Does Video Show Women Consecrating Bread?

 

A Video, a Misunderstanding, and the Church’s Provision for Sunday Worship Without a Priest

A short video has been circulating among Catholic traditionalist circles. It shows two lay women near the altar in what appears to be a church setting. One holds a host. Viewers, many of them English-speaking and predominantly Caucasian traditionalists, have concluded that the women are simulating the consecration, acting as if they were priests, and thus engaging in a grave liturgical abuse or worse. Comments have ranged from shocked condemnation to personal attacks on the women involved. The audio is in Brazilian Portuguese. That linguistic barrier helps explain the leap to the wrong conclusion, but it does not excuse the rush to judgment or the harsh rhetoric directed at the women.

What the video actually depicts is a recognized and regulated form of Catholic worship: a Sunday celebration in the absence of a priest, often called a Communion service or a Liturgy of the Word with distribution of Holy Communion. The hosts have already been consecrated by a priest at a previous Mass. There is no consecration taking place. The women are not pretending to be priests. They are fulfilling a role the Church herself has authorized under specific conditions when no priest is available.

This post explains the background of the misunderstanding, the nature of these celebrations, the order of the rite, who may lead them, the official permissions and norms that govern them, and why charity remains required even when liturgical practice differs from one’s own experience or preference.

 The Viral Video and the Jump to Conclusions

In regions with severe shortages of priests—common in parts of Latin America, including Brazil—communities regularly gather on Sunday even when a priest cannot reach them. The Church has long recognized this pastoral reality. Rather than leave the faithful without any communal celebration of the Lord’s Day, it provides structured ways for them to assemble, hear the Word of God, pray, and, when reserved hosts are available, receive Holy Communion.

The video shows two women performing functions within such a service. One appears to be holding or presenting a host in the context of distribution or a related moment. To someone unfamiliar with the rite and unable to understand the Portuguese explanations or prayers, the visual can look startling. Traditionalists who emphasize the exclusive role of the ordained priest in the Eucharist understandably react strongly when they believe that role is being usurped. The problem is that the belief is incorrect.

The language barrier is real. Brazilian Portuguese contains liturgical phrasing and pastoral explanations that do not match the visual assumptions of an English-speaking viewer. What may sound or look like a Eucharistic Prayer or words of institution is, in context, something else entirely—prayers of preparation, an invitation to Communion from the reserved Sacrament, or simple instructions. Jumping from an incomplete visual and untranslated audio to accusations of sacrilege or feminist infiltration is understandable as a first reaction; it is not justifiable as a sustained or public judgment.

The women themselves are not public figures seeking controversy. They are local Catholics responding to the needs of their community under the guidance of their local Church. Attacking them personally, questioning their faith, or treating them as enemies of orthodoxy goes beyond legitimate concern for liturgical integrity. Charity and accuracy both demand better.

 What a Sunday Celebration in the Absence of a Priest Actually Is

The full celebration of Sunday for Catholics is the Mass: the Liturgy of the Word joined to the Liturgy of the Eucharist, in which the priest, acting in the person of Christ, confects the Sacrament and offers the Sacrifice. Nothing replaces the Mass. The Church repeatedly insists on this.

Yet the Church also recognizes that circumstances sometimes make Mass impossible for a given community on a given Sunday. Canon law itself addresses the point. Canon 1248 §2 of the Code of Canon Law states: “If participation in the eucharistic celebration becomes impossible because of the absence of a sacred minister or for another grave cause, it is strongly recommended that the faithful take part in a liturgy of the Word if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families.”

The principal official document elaborating this is the Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship on 2 June 1988 and approved by Pope John Paul II. The Directory does not invent a new form of worship or encourage the absence of priests. It responds to an existing pastoral necessity so that the Christian meaning of Sunday is not lost.

These celebrations are extraordinary, not ordinary. They are not to become a convenient substitute for Mass when a priest could reasonably be obtained. They should foster, not diminish, hunger for the Eucharist. They must carefully avoid any confusion with the Mass itself.

In practice, the preferred form in many places is a Liturgy of the Word with Holy Communion from hosts previously consecrated by a priest and reserved in the tabernacle. Alternatives include a Liturgy of the Word alone or Morning or Evening Prayer from the Liturgy of the Hours, sometimes with Communion.

 The Structure of the Rite

The order carefully distinguishes the service from the Mass. Nothing proper to the Mass—especially the preparation of the gifts in the sacrificial sense or the Eucharistic Prayer—is inserted.

Typical elements include:

- Introductory rites: Gathering, sign of the cross, greeting (adapted so that a lay leader does not use the presidential formulas proper to a priest), introduction explaining that Mass cannot be celebrated today and that the community gathers to hear the Word and (if applicable) receive Communion from the reserved Sacrament, penitential act, and collect or opening prayer.

- Liturgy of the Word: The same readings as those appointed for the Sunday Mass, including the Gospel. A responsorial psalm. A period of silence or a reflection (not a formal homily by a lay person unless specifically authorized; deacons may preach). Profession of faith. General intercessions.

- Communion rite (when reserved hosts are available): The leader goes to the place of reservation, brings the ciborium or pyx to the altar (the altar is approached only at this point in many guidelines, precisely to avoid the appearance of a Mass), leads the Lord’s Prayer, the invitation to Communion (“Behold the Lamb of God…”), and distributes Holy Communion. A prayer after Communion follows. The remaining hosts are returned to the tabernacle.

- Concluding rite: Blessing (in a form appropriate to a lay leader or deacon) and dismissal.

Key visual and rubrical safeguards exist precisely to prevent the misunderstanding seen in the circulating video. The presidential chair is normally not used by a lay leader; the leader often stands among the assembly or at a different place. Vesture, if any, is distinct from priestly vestments. The language used makes clear that this is not the Mass. The Directory and subsequent national and diocesan adaptations stress that the celebration must never look or sound like a simulated Mass.

The host held by one of the women in the video is almost certainly a previously consecrated host being prepared for distribution or shown in the invitation to Communion. No words of consecration are spoken by the laity; none can be effective if spoken by them. The Sacrament remains what a priest has already made it.

 Who May Lead These Celebrations

Preference is always given to a deacon when one is available. A deacon can lead the service, proclaim the Gospel, preach, and distribute Communion as an ordinary minister.

When no deacon is present, the diocesan bishop may appoint suitable lay persons—men or women—as leaders of prayer for these celebrations. Appointment is not a casual local decision; it falls under the bishop’s authority. Leaders are to receive proper formation. The Directory and later documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) emphasize that it is preferable to distribute the various roles among several members of the faithful rather than have one lay person appear to “preside” in the manner of a priest. No lay person is ever to be referred to as “presiding” over the celebration in the same sense.

Women have long served in these roles in mission territories and in areas of priest shortage, including parts of Brazil, Portugal, Africa, and elsewhere. This is not a novelty of recent decades or an innovation driven by ideology; it is a practical application of the Church’s norms in concrete circumstances. The same norms apply regardless of the sex of the appointed leader.

Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may assist with distribution under the usual conditions. The hosts remain those consecrated by a priest.

 Official Permissions, Laws, and Rubrics

The foundational texts are clear:

- Code of Canon Law, can. 1248 §2 (quoted above).

- Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (Congregation for Divine Worship, 2 June 1988). It outlines the conditions under which such celebrations may be authorized, the theological importance of Sunday, the need to avoid confusion with the Mass, the preference for deacons, the possibility of appointed lay leaders, and the basic structure of the celebration of the Word with Communion.

- Redemptionis Sacramentum (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 25 March 2004), especially nos. 162–167 on particular celebrations in the absence of a priest. These paragraphs reaffirm that such celebrations are extraordinary, that confusion with the Mass must be avoided, that the diocesan bishop regulates them, that Communion may be distributed according to his prudent judgment, and that roles should be shared among the faithful when no priest or deacon is present. They also insist that those leading keep alive a true hunger for the Eucharist.

National bishops’ conferences and individual dioceses issue more detailed directives adapting the Directory to local circumstances. In Brazil and other Portuguese-speaking regions, corresponding guidelines exist and have been in use for years. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has published ritual editions of Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest. Similar provisions appear in Australia, England and Wales, and many other places.

These are not loopholes or progressive experiments. They are the Church’s own response to the scarcity of priests while safeguarding the unique character of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood.

 Charity, Accuracy, and the Larger Context

Priest shortages are a real and growing pastoral challenge in many parts of the world. Blaming the women in the video for responding to that challenge under the Church’s norms solves nothing. Misidentifying a Communion service as a simulated consecration spreads confusion rather than clarity. Public attacks that treat the women as ideological actors rather than local Catholics doing what their bishop and the universal norms allow are unjust.

Traditionalists rightly defend the centrality of the Mass, the exclusive power of the ordained priest to confect the Eucharist, and the need for reverence and clarity in liturgy. Those concerns are valid. They are best served by accurate knowledge of what the Church actually permits and by restraint in judgment when evidence is incomplete, especially when a language barrier is involved.

The women in the video are not the enemy of orthodoxy. In the concrete circumstances of their community, they are helping the faithful keep Sunday as the Lord’s Day to the extent possible until a priest can be present. That is the purpose the Directory itself assigns to these celebrations.

Understanding the rite, the norms that authorize it, and the difference between reserved Communion and consecration removes the basis for the false accusation. Charity then requires that we stop treating the women as if they had committed the offense that was mistakenly attributed to them.

Sunday remains the day of the Resurrection. The Mass remains its fullest celebration. When the Mass cannot be had, the Church still provides a way for the community to gather around the Word and the reserved Sacrament. That provision is not a threat to the priesthood; it is a pastoral response that assumes the priesthood’s irreplaceable role.

The circulating video does not show women pretending to be priests. It shows a permitted form of Sunday worship under the norms of the Catholic Church. Accurate knowledge and Christian charity are the proper responses.

 References

- Code of Canon Law (1983), can. 1248 §2.

- Congregation for Divine Worship, Directory for Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (2 June 1988).

- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004), especially nos. 162–167.

- Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), art. 106 (on the importance of Sunday).

- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Sunday Celebrations in the Absence of a Priest (ritual editions, various revisions conforming to the third edition of the Roman Missal).

- Diocesan and national guidelines implementing the 1988 Directory (examples available from various bishops’ conferences, including those in Portuguese-speaking regions).

- Related texts: Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (ritual), and relevant canons on extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (can. 910, 230 §3).

Rome: No Lay Preaching or Gospel Reading During the Liturgy

Rome Reaffirms: No Lay Preaching or Gospel Reading During the Liturgy

In a clear decision issued on June 17, 2026, the Vatican’s Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments rejected a request from the German Bishops’ Conference to allow laypeople to preach the homily during Mass in exceptional cases. Cardinal Arthur Roche, the prefect, emphasized that the homily is intrinsically linked to the ordained ministry and forms part of the sacramental structure of the Eucharist itself.

This ruling underscores a longstanding principle in the Roman Rite: certain liturgical roles, particularly those most closely tied to the proclamation of the Word in the context of the Mass, remain reserved to bishops, priests, and deacons.

 The Homily: Reserved to the Ordained

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states plainly: “The homily should ordinarily be given by the priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to the deacon, but never to a lay person.”

This is not merely a disciplinary rule but reflects the theological nature of the homily. As an integral part of the liturgy, the homily expounds the mysteries of the faith from the sacred texts proclaimed during the celebration. It connects the Word of God to the Eucharistic sacrifice in a way that flows from the priest’s or deacon’s sacramental configuration to Christ the Head and Shepherd.

The 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum reinforced this strongly, calling any practice of lay preaching during Mass a reprobated abuse that cannot become custom. It explicitly applies the prohibition to seminarians, theology students, and pastoral assistants as well.

The recent response to the German bishops echoes this: no indult (special permission) can override the norm of Canon 767 §1, even for serious pastoral reasons. Lay faithful have many avenues to proclaim and teach the Word—catechesis, retreats, Bible studies, and preaching outside the homily slot—but the Eucharistic homily belongs to the ordained.

 Gospel Proclamation: Not for Lay Readers

Laypeople commonly serve as readers (lectors) for the first and second readings at Mass. This is a valued and ancient ministry encouraged by the Church. However, the Gospel reading stands apart.

According to tradition and the Introduction to the Lectionary for Mass, the Gospel is proclaimed by the deacon (or, in his absence, by a priest). Laypersons may never proclaim the Gospel during the celebration of Holy Mass.

This distinction honors the unique dignity of the Gospels as the direct account of Christ’s words and deeds. The liturgical gestures—standing, the acclamation, the sign of the cross on forehead, lips, and heart—underscore that this is no ordinary reading but a solemn proclamation reserved to those in holy orders.

 Why This Matters: Theology, Not Exclusion

Critics sometimes frame these norms as sidelining the laity or resisting “full participation” after Vatican II. In reality, the opposite is true. The Council and subsequent documents greatly expanded lay involvement in the liturgy (as readers, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, musicians, altar servers, etc.) while preserving the distinct roles rooted in Holy Orders.

The laity exercise their baptismal priesthood in profound ways: offering their lives as spiritual sacrifice, witnessing Christ in the world, and participating actively in the prayers and responses of the Mass. Preaching and Gospel proclamation in the liturgy, however, belong to the ministerial priesthood and diaconate, which serve the common priesthood of all believers.

Allowing lay homilies or Gospel readings risks blurring the sacramental sign of the ordained minister acting in persona Christi capitis (in the person of Christ the Head). The Church’s discipline safeguards the integrity of the liturgy as a participation in the heavenly worship, not a flexible program shaped by local preferences.

 Opportunities for Lay Ministry

This ruling does not silence the laity. Canon 766 permits lay preaching in churches or oratories when necessary or useful, outside the context of the Mass homily, with the bishop’s permission. Laypeople continue to lead Scripture studies, give reflections at prayer services, preach at non-Eucharistic liturgies (such as certain Communion services under proper conditions), and evangelize in countless settings.

The Church values and needs the theological formation and lived witness of faithful lay men and women. Many dioceses offer excellent training for catechists, speakers, and apologists precisely to amplify the laity’s voice in the New Evangelization.

 A Call to Fidelity

Rome’s consistent teaching invites all Catholics—clergy and laity alike—to embrace their proper roles with joy and reverence. Priests and deacons are called to prepare homilies prayerfully and zealously. Lay faithful are called to listen attentively, live the Word, and share it boldly in the world.

In an age of confusion and liturgical experimentation, such clarity from the Dicastery for Divine Worship is a gift. It reminds us that the liturgy is not ours to redesign but Christ’s gift to His Church, celebrated according to the mind of the Church.

As the German bishops’ request and Rome’s response show, the tradition endures—not out of rigidity, but out of love for the sacred mysteries. May we all enter more deeply into the liturgy, each fulfilling our vocation, so that the Word may be proclaimed worthily and the Eucharist celebrated in truth.

The Lost Art of Genuflecting Before the Blessed Sacrament: A Call to Renewed Reverence

The Lost Art of Genuflecting Before the Blessed Sacrament: A Call to Renewed Reverence  

In today's fast-paced world, many Catholic churches feel more like gathering spaces than sacred temples. One poignant symptom of this shift is the diminishing practice of genuflection—the profound act of bending the knee before the tabernacle, where Christ is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament. What was once a universal, unmistakable sign of adoration has become, in too many places, rushed, abbreviated, or entirely          forgotten. This "lost art" reflects a subtle erosion of Eucharistic awareness, yet it also presents an opportunity for revival amid the ongoing National Eucharistic Revival.

Genuflection is far more than etiquette or habit; it is theology in motion, a bodily proclamation that Jesus Christ—God made man—is really, truly, and substantially present under the appearances of bread. Reclaiming this gesture can deepen personal faith, strengthen communal witness, and prepare souls for the day when, as Scripture foretells, every knee shall bow.

 What Is Genuflection?

The word "genuflection" comes from the Latin genuflectere, literally "to bend the knee." According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), "A genuflection, made by bending the right knee to the ground, signifies adoration, and therefore it is reserved for the Most Blessed Sacrament" (no. 274). This distinguishes it from other gestures: a simple bow of the head honors sacred names or persons, while a profound bow (from the waist) shows reverence to the altar or during certain prayers. Genuflection alone expresses adoration—worship due to God alone—and is thus reserved exclusively for the Eucharist (whether reserved in the tabernacle or exposed for adoration) and, on Good Friday, the Holy Cross during its solemn veneration.

Historically, genuflection emerged in the Western Church during the Middle Ages as a replacement for deeper prostrations or profound bows common in earlier Christian and Eastern traditions. It drew from courtly customs of showing submission to kings by kneeling on one knee, but Christians adapted it to honor the King of Kings. By the time of Pope Pius V's 1570 Missale Romanum, it became standardized in the Roman Rite. Unlike prostration (both knees and full body to the ground), which was more penitential, genuflection became the everyday expression of Eucharistic reverence.

 How Is Genuflection Properly Done?

Proper execution is simple yet intentional:

1. Face the tabernacle directly (identified by the lit sanctuary lamp—usually a red candle or vessel—signaling Christ's presence).

2. Stand upright, then bend the right knee fully until it touches the ground (the right knee is traditional, symbolizing honor to God rather than earthly authorities, who received the left).

3. Keep the left foot and knee slightly raised for balance.

4. Pause briefly in the lowered position—often making the Sign of the Cross as a personal devotion (though not required by the rubrics).

5. Rise smoothly and reverently, without haste.

This is performed whenever one enters or leaves a pew (if passing before the tabernacle), crosses in front of it, or arrives/departs the church. During Eucharistic Adoration with the Sacrament exposed, a double genuflection (both knees to the ground, followed by a moment of prayer) is fitting, though the single-knee version remains standard for the reserved Sacrament.

The key is mindfulness: the body expresses what the heart professes. A hurried dip or mechanical motion misses the point. As one source notes, genuflection is like greeting the divine Host in His own house—acknowledging His invitation to communion.

 Common Abuses and the "Lost Art"

Unfortunately, genuflection has suffered significant dilution in modern practice, contributing to its status as a "lost art":

- Half genuflections — A slight dip or bob where the knee barely bends and never reaches the ground, reducing adoration to a token gesture.

- Curtsies — Often seen among women or children, this small dip or bend lacks the full knee-to-ground submission prescribed by the Church.

- Quick nods or head bows — These casual movements resemble informal salutes (like a "Bronx teen" acknowledgment) rather than worship. A mere head bob fails to convey the depth required for adoration.

- Passing by like nothing — Perhaps the most widespread abuse: people enter, exit, or cross the sanctuary without any gesture, treating the tabernacle as ordinary furniture.

- Rushed or distracted genuflections — Performed hurriedly while looking elsewhere or multitasking, turning a prayerful act into routine.

These abuses often arise from poor catechesis, cultural haste, or weakened belief in the Real Presence. In some parishes, the tabernacle's relocation to a side chapel has reduced visibility, leading to fewer opportunities for reverence. The result? A communal witness weakened, where visitors might never grasp that Catholics believe Christ is truly here.

 The Profound Importance of Genuflecting

Genuflection is deeply biblical. Scripture repeatedly calls for knee-bending in worship:

- Isaiah 45:23 — God declares: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear."

- This prophecy finds fulfillment in Philippians 2:10-11: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Paul applies Isaiah's words—originally about Yahweh—to Jesus, affirming His divinity. By genuflecting, Catholics participate in this cosmic reality now, anticipating the final judgment when all creation submits to Christ. It echoes Christ's humility in the Incarnation and Passion: He who knelt to wash feet deserves our knees in return.

Theologically, genuflection unites body and soul. The Church teaches that external signs strengthen interior faith (Catechism of the Catholic Church). In a culture of self-assertion, bending the knee combats pride with humble submission. It evangelizes silently: non-Catholics see believers kneeling before what looks like bread, witnessing belief in transubstantiation.

Genuflection also fosters Eucharistic awe. As one reflection notes, it's like entering the King's court—acknowledging the divine presence that makes every church a throne room.

 Exceptions: Mercy for the Elderly, Disabled, and Those with Limitations

The Church is compassionate. Those unable to genuflect due to age, arthritis, knee/back issues, mobility aids, pregnancy, or injury are excused. A profound bow from the waist, a head bow, or even an interior act of reverence suffices. The GIRM and pastoral guidance emphasize safety and disposition over rigid form. Able-bodied faithful should strive for the full gesture, but temporary or permanent limitations warrant alternatives. The heart's adoration matters most.

 Reviving the Lost Art in Our Time

Amid the Eucharistic Revival, reclaiming genuflection is urgent. Parents can teach children early, modeling slow, intentional movements. Priests might address it in homilies, explaining its biblical roots. Individuals can cultivate mindfulness: pause, face the tabernacle, and offer the gesture with love.

In an age of distraction, genuflection grounds us in the eternal. It reminds us that Christ is not distant—He waits in the tabernacle, inviting us to bend the knee in love. By renewing this practice, we deepen faith, honor the Lord, and prepare for the day when every knee shall bow.

 Sources

- General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), nos. 274–275 (USCCB edition).

- Catechism of the Catholic Church (Glossary on genuflection).

- Holy Bible: Isaiah 45:23; Philippians 2:10-11 (various translations, e.g., NABRE, RSV-CE).

- "Proper Genuflection?" – Simply Catholic (simplycatholic.com).

- "Why do Catholics genuflect?" – Arlington Catholic Herald (catholicherald.com).

- Catholic Encyclopedia entries on Genuflexion and Kneeling (newadvent.org)

.

- Discussions from Catholic Answers, Aleteia, Bismarck Diocese, and Fatima Center resources.

- Various pastoral reflections on Eucharistic reverence and abuses (e.g., Reddit /r/Catholicism threads, diocesan bulletins).

The Manufactured Outrage Against Pope Leo XIV:

The Manufactured Outrage Against Pope Leo XIV:  

How American Right-Wing Activists Distort Catholic Teaching on Migration, Islam, and the Gospel Call to Welcome the Stranger

In the closing weeks of 2025, Pope Leo XIV has become the latest target of a coordinated campaign of vilification from segments of the American far right. The trigger was a series of remarks the Holy Father made during an interreligious dialogue in Strasbourg and in a subsequent letter to the bishops of Europe. In those remarks, Leo XIV reiterated the Church’s perennial teaching that migrants and refugees possess an inherent dignity, that wealthy nations have a moral duty to assist those fleeing war and persecution, and that Europe’s Christian identity is not threatened by the presence of peaceful Muslim neighbors but by its own abandonment of charity and solidarity.

Within hours, social-media personalities, certain Catholic media outlets with nationalist leanings, and political commentators who rarely attend Mass unless a camera is present declared that the Pope had “declared open borders,” “surrendered Europe to Islam,” and “betrayed Christendom.” Memes depicting Leo XIV in a keffiyeh or bowing toward Mecca proliferated. Petitions demanding that he “resign or recant” gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures, many from accounts with Confederate flags or “Deus Vult” banners in their profiles.

This is not principled disagreement. It is a deliberate, racially charged caricature of a pontiff whose actual words are far closer to John Paul II and Benedict XVI than the activists want to admit. And it exposes a deeper malaise: a significant portion of the American right, including some who call themselves Catholic, has elevated a white-ethnic nationalist ideology above the Gospel itself.

 1. What Pope Leo XIV Actually Said

In his Strasbourg address (November 2025), the Pope stated:

> “Europe was built on the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome—that is, faith, reason, and law. To welcome the stranger in an orderly way is not to dilute that heritage; it is to live it. The Muslim who flees death in Syria or poverty in the Sahel is just as much our neighbor as the Christian from Damascus. Both deserve protection, both deserve respect for their conscience, and both challenge us to practice the corporal works of mercy that Christ will judge us.”

In his letter to European bishops, he wrote:

> “Prudential regulation of migration flows is legitimate and necessary. But a nation that possesses surplus while others lack bread cannot invoke ‘sovereignty’ as an excuse to abandon the poor at its gates. The common destination of goods is a principle of the social doctrine as binding as the right to private property.”

Nowhere did he call for the abolition of borders. Nowhere did he deny the state’s right to enforce immigration law. Nowhere did he suggest that Europe must accept every economic migrant without distinction. He simply restated what every pope since Leo XIII has taught.

 2. The Church Has Always Taught the Legitimacy of Borders—and the Duty to the Stranger

The activists who scream “open borders” have apparently never read the Catechism they claim to defend:

> “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin… Political authorities… may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions… Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.” (CCC 2241)

Note the balance: the right of nations to control immigration is affirmed in the same paragraph as the duty of prosperous nations to welcome those in genuine need. Pope Benedict XVI said the same in Caritas in Veritate (§62) and John Paul II in Ecclesia in America (§40) and Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (§39). Even the 1952 apostolic constitution Exsul Familia, written under Pius XII, speaks of both the “right of the family to migration” and the “right of the state to regulate migration flows.”

The current critics act as if Leo XIV invented something new. He did not. He simply refuses to ignore half of the Church’s teaching the way they do.

 3. The Biblical Mandate Is Unambiguous

Scripture does not hedge:

- “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the stranger. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Lev 19:33-34)

- “I was a stranger and you welcomed me… Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” (Mt 25:35,40)

- “Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers (πάροικους).” (Rom 12:13)

- “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers (φιλοξενία), for by doing that some have entertained angels unawares.” (Heb 13:2)

The Church Fathers were equally clear. St. John Chrysostom, hardly a soft cosmopolitan, preached:

> “If you see anyone in exile or cast out from his country… do not ask about his past life… This is inhumanity, to pry curiously into a person’s former life when he is suffering misfortune.” (Homily on 1 Timothy)

St. Ambrose wrote:

> “You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The earth belongs to all, not to the rich.” (On Naboth 1.2)

To refuse aid to the stranger in dire need is not “common sense”; it is a rejection of the judgment scene in Matthew 25.

 4. Church Teaching on Islam and Religious Respect

Pope Leo XIV’s critics also distort his outreach to Muslims.

The Second Vatican Council declared:

> “The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God… They strive to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees… Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.” (Nostra Aetate §3)

Pope St. John Paul II kissed the Qur’an as a gesture of respect (not worship) and prayed in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine emperor critically about Islam yet still prayed alongside the Grand Mufti in the Blue Mosque. Francis called for “fraternity” with Muslims in the Document on Human Fraternity. None of them converted to Islam or called for its dominance. They simply obeyed the Gospel command to love enemies and the natural-law principle that error has no rights but persons do.

Leo XIV has done nothing different. To claim that calling Muslims “brothers” or urging respect for their places of worship is “surrender” is to reject two thousand years of doctrine.

 5. The Racial and Ideological Core of the Attack

Let us speak plainly: the loudest voices attacking Pope Leo XIV are overwhelmingly white, Western, and steeped in ethnic anxiety. Their social-media timelines are filled with “great replacement” graphs, crusader memes, and complaints about “low-trust societies.” Many openly identify as “race realists” or post “It’s OK to be white” slogans. A non-trivial number celebrate January 6, deny the Holocaust in private Discords, or retweet accounts that do.

Some of them are Catholic. A few are even clergy or prominent lay apologists. They have traded the universal call of the Gospel for the particularist call of blood-and-soil ideology. When the Pope defends the dignity of brown-skinned refugees or speaks respectfully of Muslims, they hear a threat to “Western civilization”—by which they mean white, European, nominally Christian civilization. Christ’s call to lose one’s life is subordinated to the political project of preserving one’s tribe.

This is not authentic traditionalism. It is a new paganism wearing a thin Catholic veneer. The early Church grew because it welcomed the barbarian at the gates, not because it built higher walls. St. Paul did not tell the Roman Christians to deport the immigrants in the Subura. He told them to outdo one another in showing honor (Rom 12:10).

 6. Worshipping Ideology, Not Christ

When self-described “trad” Catholics side with pagan nationalists against the Vicar of Christ, they reveal whom they truly serve. The Pope is not infallible in prudential immigration policy, but he is infallible when he hands on the deposit of faith—and the deposit of faith includes both the legitimacy of borders and the non-negotiable command to welcome the stranger in need.

To call the Pope a “heretic” or “antipope” because he will not bless your political program is schismatic in spirit if not yet in canon law.

Christ warned us: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 7:21). Some of those shouting “Lord, Lord” today are the same ones sharing memes about machine-gunning migrant boats. Their god is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. Their god is a golden calf made of race, soil, and nostalgia.

 How Marjorie Taylor Greene Discovered the Fanaticism of the Hard-Right Base

In early 2025, after Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly praised Pope Leo XIV’s call for charity toward refugees and criticized the “cruel memes” circulating about drowning migrants, she was immediately swarmed by what she later described privately as “an absolute psycho mob.” Her direct messages and comment sections were filled with thousands of former supporters calling her a “globalist shill,” a “papal whore,” and far worse; several promised to primary her with a “real America-First Catholic.” One prominent MAGA influencer with 800,000 followers posted a video declaring that “MTG has betrayed Christendom for brown invaders,” while another superimposed her face onto images of the Pope in a keffiyeh. Death threats followed within hours. Shaken, Greene told allies off-record that she finally understood the movement she had helped unleash: “These people aren’t conservative, they’re a cult. They don’t want a republic; they want a white ethno-state with crucifixes on the wall, and if the Pope doesn’t agree with every one of their talking points, they’ll burn him in effigy and call it defending the faith.” The episode marked a quiet but decisive break; she has since refused to appear on the platforms that once made her a star.  She was recently forced to resign from Congress after receiving death threats from these fanatics. 

 Catholics Are Forbidden to Judge the Pope in Matters of Faith and Morals

The Church has always taught that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra or definitively teaches on faith and morals, possesses that infallibility promised by Christ to Peter (Mt 16:18-19; Lk 22:32). Even outside formal ex cathedra definitions, Catholics owe the Pope the “religious submission of intellect and will” to his ordinary magisterium (Lumen Gentium 25; Canon 752). Canon 1404 expressly states: “The First See is judged by no one” (Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur), a principle repeated from the Liber Diurnus through Gratian to the 1917 and 1983 Codes. St. Robert Bellarmine taught that to accuse the Pope of heresy in his official teaching is itself proximate to heresy (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, ch. 30). St. Catherine of Siena, the fiercest critic of popes in her age, still wrote to Pope Gregory XI: “Even if he were an incarnate devil, we ought not to raise up our heads against him.” St. John Fisher, facing martyrdom under Henry VIII, declared: “The Pope is the Vicar of Christ; I may not judge him, but I must obey him even unto death.” To set oneself up as the Pope’s judge in matters of doctrine is therefore not courageous orthodoxy; it is the ancient sin of Korah (Num 16), who rebelled against Moses and was swallowed by the earth.

Conclusion

Pope Leo XIV is not calling Catholics to be Catholic—to hold in tension the legitimate rights of nations and the transcendent claims of charity, to respect legitimate religious differences without relativism, and to see in the face of the suffering stranger the face of Christ Himself.

Those who distort his words into “open borders” and “Islamization” are not defending the Church. They are defending an idol. And idols always demand human sacrifice, especially of the weak.

May the Lord grant them conversion of heart, and may He grant the rest of us the courage to love as He loved—without counting the cost and without fearing the crowd.

 References

- Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997), §2241

- Vatican II, Nostra Aetate (1965), §3

- Pius XII, Exsul Familia (1952)

- John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (1987), §39

- John Paul II, Message for World Migration Day 2000

- Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate (2009), §62

- Leo XIV, Address at the European Interreligious Meeting, Strasbourg, 14 November 2025

- Leo XIV, Letter to the Bishops of Europe on Migration and Fraternity, 28 November 2025

- Sacred Scripture (RSV-2CE)

- St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Timothy

- St. Ambrose, De Naboth

The Silent Shepherds: Bishop Strickland's Cry in the Wilderness and the Fractured Voice of the American Episcopate

The Silent Shepherds: Bishop Strickland's Cry in the Wilderness and the Fractured Voice of the American Episcopate

In the grand halls of the Marriott Waterfront Hotel in Baltimore, where the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) convened its fall general assembly on November 11-14, 2025, a moment unfolded that encapsulated the profound tensions roiling within the Catholic Church in America. Bishop Joseph Strickland, the emeritus bishop of Tyler, Texas—removed from his see by Pope Francis in 2023 for his unyielding fidelity to traditional doctrine—rose to speak. His voice, steady yet laced with urgency, cut through the chamber as he addressed a scandal that had ignited fury among faithful Catholics: the recent confirmation of ABC news anchor Gio Benitez, who lives openly in a same-sex "marriage," overseen by none other than the prominent Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin, SJ. Strickland's intervention lasted barely 47 seconds, a fleeting plea for his brother bishops to confront this public defiance of Church teaching. But in a scene that will haunt the annals of ecclesiastical history, his words were met not with debate, not with affirmation, not even with rebuke—but with silence. The chair moved swiftly to the next agenda item, as if the emperor's new clothes had never been mentioned at all.

This was no isolated slight. It was the latest chapter in a saga of marginalization for Strickland, a bishop who has become a lightning rod for those yearning for doctrinal clarity amid a sea of ambiguity. His brief remarks—"I don't know how many of us have seen on social media... Priests and others gathered, celebrating the confirmation of a man living with a man openly. And it just needs to be addressed... We need to address this"—echoed the frustrations of countless laity who see in such events not pastoral outreach, but a betrayal of the sacred deposit of faith. The confirmation rite, held in New York under the auspices of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, featured Fr. Martin alongside the pastor, Fr. Eric Andrews, a Paulist priest, administering the sacrament to Benitez in what appeared to be a jubilant affirmation of his lifestyle. Social media footage showed the group posing triumphantly before the Blessed Sacrament, a visual that struck many as a mockery of the very Eucharist it purported to honor.

Strickland's courage in naming this elephant in the room—Fr. Martin's role in what he and others perceive as a normalization of grave sin—deserves not just admiration, but emulation. Yet, his brother bishops, ensconced in their collars and crosiers, chose the path of least resistance: indifference. This is not mere oversight; it is a symptom of a deeper malaise, a disconnect between the shepherds and the immutable teachings of the Church they are sworn to guard. In an era when the world clamors for the Church to bend to cultural winds, moments like this reveal a hierarchy adrift, torn between the timeless truth of Christ and the fleeting applause of modernity. This blog post delves into that chasm, exploring the event itself, the unyielding doctrine it contravenes, the figure of Fr. Martin at its epicenter, and the cognitive dissonance that plagues the faithful. At its heart lies a simple truth: Bishop Strickland was not just brave; he was right. And in ignoring him, the USCCB has ignored not only him, but the voice of the Church eternal.

 The Incident: A Confirmation That Confounds the Faithful

To understand the gravity of Strickland's intervention, one must first grasp the provocation. Gio Benitez, a well-known face on Good Morning America, entered the Catholic Church through a rite of confirmation on All Saints' Day, November 1, 2025, at St. Paul the Apostle Church in Manhattan. The ceremony was no quiet affair; it was livestreamed and shared widely, drawing cheers from progressive Catholic circles and outrage from traditionalists. Benitez, married to his husband since 2022, received the sacrament from Fr. Andrews, with Fr. James Martin—perhaps the most visible advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the American Church—present and participating in the celebration. The group, including Martin, later received Holy Communion, posing for photos that framed the moment as a triumph of "inclusion."

For Catholics steeped in the faith, this was seismic. Confirmation is not a mere formality; it is a sacrament that seals the Christian with the Holy Spirit, strengthening them for witness to the Gospel. To administer it to someone in a public state of objective mortal sin—living in a same-sex union that the Church deems gravely disordered—without any apparent call to repentance, strikes at the core of sacramental integrity. Canon Law is unequivocal: those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin may not be admitted to the sacraments (Canon 915). Yet here, in the heart of Dolan's archdiocese, the rite proceeded, blessed by priests who have made inclusion their banner.

Bishop Strickland, attending the USCCB meeting as a bishop emeritus with full rights to speak, could no longer hold his peace. During a discussion on pastoral priorities, he seized the floor. His words were measured, almost plaintive: a reference to the viral images, a nod to the priests involved, and a direct challenge: "We need to address this." The chamber fell quiet. No bishop rose in support. No one invoked doctrine. Instead, Bishop James Massa interjected with an "infomercial" about a faith and science symposium, and Archbishop Timothy Broglio, presiding, pivoted seamlessly to immigration messaging. It was as if Strickland had spoken in tongues.

This snub was not lost on observers. Social media erupted, with faithful Catholics decrying the "cowardice" of the assembly. "Bishop Strickland is the only one with a spine," tweeted one prominent lay commentator. Videos of the moment spread like wildfire, amassing millions of views and fueling podcasts, articles, and homilies across the traditional Catholic world. For many, it recalled Strickland's earlier prophetic stands: his 2018 USCCB floor speech questioning why bishops allowed priests to contradict Church teaching on homosexuality (widely seen as aimed at Martin), or his 2023 removal by Pope Francis after years of outspoken criticism of perceived heterodoxy. In Baltimore, history repeated, but with a crueler twist—the lone voice silenced not by expulsion, but by erasure.

Why did this happen? The answer lies in the uncomfortable reality of episcopal collegiality in crisis. The USCCB, meant to be a synod of successors to the apostles, has increasingly functioned as a bureaucratic machine, prioritizing consensus over confrontation. To address the Benitez confirmation would mean scrutinizing Dolan's oversight, Martin's influence, and the broader drift toward accommodation. Easier to let it slide, to focus on safer topics like synodality or climate. But in doing so, the bishops forfeit their mandate. As St. Augustine warned, "Bad shepherds drive out the flock." And the flock is watching, wounded and wandering.

 The Church's Unchanging Teaching: A Rock Amid Shifting Sands

At the root of this scandal is a fundamental rupture: the chasm between eternal doctrine and ephemeral practice. The Catholic Church has spoken with crystalline clarity on homosexuality for millennia, rooted in Scripture, Tradition, and natural law. Homosexual acts are not a matter of opinion or cultural evolution; they are "intrinsically disordered," a phrase that, while jarring to modern ears, encapsulates a profound anthropological truth.

The foundational text is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1992 and reaffirmed under subsequent pontiffs. Paragraph 2357 states: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." This is no innovation; it echoes the Bible's witness—from the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-11) to St. Paul's condemnation of same-sex relations as contrary to God's design (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Earlier magisterial documents reinforce this. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana) affirms that "homosexual activity is not a complementary union" but "deprives human sexuality of its essential subordination to the welfare of the children." The 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons) doubles down: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as objectively disordered." These acts, it warns, "can never be approved" and lead to a "grave depravity."

Even Pope Francis, often caricatured as a revolutionary, upholds this in Amoris Laetitia (2016), paragraph 250: "The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman." His 2023 response to the dubia of five cardinals reiterated that the Church cannot bless "irregular" unions, as blessings presuppose alignment with God's will. The 2021 Responsa ad dubia from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that blessings for same-sex couples must not resemble sacramental rites, lest they imply approval.

This teaching is not born of animus but of a vision of human flourishing: sexuality as a divine gift ordered to spousal love and procreation, mirroring the Trinity's self-giving communion. To call it "disordered" is to say it deviates from this telos, much as a misfiring engine deviates from its purpose. Persons with same-sex attraction—whom the Church calls to chastity and respect (CCC 2358-2359)—are not condemned but invited to heroic virtue, uniting their trials to Christ's cross. Yet, when sacraments are administered without repentance, this merciful call becomes a snare.

The Benitez confirmation flouts this. By confirming a man in a public same-sex union, the rite implicitly endorses the union as consonant with faith—a contradiction in terms. Strickland's plea was a defense of this doctrine, urging bishops to reaffirm what the Church has always taught. Their silence? A tacit permission for confusion.

 Fr. James Martin: Bridge-Builder or Demolisher?

No figure embodies this disconnect more than Fr. James Martin, SJ, whose ministry has made him a celebrity in Catholic and secular media alike. Ordained in 1999, Martin rose through Jesuit ranks as a writer and editor for America magazine, blending humor, social justice, and a folksy style that endeared him to many. But it was his 2017 book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity that catapulted him to prominence—and controversy. The tome, inspired by Pope Francis's "Who am I to judge?" remark, calls for dialogue, using language from CCC 2358 to advocate "respect, compassion, and sensitivity." Yet, critics argue, it omits the crucial caveats: the intrinsic disorder of acts and the call to chastity.

Martin's influence peaked under Francis, who appointed him a Vatican communications consultant in 2017. He has keynoted synods, advised on LGBTQ+ outreach, and amassed over 300,000 Twitter followers. His Outreach initiative, launched in 2022 under the Jesuit conference, aims to support LGBTQ+ Catholics, hosting conferences with speakers like Bishop John Stowe and Sr. Jeannine Gramick—figures who have faced Vatican scrutiny for blurring doctrinal lines.

In the Benitez case, Martin's presence was emblematic. Photos show him beaming alongside the confirmand, his social media posts framing the event as a "joyful" milestone. For supporters, this is mercy incarnate; for detractors, it's a sleight of hand, elevating accompaniment over conversion. Strickland has long targeted Martin: In 2018, at the USCCB, he decried bishops hosting priests who "do not believe" the Church's teaching on homosexuality. In 2021, he urged Martin to preach the "full message" at an LGBTQ+ retreat. And in 2023, post-removal, Strickland called Martin's Pride Month tweets "sacrilegious."

Martin's defenders decry this as homophobia, but the charge rings hollow. Strickland affirms the dignity of all, including those with same-sex attraction. His ire is for Martin's selective catechesis: emphasizing welcome while eliding sin and repentance. This is no minor omission; it fosters the very scandal that drove McCarrick's downfall and the abuse crisis. When a priest like Martin—blessed with platforms denied to most—presents homosexual unions as normative, he sows seeds of heresy. The Church's documents demand more: truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Martin's arc mirrors the broader progressive wing: earnest intent, but at the cost of fidelity. His bridge, intended to span divides, has become a ramp to relativism, where doctrine dissolves into dialogue. Strickland's confrontation was a call to rebuild on rock, not sand.

 The Great Disconnect: Bishops Adrift from the Barque of Peter

The USCCB's silence on Strickland's plea reveals a profound disconnect: bishops, ordained to teach, sanctify, and govern, increasingly prioritize image over integrity. This is not new—recall the 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report exposing abuse cover-ups, or the McCarrick scandal that implicated the hierarchy's complicity. Yet, on homosexuality, the fracture is acute. While laity polls show 60-70% of U.S. Catholics support same-sex "marriage" (Pew, 2023), the Magisterium stands firm. Bishops, caught between Gallup and the Gospel, opt for ambiguity.

Consider the landscape: Progressive prelates like Cardinals Cupich and McElroy push "inclusion" initiatives, hosting LGBTQ+ Masses that skirt canonical boundaries. Traditional voices like Strickland or Bishop Thomas Paprocki issue clarion calls, only to be sidelined. The 2021-2024 Synod on Synodality amplified this, with U.S. reports urging "LGBTQ+ inclusion" without doctrinal qualifiers. Meanwhile, Vatican documents like Fiducia Supplicans (2023) permit non-liturgical blessings for couples—promptly twisted to "bless" unions, despite clarifications.

This disconnect breeds hypocrisy. Bishops decry abortion (rightly) but hesitate on sodomy; they champion migrants but ignore the spiritual peril of unchaste unions. The result? A Church that preaches justice abroad while tolerating injustice at home. As the 1986 CDF letter warned, "Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who promote an unacceptable concept of the homosexual person and homosexual union."

Strickland embodies the alternative: a bishop who, like Athanasius contra mundum, stands alone if need be. His 2024 open letter outside the USCCB—"What will it take for more than a few bishops to finally speak up?"—echoes this. Removed for "reckless" criticism, he remains a bishop, his pectoral cross a symbol of undimmed authority.

 Cognitive Dissonance: The Faithful in Turmoil

For the average Catholic, this is no abstract debate—it's existential agony. We are taught in catechism class, confirmed in youth group, that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, acts gravely sinful. Yet, Sunday homilies laud "love is love," and Fr. Martin tweets rainbows over the Sacred Heart. Parishes host "Pride" events; schools fly flags contradicting Persona Humana. The dissonance is deafening: How can the Church that birthed saints like Catherine of Siena now bless what it once condemned?

This hypocrisy erodes trust. A 2024 CARA study found 40% of young Catholics view the Church as "unwelcoming" to LGBTQ+ persons—not for doctrine, but for perceived judgment. Yet, the real wound is inversion: doctrine becomes "hate," mercy "license." Faithful families grapple: How to affirm a child's dignity while upholding truth? Converts like Benitez enter amid fanfare, but without the full Gospel, they risk eternal peril.

Psychologically, it's trauma. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) explains the strain: conflicting beliefs breed anxiety, resolved by rationalization or rejection. Many resolve by leaving—U.S. Catholic retention hovers at 30% (Georgetown, 2023). Others cling, like the 200 who rallied with Strickland in 2023, praying rosaries outside the Marriott.

The hypocrisy peaks in sacraments: Confirmation for the unrepentant, Communion for the "married" gay man. This isn't inclusion; it's profanation, echoing Judas's kiss.

 Bishop Strickland: Prophet in Exile

Amid this fog, Bishop Strickland shines. Born in 1958 in Texas, ordained in 1985, he shepherded Tyler for 14 years with zeal: building schools, fostering vocations, tweeting truth bombs. His 2023 removal—after backing Vigano's accusations and decrying "false messages" from Rome—made him a martyr for orthodoxy. Yet, he persists: leading rosaries, writing letters, confronting at USCCB.

In Baltimore 2025, his 47 seconds were prophetic, echoing Elijah's solitude (1 Kings 19). Brave? Undeniably—he risked further isolation. Right? Absolutely, as canonists note: such confirmations demand investigation. His fidelity honors the apostles' charge: "Guard what has been entrusted to you" (1 Timothy 6:20).

Strickland's example calls all: laity to pray, priests to preach, bishops to lead. As he told LifeSite in 2021, "It's not 'my truth' but Jesus'."

 A Call to Renewal: Rebuilding on the Rock

The USCCB's silence is a clarion call for renewal. Bishops must reclaim their voice, enforcing canon law with charity. Pope Francis's call for "synodality" demands listening—to doctrine first. Laity, emboldened by Strickland, must demand accountability: petitions, rallies, faithful voting.

Ultimately, hope lies in Christ, who promised the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matthew 16:18). The Church is holy, not despite sinners, but through them—purified in fire. May Strickland's cry awaken sleeping shepherds, mending the disconnect, healing dissonance, restoring hypocrisy to humility.

In the words of St. John Henry Newman: "To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." But change without truth is chaos. Let us pray for bishops who change the world by unchanging fidelity.

 References

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), paragraphs 2357-2359.

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Vatican, December 29, 1975).

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Vatican, October 1, 1986).

- Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia (Vatican, March 19, 2016), paragraph 250.

- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsa ad dubia on the blessing of same-sex unions (Vatican, October 21, 2021).

- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fall General Assembly Minutes, Baltimore, MD, November 11-14, 2025 (unofficial transcripts from attendee reports).

- Catholic News Agency, "Ousted Bishop Strickland Leads Rosary Outside USCCB Meeting," November 13, 2025.

- LifeSiteNews, "Bishop Strickland Stands Up at USCCB: Calls Out Fr. James Martin," November 12, 2025.

- Michael Haynes, Twitter post, November 12, 2025.

- AKA Catholic, "Where Have All the Heroes Gone?" November 13, 2025.

Cardinal Cupich's Stance on Communion: Standing vs. Kneeling

Title: Cardinal Cupich's Stance on Communion: Standing vs. Kneeling

Cardinal Blase Cupich of the Archdiocese of Chicago has recently addressed the topic of how Catholics should receive Holy Communion, urging the faithful to stand rather than kneel. This guidance has sparked discussions within the Catholic community about liturgical norms, reverence, and the historical practices of receiving the Eucharist. In this blog post, we will explore Cardinal Cupich's statements, the theological and liturgical context, and the broader implications for the Church.

Cardinal Cupich's Letter

In a letter published in the archdiocesan newspaper, Cardinal Cupich emphasized that the norm established by the Holy See for the universal Church, and approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), is for the faithful to receive Holy Communion standing. He explained that this practice is meant to express the unity of the congregation as they come forward together as the Body of Christ. Cardinal Cupich stated that "nothing should be done to impede any of these processions" and that "disrupting this moment only diminishes this powerful symbolic expression".

Here is the text:

‘As we pray …’

December 11, 2024

We all have benefited from the renewal of the church ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. This gathering of the world’s Catholic bishops and heads of religious orders of men took place in four sessions from 1962 to 1965.

Sixteen documents related to church renewal were eventually issued, but it is significant that the council fathers decided that their first document should take up the topic of restoring the way we worship. They took seriously the ancient maxim “lex orandi, lex credenda,” a phrase often associated with Prosper of Aquitaine, a fifth-century Christian writer. It simply means that the law of praying establishes the law of believing.

By recognizing this relationship between how we worship and what we believe, the bishops at the council made clear that the renewal of the liturgy in the life of the church is central to the mission of proclaiming the Gospel. It would be a mistake to reduce the renewal to a mere updating of our liturgy to fit the times we live in, as if it were a kind of liturgical facelift. We need the restoration of the liturgy because it gives us the capacity to proclaim Christ to the world.

Thus, for instance, the council called for the full, active and conscious participation of all the baptized in the celebration of the Eucharist to reflect our belief that in the sacred liturgy the faithful become the Body of Christ that they receive.

Our ritual for receiving of Holy Communion has special significance in this regard. It reminds us that receiving the Eucharist is not a private action but rather a communal one, as the very word “communion” implies. For that reason, the norm established by Holy See for the universal church and approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is for the faithful to process together as an expression of their coming forward as the Body of Christ and to receive Holy Communion standing.

It is important to recall that processions have been part of the liturgy from the earliest days of Christian practice. They give us a sensible experience of what it means to be a pilgrim people, helping us keep in mind that we are making our way together to the fullness of the heavenly banquet Christ has prepared for us. This is why we process into the church, process up to bring the gifts, process to receive Holy Communion and process out at the end of Mass to carry the Lord into the world.

Nothing should be done to impede any of these processions, particularly the one that takes place during the sacred Communion ritual. Disrupting this moment only diminishes this powerful symbolic expression, by which the faithful in processing together express their faith that they are called to become the very Body of Christ they receive. Certainly reverence can and should be expressed by bowing before the reception of Holy Communion, but no one should engage in a gesture that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession. That would be contrary to the norms and tradition of the church, which all the faithful are urged to respect and observe.

The law of praying establishes the law of believing is our tradition. When the bishops took up the task of restoring the liturgy six decades ago, they reminded us that this ancient principle enjoys a privileged place in the church’s tradition. It should continue to guide us in every age.

Historical and Liturgical Context

The practice of receiving Holy Communion has evolved over the centuries. Before the Second Vatican Council, it was customary for Catholics to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. This posture was seen as a sign of reverence and humility before the sacred presence of Christ in the Eucharist. However, the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council introduced changes aimed at fostering active participation and unity among the faithful.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) states that the norm for receiving Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. However, it also clarifies that communicants should not be denied Holy Communion if they choose to kneel. This balance aims to respect individual expressions of reverence while promoting a unified liturgical practice.

Theological Considerations

Cardinal Cupich's guidance is rooted in the theological principle of "lex orandi, lex credendi" (the law of praying is the law of believing). This principle emphasizes that the way we worship reflects and shapes our beliefs. By encouraging the faithful to receive Communion standing, the cardinal seeks to highlight the communal and participatory nature of the Eucharist.

In his letter, Cardinal Cupich wrote, "By recognizing this relationship between how we worship and what we believe, the bishops at the council made clear that the renewal of the liturgy in the life of the Church is central to the mission of proclaiming the Gospel". He stressed that the renewal of the liturgy is not merely an update to fit contemporary times but a restoration that enhances the Church's ability to proclaim Christ to the world.

Reactions and Implications

Cardinal Cupich's statements have elicited a range of reactions from the Catholic community. Some faithful appreciate the emphasis on unity and the communal aspect of the liturgy. Others, however, feel that kneeling is a deeply personal and traditional expression of reverence that should be preserved.

The Vatican document "Redemptionis Sacramentum," issued in 2004, addresses this matter by stating that Catholics "should receive Communion kneeling or standing" and that it is "not licit to deny Holy Communion" based on the posture chosen by the communicant. This document underscores the importance of pastoral sensitivity and catechesis in addressing different practices.

Conclusion

Cardinal Blase Cupich's recent guidance on receiving Holy Communion standing reflects a broader effort to promote unity and active participation in the liturgy. While the practice of kneeling remains a valid and respected expression of reverence, the cardinal's emphasis on standing highlights the communal dimension of the Eucharist. As the Church continues to navigate these liturgical practices, it is essential to foster understanding and respect for diverse expressions of faith and devotion.

Holy Communion is the most important event on Earth. We receive Jesus the Lord, the God of the Universe under the appearance of bread and wine, particularly a small Host. This moment should be personal, private, and public. It should be personal in that it only deals with our person. Jesus is coming to us directly.  It is private in that it deals with our interior castle and no one else's.  Lastly, it is public in that we receive Jesus as the Church, as a community of faith, and as an expression of union with that Catholic Church.  

Physical language is indeed important. Human beings evolved to rely on it to communicate alongside verbal communication. Therefore, it would be absurd to exclude body language from prayer, especially the highest form of it, the Liturgy.  However, some have weaponized kneeling before Holy Communion as a way to protest or politicize the Sacrament just like those who kneel in the NFL during the national anthem.  We cannot do this.  We cannot use the Mass or anything of the Church, including Sacramentals to "protest" or push agendas.  The act of kneeling must be genuinely directed at reverence towards the Holy Eucharist.

I have seen some people kneel before Holy Communion and then refuse to get up after the priest or deacon asks them to stand up to receive.  This display is disgusting, disobedient, self-centered, and completely irrelevant to Christ and His Church and ministers. Again, the communicant is making it about him or her, not Jesus and Communion with him.  Many times the request to receive standing is due to aging priests or deacons who simply cannot bend forward.  Doing so can cause them to lose equilibrium and fall with the ciborium and Sacred Hosts.  We cannot have this happen!  Moreover, some priests and deacons may have dexterity issues and can drop the Host.  The ciborium can also tip slightly causing an avalanche of hosts to spill onto the floor. It has happened and I have witnessed this happen! Moreover, there are times when the communicant him/herself is frail and when attempting to get up loses equilibrium leading to him or her falling or instinctually grabbing for the priest's vestments and bringing him to fall as well.  

Some on social media posted images of the frail St. Pope John Paull II receiving from Cardinal Ratzinger, however, they failed to understand that the pope had his entourage beside him ready to grab him at any slight of loss of equilibrium. Not every Catholic has this luxury!  So we have to understand where Cardinal Cupich is coming from.  Again, these warnings such as that of Traditionis Custodes are meant to quell the attempts to politicize the sacramental of kneeling for Communion from those who believe their version or nostalgia of Catholicism is the only authentic and valid expression.  The Church's hand has been forced by these people seeking to cause division.

The reality is that the reception of Jesus in the Eucharist takes place in the heart and soul. It is not dependent on physical expressions. If a Catholic feels he or she can only reverently receive Jesus by kneeling or standing and is obstinate about this, then Holy Communion becomes an idolatry of physical expression and not reception of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity.  It becomes about kneeling instead of receiving the Lord. We kneel because we want to respect and worship the Lord of Lords, not because we want to make a statement. 

Not everyone can kneel so we cannot shame others into thinking their inability to kneel is a lack of reverence or a disrespect to the Lord or the setting aside of Latin Rite traditions.   It is about receiving the Lord, nothing else.  

Sources:

‘As we pray …’ - Cardinal Blase J. Cupich - Chicago Catholic

: [Catholic News Agency](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/261035/cardinal-cupich-asks-catholics-to-receive-holy-communion-standing-in-chicago-archdiocese)

: [National Catholic Register](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/cardinal-cupich-asks-catholics-to-receive-holy-communion-standing-in-chicago-archdiocese)

: [Complicit Clergy](https://www.complicitclergy.com/2024/12/13/cardinal-cupich-tries-to-discourage-kneeling-while-receiving-the-eucharist/)

Pope Calls Curia Out

The Holy Father Pope Francis squared up to the Church bureaucracy that has been attempting to stifle the ministry of the Catholic faith for centuries. He told a group of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests who work in the Curia that they have "spiritual Alzeheimer's" and that they forgot that their true calling is to "be joyful men of God."

Ouch!  Those are fighting words! :)

He then proceeded to list 15 sins that he has noticed in the Curia and that he wants atonement and reparation for in the coming year 2015.  Among them were the "terrorism of gossip" which he claims can "kill the reputation of our colleagues and brothers in cold blood."  Also, "cliques" which he said can "enslave their members and become a cancer that threatens the harmony of the body."

I applaud Pope Francis for being bold and admonishing the sinner, so to speak. He is absolutely correct. For far too long there has been an atmosphere of gossip, careerism, thirst for power and cliques which has destroyed the spiritual lives of both clergy and lay. Instead of seeing the Bride of Christ, the world is seeing the "whore of Babylon" who sleeps with the world. This is not what the Catholic Church should look like. We should not make our fallen human nature the way of life.  Instead, we must replace it with Christ as the way of life.

It bothers me to see Catholic clergy and lay bloggers attack the Pope and others because they see them as "liberal" while they describe themselves as "conservative." The Church is not about liberals or conservatives.  This clique nonsense has to stop. We are ONE body in Christ with different functions within that body. There shouldn't be competition, gossip or anything of the like in this body. The Pope is correct in describing this as a Cancer.  Cancer is a mutation of cells which alienates itself from other cells eventually outgrowing and destroying those cells.  Normal and healthy cells work together.

Let us pray for a renewal in the Church starting from the top down.  Let the "trickle-down holiness" begin.


 




Source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/22/pope-scolds-vatican-higher-ups-for-spiritual-alzhe/

http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/nightly-news/pope-francis-scolds-vatican-officials-for--spiritual-alzheimer-s--376107587895

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/12/23/pope-slams-vatican-christmas-address/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/22/372459862/pope-francis-at-christmas-gathering-blasts-vaticans-bureaucrats

Pope In Korea

The Pope has just visited South Korea and spoke strong words against abortion, discrimination, and pushed for reconciliation, hope and peace.

The visit was important because South Korea has seen a surge in the Catholic populations.  The Korean Catholic Church is growing at an extraordinary rate which has caused some tension with Protestants, Buddhists and other faiths which still outnumber Catholics, but are losing members faster than they can replace them.

Ironically, it wasn't priests who brought Catholicism to the peninsula.  in the 18th century, the laity evangelized the area and baptized converts. When priests did arrive, they found thousands of new Catholics there waiting to receive the rest of the Sacraments which only ordained priests can confer.  The increase of Catholicism in the region has not been easy. 124 Koreans were martyred for the faith and the Pope beatified them to show the importance of their shedding of blood for the faith and that it was not in vain.

Keeping to his disdain of "privileged" statesman treatment, the Pope preferred using the black KIA

Soul which is manufactured in Korea.  He also rode the train shocking passengers who did not expect to be on-board with the Pontiff. Rain and windy weather was a main factor for this decision which would have made helicopter travel dangerous for the Pope, his aides and those on the ground.

The Pope met with Lee Yong-soo who was one of the "Comfort Women" used for sex during World War II by Japanese soldiers.  She and other surviving "Comfort Women" have been demanding that Japan apologize for destroying their youth by making them a commodity for sexually frustrated troops. With the meeting, she hopes to draw more global attention to her cause and the cause of securing respect for women today in the Asian world.

Not everyone was happy to see the Pope there.  Insecure Protestants took to the streets to protest the arrival of the Pope who they labeled as the "anti-Christ." They also criticized the attempt of other Protestants of dialog with Rome in regards to ecumenism. Nevertheless, millions showed up for Mass showing that Catholicism is alive and well despite claims from atheists that it is dying.  

The trip was a success in my opinion.  The Korean people were energized by this visit and will continue to spread Catholicism in the region.  This visit will hopefully bring about reconciliation between North and South Korea.  The protests by Protestants is unfortunately indeed. The hate that these people espouse is completely unchristian. It shows their ignorance and reliance on 16th century anti-Catholic rhetoric which goes against Christianity and the Word of God which they claim to hold dear.

Moreover, seeing the crowds that came show that Catholicism is alive and well. Atheists who claim atheism is on the rise must reflect on their failed "Reason Rally" in 2012 which only had a few hundred-thousand people and was never held again.  Also, the fact that the laity brought Catholicism to Korea shows the importance of the laity in the Church.  They too must evangelize and bring the faith everywhere. In many instances, they can bring it to places clergy cannot.  












Source:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/13/Pope-Francis-Visits-South-Korea-Protestants-Protest-North-Koreans-Refuse-Invite

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/world/asia/pope-caps-visit-to-south-korea-with-plea-for-reconciliation.html?_r=0

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-photos-popes-visit-korea-25010174

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2014/08/pope_francis_in_south_korea.html

http://www.romereports.com/pg156064-vatican-confirms-that-pope-francis-will-visit-south-korea-in-august--en

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2727253/Who-needs-Popemobile-Francis-shuns-personal-helicopter-takes-train-Mass-Korea.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/south-korea-sex-slaves-pope-francis-solace-article-1.1906819

http://www.npr.org/2014/08/18/341283312/running-late-pope-skips-evening-prayers-in-south-korea

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/17/world/asia/huge-crowds-watch-in-seoul-as-pope-francis-beatifies-korean-catholics.html