Roman cross. Depicting him is possible precisely because he took on a real human nature (John of Damascus’s classic argument). Honor directed through the image reaches Christ himself. That is not the pagan practice of treating a statue as a god or attributing independent divine power to carved wood. The Church has always condemned actual idolatry; the distinction between latria (adoration due to God alone) and dulia (the relative honor given to saints and their images) exists to prevent it.

The claim that the falling crucifix was divine punishment for this practice fails on several grounds. First, no official investigation has established the cause; the evidence points to a structural failure of the mounting—ordinary material fatigue, poor installation, age, or vibration. Interpreting a random mechanical failure as a targeted divine judgment requires an assumption that God specially intervenes to drop heavy objects on Catholics who use images while sparing everyone else. Second, the same logic is inconsistent: if God were in the habit of killing people for having religious images, one would expect consistent patterns across centuries of Catholic and Orthodox churches. Instead, accidents of every kind (fires, collapses, lightning, falling objects) occur in every kind of building, religious or secular. Third, Protestants themselves routinely use visual representations—illustrated Bibles, stained glass, pictures of Jesus, crosses on steeples and walls, Christmas nativity scenes. The difference is one of degree and theology of images, not a total absence of visual aids. Fourth, the priest was celebrating the Eucharist, the central act of Christian worship directed to God; the presence of a crucifix behind the altar is standard in the Latin tradition as a reminder of the sacrifice being re-presented.

Treating a tragic workplace-style accident inside a church as proof of “paganism” also ignores the historical record. The early Church used images; the iconoclast emperors who tried to destroy them were resisted by the broader Church, East and West; and the practice has been continuous in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity for well over a millennium. Accidents do not overturn defined doctrine or prove that a centuries-old distinction between worship of God and honor of images is suddenly false.

The more sober response remains the one already noted in earlier reactions: a poorly secured wooden cross came loose and fell. That is a failure of maintenance and physics, not a divine verdict on the legitimacy of sacred art.ts fail, and that whatever one believes about ultimate reality, the call to use one’s days well remains. 

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace.

Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A: God is in Control

Reflection on the Readings for the Twenty-ninth Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A  

October 18, 2026

Today’s readings invite us to recognize God’s absolute sovereignty and to respond by giving Him the whole of our lives—while also living out our responsibilities in the world.

In the first reading from Isaiah, the Lord addresses Cyrus, the pagan Persian king, as “his anointed.” God grasps Cyrus’s hand, opens doors before him, and uses him—though Cyrus does not know the Lord—to free Israel from exile. The passage ends with the clear declaration: “I am the LORD and there is no other; there is no God besides me.” God is not limited by our categories or even by human knowledge of Him. He is free to work through history, through nations, and even through those who do not yet acknowledge Him, so that “from the rising of the sun to its setting people may know that there is none besides me.”

The responsorial psalm takes up this universal theme: “Give the Lord glory and honor… Tell his glory among the nations.” On this World Mission Sunday, the psalm reminds us that the glory of God is not meant to remain private or confined to one people. It is to be proclaimed to every land.

In the second reading, St. Paul gives thanks for the Thessalonians precisely because their lives have become a living proclamation. He remembers their “work of faith and labor of love and endurance in hope.” The Gospel did not come to them “in word alone, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with much conviction.” Authentic Christian life is never merely intellectual assent; it is a life marked by faith that works, love that labors, and hope that endures—even under pressure.

The Gospel brings these themes into sharp focus. The Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus with a question about the Roman census tax. Jesus asks for a coin and points to Caesar’s image and inscription. Then He delivers the famous reply: “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.”

The coin bears Caesar’s image, so it can be returned to him. But we bear the image of God (Genesis 1:27). What belongs to God is not merely a portion of our time, money, or attention; it is ourselves. Our deepest allegiance, our very identity, belongs to the One whose image we carry. Civic duties have their place, but they never exhaust or supersede the claim God has on us.

These readings together form a coherent invitation. God is Lord of history and of every nation (Isaiah). We are called to make His glory known (Psalm). That proclamation happens most powerfully when our lives are shaped by living faith, active love, and steadfast hope (1 Thessalonians). And the foundation of it all is the recognition that we ourselves belong to God (Gospel).

On this Sunday, especially as we mark World Mission Sunday, we can ask: Where is God inviting me to “give Him glory and honor” more fully—in my family, my work, my parish, or beyond? What parts of my life still need to be returned more completely to the One whose image I bear? And how can the “work of faith and labor of love” in my own life become a quiet but real witness to those around me?

May the Holy Spirit, who empowered the Thessalonians, continue to form us into people who live so fully for God that others come to know there is no other Lord besides Him.

Pope Leo XIV Discharged from Hospital

Pope Leo XIV Discharged from Hospital After Lung Cancer Surgery, Returns to Vatican

On Saturday, October 17, 2026, Pope Leo XIV walked out of Rome’s Gemelli Hospital unaided, smiling and waving to well-wishers just four days after undergoing surgery for lung cancer—the first major health challenge of his papacy.

The 71-year-old pontiff, the first American-born pope (born Robert Francis Prevost in Chicago in 1955 and elected on May 8, 2025), was admitted on Tuesday, October 13. Doctors performed a roughly 90-minute video-assisted procedure that removed the lower lobe of his right lung. Intraoperative testing confirmed pulmonary adenocarcinoma, the most common form of lung cancer.

Recovery progressed swiftly. The pope walked, ate normally, received respiratory physiotherapy, and resumed limited work duties from the hospital, including meetings with cardinals and a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin concerning civilians in the Ukrainian city of Oleshky. He also celebrated Mass in a hospital room on the 10th floor.

Doctors Luigi Carbone (the pope’s personal physician) and Stefano Margaritora (the lead surgeon) reviewed Saturday morning blood tests and a chest X-ray and stated that the Holy Father was “deemed fit for discharge.” He left around 3:30 p.m. local time, greeting staff, patients, and a 13-year-old Ukrainian girl who offered him a gift, before returning by motorcade to the Apostolic Palace.

The following day, Sunday, October 18, Pope Leo appeared at the window of the Apostolic Palace to lead the Angelus in St. Peter’s Square. He thanked those who had prayed for him and the medical staff at Gemelli, noting that the experience had drawn him closer to those facing illness. He said he would “gradually resume” his activities with God’s help and the prayers of the faithful.

His surgeon told Vatican media there were “no clinical reasons” preventing the planned November 6–17 trip to South America, estimating full recovery in roughly another 10 days. Further testing continues to determine whether the cancer has spread; no detailed public prognosis has been released.

This brief hospitalization and early discharge mark a relatively quick turnaround for the first American pope, who has dual U.S.-Peruvian citizenship, extensive missionary experience in Peru as an Augustinian, and a reputation for bridging cultures. While the full medical picture remains incomplete, the visible signs of recovery and the resumption of the Angelus have brought relief to the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics.

Sources include reporting from CNN, CBS News, Vatican News, America Magazine, OSV News, and official Vatican statements.

St. Margaret Mary Alacoque: The Humble Apostle Who Revealed the Burning Heart of Jesus

St. Margaret Mary Alacoque: The Humble Apostle Who Revealed the Burning Heart of Jesus

In the mid-seventeenth century, within the quiet walls of a Visitation monastery in the small Burgundian town of Paray-le-Monial, a young French nun received a series of private revelations that would permanently shape Catholic devotion. St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690) became the chosen instrument through whom Jesus Christ manifested the depth of His human-divine love under the symbol of His Sacred Heart. Her life—marked by childhood illness, family hardship, interior suffering, and patient fidelity—illustrates how God often works through the lowly and the overlooked to renew the Church. Through her, the modern forms of Sacred Heart devotion—the First Friday Communions, the Holy Hour of reparation, the liturgical feast, and the public veneration of the image of the Heart—entered the life of the faithful and eventually received the highest ecclesiastical approval.

The story begins on July 22, 1647, in the rural village of L’Hautecour in the Duchy of Burgundy. Margaret was the fifth of seven children and the only daughter of Claude Alacoque, a respectable notary, and his wife Philiberte Lamyn. From her earliest years she displayed an uncommon attraction to the Eucharist. While other children played, she preferred silence, prayer, and time spent near the tabernacle. After making her First Communion at the age of nine, she began practicing severe, hidden corporal penances. These austerities, combined with a delicate constitution, contributed to a prolonged illness—described by biographers as rheumatic fever or a form of paralysis—that left her bedridden for approximately four years.

During this period of physical helplessness the family suffered further trials. Margaret’s father died when she was eight, and an uncle temporarily withheld the family’s property, plunging them into poverty and humiliation. Her only reliable consolation remained the Blessed Sacrament. In her distress she made a vow to the Blessed Virgin Mary: if she were restored to health, she would consecrate herself to religious life. Almost at once she recovered. In gratitude she added the name Mary to her baptismal name and thereafter lived with a profound sense of belonging to the Mother of God. Christ Himself, she later recounted, began to make His presence felt in her soul, often appearing under the forms of the Crucified or the Ecce Homo. She assumed such experiences were ordinary and continued her hidden life of penance.

When she was about seventeen the family’s fortunes improved. Her mother, hoping she would marry, encouraged her to enter society. Out of filial obedience and a temporary belief that her childhood vow was no longer binding, Margaret attended balls and social gatherings. One night, after returning from a Carnival ball in her finery, she experienced a vivid vision of Christ scourged and bloody. He gently reproached her for her forgetfulness of Him, yet simultaneously revealed that His Heart remained full of love for her precisely because of the promise she had once made to His Mother. The vision ended her period of worldliness. Determined at last to fulfill her vow, she entered the Visitation convent at Paray-le-Monial on May 25, 1671, at the age of nearly twenty-four.

The Visitation Order, founded by St. Francis de Sales and St. Jane Frances de Chantal, emphasized humility, gentleness, and interior prayer rather than extreme external austerity. Margaret Mary’s superiors tested her vocation rigorously. She received the habit in August 1671 but was not permitted to make her profession until November 6, 1672. A fellow novice described her as humble, simple, frank, and above all patient and kind. Assigned at times to the infirmary, she was not particularly skilled at practical tasks, yet she deliberately chose the most repugnant duties and continued her life of hidden penance. Extraordinary graces, however, soon drew attention and suspicion.

Between December 27, 1673, and June 1675, Margaret Mary received a series of apparitions in which Christ revealed His Sacred Heart and commissioned her to spread devotion to it. The first great revelation occurred on the feast of St. John the Evangelist. While praying before the Blessed Sacrament she felt herself wholly penetrated by the divine presence. Jesus allowed her to rest her head upon His breast, granting her the same privilege once given to the Beloved Disciple. He then disclosed the marvels of His love and the secrets of His Heart, which He had previously kept hidden from her. He told her that His Divine Heart was so inflamed with love for humanity—and for her in particular—that it could no longer contain the flames of its ardent charity. These flames must be poured out through her so that souls might be enriched with the treasures of sanctification and salvation needed to withdraw them from perdition. He called her an “abyss of unworthiness and ignorance” chosen so that all glory might belong to Him alone. In a mystical exchange of hearts He took her heart, placed it within His own burning furnace, and returned it to her as a living flame that would consume her until death. He named her the beloved disciple of His Sacred Heart and the heiress of all its treasures.

Subsequent apparitions developed the message. In one, Jesus showed her His Heart enthroned on a mass of flames, more resplendent than the sun and transparent as crystal, bearing its open wound, encircled by a crown of thorns (representing the wounds inflicted by human sin), and surmounted by a cross (signifying that the Cross had been planted in His Heart from the first moment of the Incarnation). He spoke of the sadness He feels because His great love receives in return largely “nothing but ingratitude and indifference,” “coldness and contempt.” He declared this rejection more painful to Him than all He suffered during His Passion. He expressed His ardent desire to be known, loved, and honored by men, and His longing to draw them back from the path of perdition along which Satan was driving countless souls. The image of the Heart was to be publicly exposed and honored; He promised special blessings wherever this was done.

The most famous revelation took place during the octave of Corpus Christi, on or about June 16, 1675. While Margaret Mary prayed before the Blessed Sacrament, Jesus appeared over the altar, revealed His Heart, and uttered the words that have become classic: “Behold this Heart which has so loved men that it has spared nothing, even to exhausting and consuming itself, in order to testify its love. And in return I receive from the greater part only ingratitude, by their irreverence and sacrilege, and by the coldness and contempt they have for Me in this Sacrament of Love. But what I feel most keenly is that it is hearts consecrated to Me that treat Me thus.” He then requested that the first Friday after the octave of Corpus Christi be established as a special feast in honor of His Heart. On that day the faithful were to receive Holy Communion and make an act of reparation. He promised that His Heart would expand to pour out abundantly the influences of its divine love on all who rendered or procured this honor. He also instructed her in the practice of the Holy Hour: on the night from Thursday to Friday she was to rise between eleven and midnight and prostrate herself for an hour, sharing in the mortal sadness He experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane when abandoned by His Apostles.

From these revelations the characteristic practices of the modern devotion took shape. Chief among them is the reception of Holy Communion on the First Friday of each month, especially the “Nine First Fridays” offered in reparation. To those who fulfill the conditions Jesus attached the “Great Promise”: the grace of final perseverance, so that they would not die in His displeasure nor without the sacraments, His Heart becoming their assured refuge at the last moment. The Holy Hour of Eucharistic reparation on Thursday nights, the public display of the image of the Sacred Heart (flames, crown of thorns, and cross), and the institution of the liturgical Feast of the Sacred Heart complete the core elements. Jesus also communicated twelve promises traditionally associated with the devotion for those who practice and promote it: all the graces necessary for one’s state in life; peace in families; comfort in every affliction; a secure refuge during life and above all at the hour of death; abundant blessings on undertakings; an infinite ocean of mercy for sinners; the transformation of lukewarm souls into fervent ones and the rapid advance of fervent souls to high perfection; blessings on every place where the image is exposed and honored; the gift to priests of touching the most hardened hearts; the names of those who propagate the devotion written in His Heart never to be blotted out; and the Great Promise of the Nine First Fridays.

Margaret Mary’s own writings and reported maxims breathe the same spirit of total love and reparation. “My greatest happiness is to be before the Blessed Sacrament, where my heart is, as it were, in Its center.” “We must never be discouraged or give way to anxiety… but ever have recourse to the adorable Heart of Jesus.” “I need nothing but God, and to lose myself in the Heart of Jesus.” She composed a well-known Act of Consecration in which she offered her person, her life, her actions, trials, and sufferings so that her entire being might be employed solely in loving, honoring, and glorifying the Sacred Heart. Other sayings emphasize abandonment to Providence, the secret value of the cross, and the primacy of the Eucharist: “All for the Eucharist; nothing for me.” “Crosses, contempt, sorrows and afflictions are the real treasures of the lovers of Jesus Christ crucified.” “One just soul can attain pardon for a thousand sinners.” Near the end of her life she wrote that she could breathe only to increase devotion to the Heart of Jesus and that she would die content if she could procure it any honor.

Her mission was not accomplished without cost. When she first confided the revelations to her superiors, she met with skepticism and, at times, open opposition. Some sisters treated her as a visionary; certain theologians dismissed the experiences as delusions and advised better food and rest. Even parents of children she instructed sometimes called her an impostor. Through it all she practiced heroic obedience, humility, and charity toward those who opposed her. The decisive human confirmation came from St. Claude de la Colombière, the young Jesuit who served for a time as confessor to the community. After careful examination he recognized the authenticity of the graces and himself became a fervent apostle of the Sacred Heart, later promoting the devotion in England and elsewhere. In 1683, when Mother Melin was elected superior, she named Margaret Mary her assistant; opposition within the house largely ceased. Margaret Mary later served as novice mistress. Beginning in 1686 the Paray community privately observed the Feast of the Sacred Heart; two years later a chapel was dedicated to it. The practice soon spread to other Visitation monasteries and, through Jesuit networks, more widely among clergy and laity.

Margaret Mary died on October 17, 1690, at the age of forty-three, after eighteen years of religious life. While being anointed she repeated, “I need nothing but God, and to lose myself in the Heart of Jesus.” Her body rests under the altar in the Chapel of the Apparitions at the Visitation monastery of Paray-le-Monial, which continues to attract pilgrims. The process of her beatification was long and rigorous. All her actions, revelations, spiritual maxims, and teachings were subjected to minute examination. Leo XII declared her Venerable in 1824. When her tomb was opened in 1830, her brain was found preserved from corruption and two instantaneous cures were recorded. Pius IX beatified her on September 18, 1864. Benedict XV canonized her on May 13, 1920, incorporating the Great Promise of the First Fridays into the bull of canonization. Her feast is celebrated on October 16 in the general Roman calendar (October 17 in the Visitation Order and in some older calendars). She is invoked as patron of devotees of the Sacred Heart, of those who have lost a parent while young, and against polio and rheumatic fever.

Although devotion to the Heart of Jesus has deep roots—in the piercing of Christ’s side (John 19:34), in the writings of the Fathers, and in medieval mystics such as St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Gertrude the Great, and St. Mechtilde—the modern popular and liturgical form owes its characteristic shape and global diffusion largely to the revelations at Paray-le-Monial. The warm, reparative, and accessible character of the devotion provided a powerful counterpoint to the rigorist and often pessimistic spirit of Jansenism then prevalent in France. After Margaret Mary’s death the Jesuits became the principal clerical promoters. The feast was granted to France in 1765 by Clement XIII and extended to the universal Church by Pius IX in 1856. Subsequent popes recommended the devotion with increasing solemnity; Leo XIII consecrated the human race to the Sacred Heart, and later pontiffs continued to affirm its value. Pius XI explicitly upheld the credibility of the principal features associated with Margaret Mary’s mission: First Friday Communion, the Holy Hour, and the Feast of the Sacred Heart.

The image that emerged from the visions—the flaming heart, the crown of thorns, the cross—has become one of the most recognizable symbols in Catholic art and piety. It speaks of a love that is at once intensely human and infinitely divine, wounded by sin yet inexhaustible in mercy. St. Margaret Mary’s life demonstrates that this love seeks a concrete response: consecration of one’s entire being, acts of reparation, frequent Eucharistic Communion, and the quiet, steadfast fidelity of souls who have found their center before the tabernacle. In an age still marked by indifference to the Eucharistic presence and by a forgetting of the personal love of Christ, the message entrusted to her retains its urgency. The Heart that “has so loved men” continues to invite the same total gift she offered—and the same promise of mercy and final refuge for all who answer.

References

- Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent), “St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.”

- Wikipedia, “Margaret Mary Alacoque.”

- Catholic Online, “St. Margaret Mary Alacoque.”

- Accounts of the revelations drawn from traditional hagiographies, her autobiography, and letters as summarized in Catholic Culture, Word on Fire, EWTN, and related sources.

- Standard lists of the Twelve Promises as transmitted in Catholic devotional literature.

Archbishop Ronald Hicks' Dad Dies

 

Archbishop Ronald Hicks’ Father, Ronald J. Hicks, Dies at 87

Archbishop Ronald A. Hicks of New York announced the death of his father, Ronald Joseph (Ronald J.) Hicks, who passed away on October 14, 2026, at the age of 87.

In a statement released the following day, Archbishop Hicks wrote: “Please keep my mother, Roselee, my brother, Richard, and the entire Hicks family in your prayers upon the death of my father, Ronald J. Hicks, who died on October 14, 2026, at the age of 87. My dad was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, friend and educator. As a lifelong, faithful Catholic, he would be delighted that you pray for his intention and his family.” He closed by commending his father to God’s mercy and offering the traditional prayer for the dead.

 A Life of Faith, Family, and Teaching

Ronald Joseph Hicks was born on September 16, 1939. He entered eternal life at Franciscan Village in Lemont, Illinois. He was preceded in death by his parents, Eldon and Mae Hicks, and his brother, Jerry. He is survived by his wife of more than 61 years, Roselee; their sons, Archbishop Ronald A. Hicks and Richard J. Hicks (Mary Beth); grandchildren Grant (Tiffany), Nolan (Halee), and Justin (Emily); and great-grandchildren Ivy and Hadley.

A lifelong educator, he earned his undergraduate degree from Northern Illinois University and a master’s degree from DePaul University. He taught at Thornton and Thornwood High Schools. Colleagues and family remembered him as a natural athlete and runner, an ardent Chicago Cubs fan who enjoyed all sports, and a man of “a gentle heart and a kind disposition.”

His Catholic faith was central throughout his life. He received his sacraments at St. Nicholas of Tolentine Parish on Chicago’s South Side, raised his family at St. Jude the Apostle Parish in South Holland, and was a longtime devoted member of St. Elizabeth Seton Parish in Orland Hills. As the family noted, “His faith shaped the way he loved his family, treated others, and lived each day.”

Funeral arrangements included a visitation on Saturday, October 17, 2026, from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. at St. Elizabeth Seton Parish (9300 W. 167th St., Orland Hills, Illinois), followed by a funeral Mass at 11 a.m. A private interment for the immediate family followed, with U.S. Army military honors.

 Condolences from the Church

Church leaders offered prayers and support. The New York State Catholic Conference extended condolences, joining in prayer for Ronald J. Hicks and asking the Lord to comfort Archbishop Hicks and his family. Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago, who had previously worked closely with Archbishop Hicks in the Archdiocese of Chicago, expressed sadness at the news and asked for prayers for the repose of Mr. Hicks’ soul and comfort for the family, describing his 87 faith-filled years as a gift to his family, community, and the Church.

Archbishop Hicks, born in 1967 in Harvey, Illinois, to Ronald and Roselee Hicks, previously served as auxiliary bishop of Chicago and as Bishop of Joliet before Pope Leo XIV named him Archbishop of New York in December 2025. He was installed at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in February 2026.

The death of Ronald J. Hicks is a reminder of the quiet, faithful lives that sustain families and the wider Church. As Archbishop Hicks requested, many continue to keep the Hicks family in prayer during this time of loss.

We at Sacerdotu extend our deepest condolences to His Grace Archbishop Ronald Hicks and the Hicks family and assure the of our collective prayers.  

Sources:  

- Statement from Archbishop Ronald Hicks, The Good Newsroom, October 15, 2026.  

- Obituary: Ronald J. Hicks, The Good Newsroom, October 15, 2026.  

- Ronald Joseph Hicks Obituary, Thornridge Funeral Home / Legacy.com.  Ronald Joseph Hicks Obituary Oct 14, 2026 - Thornridge Funeral Home 

- Biography and related coverage from the Archdiocese of New York and contemporaneous reporting.

Pope Leo XIV Recovers: Vatican Releases Photos

 

Vatican releases first photos of Pope Leo XIV celebrating Mass at Gemelli Hospital after lung cancer surgery.

On October 16, 2026, the Vatican released the first images of Pope Leo XIV since his October 13 surgery to remove a cancerous portion of his right lung. The photos show the 71-year-old pontiff standing at a makeshift altar on the hospital’s 10th floor, wearing green vestments, celebrating Mass.

He presided alone over the liturgy, distributed Communion to off-duty medical staff and Vatican Gendarmerie members present, and delivered a homily thanking doctors, nurses, and orderlies “for the work they do every day taking care of the sick in their fragility, and in a particular way what they had done for him.”

Doctors reported that blood tests and a chest X-ray confirmed “continued improvement” in his condition. He is receiving physiotherapy and is able to carry out normal daily activities independently. He is expected to remain at Gemelli until around October 20.

Sources: AP, OSV News, Vatican Media.

Elon Musk Unveils 'Flying Suction Car'

Elon Musk Unveils Tesla’s “Flying” Roadster: Thrusters, Hops, and a Lot of Questions

On October 15, 2026, Elon Musk stood at a SpaceX test facility in McGregor, Texas, and declared that “flying cars are real.” What followed was a driverless demonstration of Tesla’s long-delayed next-generation Roadster: the angular white two-seater clung upside-down to a steep curved ramp using underbody suction fans, launched off, performed a mid-air barrel roll, and landed using bursts of compressed air. Later it hopped over a lineup of parked Teslas (including a Semi) before accelerating hard. Musk posted afterward: “Turns out the future does have flying cars.”

The show was pure Musk theater—smoke, thrusters, and a live audience he said was there “to prove that it’s not AI.” Production is targeted for 2028. Whether owners will ever legally hop or “fly” one on or above public roads is a very different story.

 Car Details: What It Actually Does

The Roadster is a collaboration between Tesla and SpaceX. It uses cold-gas thrusters—ultra-high-pressure compressed-air tanks feeding up to 10 nozzles—not chemical rocket fuel. These provide short bursts of thrust for acceleration, attitude control, hops, and controlled landings. A multi-mode suction/fan system under the car generates massive downforce, enabling the upside-down ramp stunt.

Claimed performance (Tesla figures, not independently verified):

- Performance (road-ready, 2 seats): Active aerodynamics + suction system. 0–60 mph under 1.6 seconds.

- Thrust (race-ready, 2 seats, limited release): Adds rear cold-gas thrusters. 0–60 under 0.9 seconds (demo hit 0.81 seconds with thrusters).

- Rocket (air-ready, 1 seat, invite-only): Full perimeter thrusters for forward, upward, lateral, and rotational movement. Tesla says “yes, it can fly.” Claimed 0–60 under 0.59 seconds. Explicitly “not approved for public road use.”

Other figures include peak power around 1 MW (roughly 1,341 hp) on higher versions, range over 300 miles (reports of 310–320 miles in normal driving), top speed over 230 mph, and a high-voltage battery that supports very fast charging. The car is rear-wheel-drive with dual motors for torque vectoring and weighs roughly in the 3,700 lb range in lighter configurations. Design is sharp and angular with a large rear wing and full-width lighting—more Cybertruck-era Tesla than the 2017 concept.

Musk has described it as “what happens when you have a collaboration with the world’s best car company and the world’s best rocket company.” He also noted it is “not necessarily a safety-optimized car” and that success is “not guaranteed.”

 Street Legal? Mostly No for the Flying Version

The Rocket version is invite-only and Tesla’s site states it is not approved for public road use. When asked if the car is street legal, Musk replied along the lines of “Depends on your street.” The Performance version is labeled “road ready”; the Thrust version is “race ready” and subject to regional laws.

The FAA issued a statement that the vehicle “does not meet the FAA’s definition of an aircraft,” so it currently falls outside typical aircraft certification. That is a jurisdictional note, not a safety approval or green light to fly. Aviation experts have pointed out that anything leaving the ground can trigger FAA oversight in practice, and operating one would likely involve airspace rules, possible recreational pilot licensing for sustained or higher flight, and state/local restrictions on takeoffs and landings from roads. Most places do not allow random vehicle hops over traffic.

In short: the road-going Performance model is the one intended for normal streets (pending full homologation). The thruster-equipped and especially flying versions face major regulatory hurdles and are not cleared for public roads today.

 Cost: Expensive to Reserve, Price Still Unknown

Tesla has not announced a final purchase price. Reservations reopened with steep deposits:

- Performance: $50,000 total ($5,000 by card + $45,000 wire within 10 days).

- Thrust: $250,000 total.

- Rocket: Invite-only, no public reservation price.

These are deposits to hold a place in line, not the final cost. The original 2017 concept had a $200,000 base (plus a $250,000 Founders Series). Given the technology, exclusivity, and Musk’s history of premium pricing on halo vehicles, expect the finished cars—especially Thrust and Rocket—to be high six-figures or more. Terms note that delivery timing and even final availability are not guaranteed.

 Problems It Might Cause

Even if the engineering works, practical and societal issues are substantial:

- Regulation and airspace chaos: Cars that can leave the ground create overlapping NHTSA and potential FAA/state rules. Low-level hops over traffic, near airports, or in cities would raise collision, noise, and privacy concerns. Clear rules do not exist yet.

- Safety: Musk himself said it is not safety-optimized. High-speed thruster use, short “flight” durations limited by air-tank capacity (rechargeable but finite), and the inherent risks of a vehicle that can flip or hop make crashes or failures potentially catastrophic. The demo was driverless “to make sure we don’t kill anyone.”

- Infrastructure and practicality: There are no sky roads or designated hop corridors. Range is lower than the 2017 promise (over 300 miles vs. the old 620-mile claim). Compressed-air systems add weight, complexity, and energy cost to recharge.

- Liability, insurance, and public acceptance: Insurers would face novel risks. Neighbors and cities may not welcome thruster noise or vehicles launching nearby. Equity issues are obvious—an ultra-expensive, invite-only flying version is a toy for the wealthy.

- Timeline and delivery risk: The Roadster has been delayed for nearly a decade. Musk’s production targets have a long track record of slipping.

 Bottom Line

The October 15 demonstration was visually striking and technically impressive for short hops and extreme performance. It is not yet a practical flying car that ordinary owners can use on public roads. The Performance version aims to be an extreme street/track sports car. The Rocket version is a limited, highly regulated (or currently non-road-legal) spectacle. Whether it reaches customers in 2028—and under what rules—remains to be seen. As Musk said, success is not guaranteed.

For the latest official details, check Tesla’s Roadster page, where the three trims and reservation process are listed.

St. Teresa of Ávila: Mystic, Reformer, and Doctor of the Church

St. Teresa of Ávila: Mystic, Reformer, and Doctor of the Church

Saint Teresa of Ávila (also known as Teresa of Jesus or Teresa Sánchez de Cepeda y Ahumada) stands as one of the towering figures of Christian spirituality. Born in 1515 in the walled Castilian city of Ávila, Spain, she lived during the turbulent era of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. She reformed the Carmelite Order by returning it to a stricter, more contemplative observance, founded numerous convents, experienced profound mystical graces, and produced spiritual classics that continue to guide seekers of God. Canonized in 1622 and declared the first female Doctor of the Church in 1970 by Pope Paul VI, she is celebrated for her practical wisdom, psychological insight into the soul, humor, and unwavering devotion to Christ. Her feast day is October 15.

This post explores her history, spiritual devotion and writings, notable quotes, and the areas of life for which she serves as patron.

 Early Life and Family Background

Teresa was born on March 28, 1515, either in Ávila or the nearby village of Gotarrendura. She was the daughter of Alonso Sánchez de Cepeda, a merchant of noble (hidalgo) status whose family had Jewish converso ancestry, and Beatriz de Ahumada. She grew up in a large, devout household with many siblings. From a young age she showed a lively spirit and deep religious sensibility. At about seven, she and her brother Rodrigo ran away from home intending to reach the land of the Moors and die as martyrs. Their uncle brought them back. Teresa later recalled her childhood fascination with the lives of the saints and her desire to see God.

Her mother died around 1528–1529 when Teresa was about thirteen or fourteen. Grief-stricken, Teresa turned to the Blessed Virgin Mary, asking her to be her mother—a devotion that remained strong throughout her life. In her teenage years she became more interested in fashion, social life, and romantic novels. Concerned about her worldliness, her father sent her for a time to an Augustinian convent school in Ávila, where she began to reconsider her priorities. After returning home due to illness, she discerned a vocation to religious life.

 Entrance into the Carmelites and Spiritual Struggles

In November 1535, at age twenty, Teresa entered the Carmelite Convent of the Incarnation in Ávila without her father’s initial consent. The convent, with over 100 nuns at times, followed a mitigated rule that allowed more freedom, private rooms for wealthier nuns, and visitors. Teresa professed vows and took the name Teresa of Jesus. She suffered severe health problems early on, including a prolonged illness that left her partially paralyzed for years.

For roughly two decades she lived a somewhat ordinary religious life, practicing prayer but also enjoying the social aspects of the convent. A decisive turning point came around 1554–1555. Contemplating an image of the wounded Christ and reading St. Augustine’s Confessions (recently translated into Spanish), she experienced a profound “second conversion.” She resolved to give herself fully to God and to mental prayer. From this period onward she received extraordinary mystical experiences, including intellectual visions, locutions, and the famous transverberation (the piercing of her heart by a seraph’s fiery dart of divine love), an event later immortalized by Gian Lorenzo Bernini’s sculpture The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa in Rome.

 The Carmelite Reform and Foundations

Disillusioned by the lax observance at the Incarnation, Teresa sought to restore the primitive Carmelite Rule of poverty, enclosure, and contemplative prayer. After overcoming opposition, she founded the first Discalced (“barefoot” or sandaled) Carmelite convent, St. Joseph’s in Ávila, on August 24, 1562. The community was small, poor, and strictly enclosed.

In 1567 the Carmelite Prior General Giovanni Battista Rossi visited and approved her work, authorizing further foundations. Over the next two decades, despite chronic illness, opposition from within the order, and the challenges of travel in 16th-century Spain, Teresa founded approximately seventeen convents for nuns (nearly all personally) across Spain, including Medina del Campo, Valladolid, Toledo, Salamanca, Seville, and Burgos (her last, in 1582). She also collaborated closely with St. John of the Cross to establish the male branch of the Discalced Carmelites, beginning with the friary at Duruelo in 1568. The reform faced serious resistance from the “Calced” (shod) Carmelites; at times Teresa and her associates were restricted or accused of novelty. Papal recognition of a separate Discalced province came in 1580. Her Book of Foundations recounts these adventures with characteristic candor and wit.

 Devotion, Spirituality, and Writings

Teresa’s spirituality centers on intimate friendship with God through mental (interior) prayer. She defined it memorably: “Mental prayer in my opinion is nothing else than an intimate sharing between friends; it means taking time frequently to be alone with Him who we know loves us.” She insisted that prayer must bear fruit in virtue, humility, love of neighbor, and practical charity—even “God walks among the pots and the pans.” She combined the contemplative and active lives, seeing her travels and foundations as flowing from hours of prayer.

Her major works, written under obedience to confessors, include:

- The Book of Her Life (autobiography, largely completed by the early 1560s), which narrates her spiritual journey and early experiences of prayer.

- The Way of Perfection, practical advice for her nuns on prayer, detachment, and community life.

- The Interior Castle (1577), her masterpiece. Teresa images the soul as a crystal or diamond castle with seven dwelling places (mansions). The outer mansions involve purgation through ordinary prayer and virtue; the middle ones involve deeper recollection and the beginnings of infused prayer; the innermost lead to spiritual betrothal and the transforming union (spiritual marriage) with God. The journey requires humility, self-knowledge, and perseverance. Progress is gradual; extraordinary phenomena are secondary to growth in love and conformity to God’s will.

- The Book of Foundations and numerous letters that reveal her practical genius, humor, and affection.

She taught that the soul is made in God’s image and is a paradise where God delights to dwell. Self-knowledge and knowledge of God grow together: “We shall never learn to know ourselves except by endeavoring to know God.” She warned against both presumption and discouragement, urged courage in trials (“We always find that those who walked closest to Christ were those who had to bear the greatest trials”), and emphasized that love is proved more by works and the will than by feelings.

 Selected Quotes

Teresa’s words combine profound mysticism with earthy common sense:

- “Let nothing disturb you, let nothing frighten you. All things are passing away: God never changes. Patience obtains all things. Whoever has God lacks nothing; God alone suffices.” (from her bookmark prayer)

- “Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours. Yours are the eyes through which to look out Christ’s compassion to the world. Yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good; yours are the hands with which he is to bless men now.”

- “There are more tears shed over answered prayers than over unanswered prayers.”

- “From silly devotions and sour-faced saints, good Lord, deliver us!”

- “The surest way to determine whether one possesses the love of God is to see whether he or she loves his or her neighbor. These two loves are never separated.”

- “It is love alone that gives worth to all things.”

- “We never completely know ourselves if we don’t strive to know God. By gazing at His grandeur, we encounter our own lowliness…”

- “Prayer is an act of love; words are not needed. Even if sickness distracts from thoughts, all that is needed is the will to love.”

These lines appear across her works and letters and have entered the wider Christian tradition.

 Patronage

St. Teresa is traditionally invoked as patron of headache sufferers and those with bodily ills (she herself suffered greatly); Spanish Catholic writers; people in religious orders; those who have lost parents; lacemakers and laceworkers; people ridiculed for their piety; the sick; and Spain (she was elected co-patron of Spain or Castile by the Cortes in the 1620s, though the status alongside St. James was debated). She is also a guide for contemplatives and those seeking deeper prayer. Her symbols often include a heart pierced by an arrow, a book, and the doctoral biretta.

 Death, Canonization, and Legacy

Teresa died on the night of October 4, 1582, at the convent in Alba de Tormes while traveling. That night the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar (ten days were skipped), so the following day was October 15—the date of her liturgical feast. Accounts of her last moments record her longing for union with her Spouse: words such as “My Lord, it is time to move on” or “Now is the time that we may see each other,” along with expressions of being a daughter of the Church. Her body has been found incorrupt on examinations; her heart is venerated with a visible mark of the transverberation.

She was beatified in 1614 by Paul V and canonized in 1622 by Gregory XV (alongside Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Philip Neri, and Isidore). In 1970 Paul VI named her a Doctor of the Church—the first woman so honored—recognizing the enduring value of her teaching on prayer. The Discalced Carmelite Order she co-founded with St. John of the Cross continues worldwide. Her writings remain foundational texts in Christian mysticism and are studied by Catholics and many others interested in contemplative prayer.

 Conclusion

St. Teresa of Ávila combined extraordinary mystical gifts with extraordinary practical energy. She reformed an order, founded communities that still exist, and mapped the interior landscape of the soul with unmatched clarity and humanity. She teaches that holiness is accessible through friendship with God, humility, perseverance in prayer, and love of neighbor—even amid illness, opposition, and the ordinary duties of life. In an age that often separates the contemplative from the active, or the mystical from the everyday, her witness remains vital: “God alone suffices,” and He is found both in the deepest silence of the Interior Castle and among the pots and pans.

References

- Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Teresa of Jesus (Teresa of Avila),” New Advent.  

- Britannica, “St. Teresa of Ávila.”  

- Wikipedia and standard biographical sources drawing on her Life and Book of Foundations.  

- Collections of her works (e.g., translations by E. Allison Peers or the Institute of Carmelite Studies / Kieran Kavanaugh and Otilio Rodriguez).  

- Catholic Online and similar saint profiles for patronage and basic chronology.  

- Contemporary summaries of The Interior Castle and accounts of the 1582 calendar reform.

Primary reading recommendations: The Interior Castle, The Way of Perfection, and selected chapters of her autobiography.

Children Handed Hammers to Smash Statues of Mary: A Disturbing Display of Hate at a Texas Baptist Church

Children Handed Hammers to Smash Statues of Mary: A Disturbing Display of Hate at a Texas Baptist Church

In mid-October 2026, videos from Stedfast Baptist Church in Cedar Hill, Texas, went viral after pastor Jonathan Shelley turned a children’s “Bible drills” exercise into a spectacle of destruction. Winners of the drills were rewarded by being invited onstage to smash small statues of the Blessed Virgin Mary and angels with hammers. Shelley pulled the figures from a bag, announced “We got a Mary, for all the Catholics,” and later exclaimed “Mary’s going down, Catholics!” and “Bam!” as a young girl struck the statue. Other children were told to “choose your victim” among angel statues he called “demons.” The pastor smiled as the destruction took place in front of the congregation, and he posted the clips himself (via @bannedpastor) while framing the act as obedience to the Second Commandment against idols after a sermon on the topic.

The church is an independent fundamental, King James Only Baptist congregation. Shelley has previously drawn controversy for extreme rhetoric. The videos quickly drew backlash from Catholics and many Protestants who saw the spirit of the exercise as hateful rather than edifying.

 Why This Is Wrong

This is not biblical fidelity. It is a revival of iconoclasm—the historical heresy of image-breaking—and a deliberate lesson in contempt for other Christians and for the mother of Jesus. The Second Council of Nicaea (787), the seventh ecumenical council recognized by both Catholics and Orthodox, settled the proper use of sacred images: they receive veneration (proskynesis), not the adoration (latreia) due to God alone. The honor paid to the image passes to the person represented. Catholics do not worship statues as gods; the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the honor paid to sacred images is a respectful veneration, not the adoration due to God alone.” Treating plaster figures of Mary and angels as “Catholic idols” or “demons” to be smashed as a prize for children confuses the ancient distinction and revives the very error the Church condemned.

Worse, it teaches children hate and intolerance under the guise of zeal. Jesus commanded love of neighbor, including those with whom we disagree (Matthew 22:39; John 13:34–35). Encouraging kids to cheer while destroying images associated with the largest body of Christians on earth models scorn, not charity. Scripture itself honors Mary: Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:42). The angel Gabriel greeted her as “highly favored” (Luke 1:28). At the Cross, Jesus said to the beloved disciple, “Behold, your mother!” (John 19:26–27), entrusting her to the care of the Church in a profound way. To treat the memory of the Mother of God with disdain is to strike at the very person Scripture calls blessed and whom Jesus honored even in His agony.

 Mary, the Woman, and Satan’s Enmity

The hostility on display is not merely anti-Catholic; it fits a deeper pattern described in Scripture. In Genesis 3:15 God declares to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.” This protoevangelium—the first gospel promise—points ultimately to Christ, the Seed of the woman, who defeats Satan. Catholic tradition, from the Church Fathers onward and affirmed by popes, sees Mary as the woman in this prophecy: the New Eve whose Seed (Jesus) crushes the serpent’s head, and who shares in that enmity by her unique role and grace. The Douay-Rheims and longstanding Catholic readings render aspects of the verse with “she” in connection with the woman; regardless of precise pronoun debates, the enmity between the serpent and the woman is explicit.

Revelation 12 expands the imagery: a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and a crown of twelve stars, who gives birth to the male child destined to rule the nations with a rod of iron—Christ. A great red dragon (explicitly identified as Satan) stands ready to devour the child. The dragon’s rage continues against the woman and her offspring. While the woman has multiple layers of meaning (Israel, the Church, and Mary), the fact that she is the mother of the Messiah points inescapably to Mary as well. Catholic teaching and many scholars read the passage polyvalently: the woman is Mary individually and the people of God corporately. Satan’s enmity with her is not incidental; it is part of the biblical narrative of redemption.

When a self-described Christian leader smiles while children smash images of this woman and calls related figures “demons,” the act does not look like a defense of the Second Commandment. It looks like participation in the very enmity the dragon wages. Teaching children to treat the Mother of God with gleeful contempt is not formation in love of Christ; it is formation in the opposite spirit. These displays of mockery and destruction are demonic in their fruit: they sow division, scandalize the little ones (Matthew 18:6), and align more with the rage of the defeated serpent than with the charity of the Cross.

Christians can and should debate the proper use of images and the precise nature of Marian honor. But handing hammers to children and cheering “Mary’s going down” is not debate. It is a public lesson in intolerance that dishonors the woman Scripture calls blessed, contradicts the command to love, and mirrors the historical iconoclasm the Church rejected. The mother of Jesus deserves better from those who claim to follow her Son.