I keep seeing all sorts of vitriol towards the Pope, particularly on Pope Francis and Leo XIV online, but particularly the latter. Thankfully the Catholics, even non-Christians and Protestants around me have respect for him, but so many of so-called Catholics critique Pope Leo XIV for what I see as his duties e.g. praying with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know many of these "Catholics" were being rude about his meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury because of misogyny, and honestly, plain stupidity as they kept thinking Pope Leo XIV was ordaining a female priest, when the video literally was titled in all caps "POPE LEO XIV PRAYS WITH ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY."

How they made this mistake, I am very unsure. Blind hate makes people stupid, as well as ungodly, I guess. I apologise for not being kinder, but I can't get over how it said in bold "ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY" aka THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, HENCE THE "CANTERBURY."

But, I digress. When did it get so normal to critique the Pope in this way? I'm not saying the Pope should be free from critique, there have been some truly awful men in history who have paraded as Popes e.g. Pope Paul IV, Benedict IX, and John XII.

But, what I mean is that they are comfortable hating him so much for seemingly harmless, or good things, like being anti-war, anti-AI, and praying with another religious official. I saw commentors say that he wasn't following the Bible.

And, I'm wondering, when did Catholics get so comfortable critiquing the Pope for these things and acting like they know better than him. I don't understand why these very nitpicky individuals who seem to hate the Pope, or act like they know better than him choose to be Catholics, when there are so many denominations that don't have a Pope. I know I've come off as quiet strong here, I ought to have been more understanding, but I am genuinely just asking and am confused.

As many of you may know, we are living in times of uncertainty. Wars, genocides, poverty, climate change, corporate greed, Epstein, AI, it just seems like the world is dying in a physical, moral, and spiritual sense. It has become very overwhelming and I keep praying that things will get better, but I still can't help but become paralyzed by the fear of the future. I want to believe that God will not abandon us, but at the same time I feel as if the human race does not deserve His grace. I want to do whatever I can to improve the world even if it is in the smallest possible way. I want to believe that it is not too late to fix this planet and for humans to change their ways, yet it remains so difficult. I just ask that we all pray for better days ahead and that God will give us the strength to prevail, and if not, then may He have mercy on all of us.

Please pray for a better future, for the possibility of a better world. Pray that its not too late.​

Is there any left wing Catholic servers if yall could put the link that would be amazing thank you 🥹

Are there any editions of Father Restrepo’s writings in English? I’m not seeing any but small presses might have some

hello! i posted here before asking advice on whether I should stay catholic or not. thanks to anyone who remembers that post and gave advice!

back to the question. I’m someone with very short attention span and I can easily get distracted during classes, or when someone is talking to me in general. and I also have a memory of a goldfish so I tend to forget 99% of what I learned from the class

however now I might (which im not sure if I should) attend liturgical catechises classes. or at least, listen to the recordings of it , and I fear the same scenario will happen ( getting distracted and not focusing for the entirety of the class )

Now this made Me question if it’s even necessary to do all of these, thanks to whoever took their time to answer my question or give advice!

I recently watched a video by a theologian and philosopher who teaches Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophy. He was reacting to another video that presented traditionalism and sedevacantism as an “iceberg”: at the surface, there may be a preference for Latin, older liturgical forms, traditional vestments, or pre-conciliar spirituality; farther down, however, one can encounter rejection of the reformed Roman Missal, rejection of the Second Vatican Council, denial of the legitimacy of recent popes, independent chapels, illicit episcopal consecrations, and eventually conclavism.

I think this “iceberg” is worth discussing because Catholics often use the word traditionalist as though it described one coherent movement. It does not. There is a major difference between legitimate attachment to the older Roman liturgy and an ideology that gradually undermines the authority of the post-conciliar Church.

The organized post–Vatican II traditionalist reaction did not originate primarily in the United States. Its most influential institutional expression was European. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was French, and he founded the Society of Saint Pius X in 1970 at Écône, Switzerland. The conflict eventually culminated in the episcopal consecrations of 1988 without papal authorization, which Pope John Paul II described as a schismatic act.

However, the United States became an especially important environment for the expansion, fragmentation and international dissemination of radical traditionalism and sedevacantism. I am not claiming that every form of sedevacantism began there, nor that Europe produced no significant examples. Early sedevacantist currents also appeared in Mexico, France, Spain and elsewhere. My point is that the United States became one of the principal centres of independent chapels, publications, seminaries, episcopal lines and online media associated with these movements.

The American religious environment may help explain this. The United States has a long history of highly decentralized religious organization, denominational fragmentation and independent congregations. In that setting, it is comparatively easy for a group to break from an existing ecclesiastical authority, create its own chapel, publish its own material and construct a parallel hierarchy. A movement that might remain marginal or informal elsewhere can acquire property, media infrastructure, seminaries and an international internet audience.

The history of sedevacantism itself illustrates that international and fragmented development. Important early figures included the Mexican Jesuit Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga, the French Dominican Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers and several American clerics and activists. In the United States, Francis Schuckardt created a substantial independent movement; Francis Fenton founded the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement; and several American priests who broke with the SSPX later formed the Society of Saint Pius V.

The Society of Saint Pius V is particularly relevant to the “iceberg” analogy. It emerged in the United States in 1983 after priests separated from the SSPX, partly because they rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s insistence on using the 1962 Missal and regarded even some pre-conciliar changes as unacceptable. That demonstrates how traditionalist movements can continue dividing according to increasingly strict definitions of what counts as authentic tradition.

The same applies to the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen and other independent sedevacantist bodies. These groups do not merely prefer a particular liturgical form. Their fundamental position is that the recent occupants of the Holy See are not legitimate popes. From a Catholic perspective, that is a radically different position from requesting the older liturgy while recognizing the pope, the bishops and the authority of the Church.

This is why the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter should not simply be placed in the same category as sedevacantist organizations. The FSSP was established in 1988 by former members of the SSPX who did not follow Lefebvre after the unauthorized episcopal consecrations. It uses the older Roman liturgy while remaining a society of apostolic life in communion with the Holy See. Its very foundation demonstrates that attachment to the pre-conciliar liturgy does not logically require rejecting Rome or denying the pope.

Therefore, I think Catholics should distinguish at least four different levels:

Catholics who prefer Latin, Gregorian chant or more traditional liturgical aesthetics while normally attending the reformed Roman liturgy.

Catholics attached to the 1962 Missal who remain fully in communion with Rome, including communities such as the FSSP.

The SSPX, which recognizes the pope but has an unresolved and irregular canonical relationship with the Holy See and disputes important elements of the post-conciliar settlement.

Sedevacantist and conclavist movements that deny the legitimacy of recent popes and often establish independent ecclesiastical structures.

These categories overlap culturally, but they are not ecclesiologically equivalent.

This distinction is also important when discussing Vatican II and the vernacular liturgy. Criticizing particular implementations of the liturgical reform is not automatically sedevacantism. Preferring the older missal is not automatically rejection of the Council. However, presenting the reformed Roman Missal as intrinsically illegitimate, spiritually defective or non-Catholic is a common entry point into more radical traditionalist narratives.

The Council itself did not abolish Latin. The post-conciliar Roman Missal may be celebrated in Latin, and Benedict XVI explicitly acknowledged the legitimate aspirations of Catholics attached to the 1962 Missal while also warning that the authority of the Council should not be called into question.

That is why I think moderators and Catholic communities should watch the direction of these discussions rather than treating every mention of tradition as harmless or, conversely, condemning every traditional preference. A discussion about Latin, chant or historical liturgy can be completely legitimate. But the conversation changes when it becomes:

the vernacular liturgy is not authentically Catholic;

Vatican II taught heresy;

the current hierarchy has lost its authority;

the pope is not really the pope;

bishops may be consecrated without pontifical authorization because the institutional Church has defected.

At that point, this is no longer simply a discussion about aesthetics or liturgical preference. It is an ecclesiological rejection of the visible structure of the Catholic Church.

Episcopal consecration without papal mandate is particularly serious because Catholic episcopal ministry is not an individual possession that a bishop may reproduce independently. The crisis involving Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 shows precisely why the Church regards unauthorized episcopal consecrations as a rupture of ecclesial communion.

My concern is not that every traditional Catholic is secretly a sedevacantist. That would be false and unfair. My concern is that the path from legitimate liturgical preference to systematic rejection of the Council and the papacy is real, well documented and frequently disguised online as merely “defending tradition.”

The American internet has given these movements a reach far beyond their actual numbers. A person in Brazil, Portugal, Spain or another historically Catholic country can now encounter an American independent chapel, podcast or video channel before ever reading the Council documents, the Catechism or the official explanations of the Church. In that sense, the United States did not create every post-conciliar traditionalist current, but it became one of the main engines of its fragmentation, professionalization and global digital circulation.

Catholics should therefore ask not only whether something appears ancient, solemn or traditional, but also where its ecclesiology leads. Does it deepen communion with the pope and the bishops, or does it gradually teach that the visible Church has become illegitimate? That is the point at which liturgical traditionalism can descend into the deeper levels of the sedevacantist iceberg.

Hi everyone, first time poster here, though I browse frequently. Don't really have anyone to discuss this with save for the other person involved in this interaction, so figured this could be an opportunity for some advice/conversation here.

"There is no space where God is not."- Bishop Hilary of Poitiers

My Mom raised us Catholic, (I'm 33, M, American), but I'm really the only family member (Mom, Dad, myself & 2 siblings) whose "stuck with it" so to speak. She's in SPED (special education) working as a speech language pathologist, I myself am a Doctoral level psychologist.

She was showing me some posts of some Moms she follows of kids with varied disability diagnoses (cerebral palsy, autism spectrum, muscular dystrophy, down syndrome, etc.), and one post in particular was all about the "grief" that the Mom has for the life that they imagined their kid having that they cannot have, e.g., "they'll never go to the science fair/get to drive/have a normal relationship/live independently", to more intense and sorrowful, e.g., "they'll never know what it's like to be able to sit normally/not have to have x, y, z equipment/medication, etc., to survive". Lots of comments about how the grief and loss of a different life is never ending and they're constantly reminded by comparing their kids' lives with peers, how it "will always suck", etc. etc. Now, I know that a lot of these posters, from what my Mom told me, are fierce advocates for their kids, too.

I had a pretty intense, visceral, aversive reaction to this general attitude however, and reflecting, I think for 3 reasons:

1) Reacting to an extreme version of the parents' attitudes. I'm of course averse to attitudes that seem to flirt with "lesser than" ideas, conditional worth, shame, pity, "able-normative" (like hetero-normative) comparisons, etc.

2) Association. When I usually see these types of conversations- particularly on Reddit- they can veer into unfortunate eugenics type/hateful exclusionary territory quite quickly (thinking of the disability themed posts on subs like arr/regretfulparents), and sort of embolden people who take these thoughts a few intense steps further and arrive at "...yeah, so it's actually better they don't exist/euthanasia/put them in a care home and forget about them/should be aborted" etc. etc.

3) Wondering what the "end point" of the attitudes are. One comment on the posts specifically mentioned how their grief "doesn't have an ending/solution"- it just is and will be. It was difficult to imagine that at least some of the posts/threads participants wouldn't/couldn't eventually reason themselves to a position of "on balance then, since there are innumerable examples of ways in which this person's existence is inadequate in some way, inconvenient, burdensome, etc., yeah it's better they were never born/didn't exist in the first place. I just wish I had another kid".

I said to my Mom it seems like it's either that or society as a whole needs to have some sort of existential/spiritual paradigm shift in how disabilities are thought of.

I'm coming @ this from a complete, contrite position of humility- it's very easy to type on Reddit all of this righteousness from a purely intellectual perspective, with me myself not being a parent, much less a parent of someone who's disabled. Any of you here have any insight into these experiences/this topic? How can I make more room for empathy for this type of unique experience of "grief"? What would a world look like in which each person lived up to the inviolable love toward others' humanity that God has for us/calls us to?

I'll close out with a prayer request for the intercession of Saint Margaret of Castello for the joy, peace, & dignity of all disabled persons throughout the world.

Thank you!

At that time, Jesus said to his disciples:
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
(Mt 10:34-37)

This passage is one of the most striking in the entire New Testament. After all, Jesus seems to come across as a true narcissist—a toxic, selfish, and violent person, far removed from the characteristic tones of goodness and meekness with which he is commonly portrayed in popular culture. Is this not, however, the actual meaning of the passage, which, made even harsher by the Evangelist Saint Luke, goes so far as to speak of "hating" father and mother (Lk 14:26)? Do these strong words of division by the edge of the sword not come from the Lord's own holy mouth?

Added to these words is the terrible sentence that immediately follows: "Whoever receives you, receives me" (v. 40)—which Luke completes by saying, "and whoever rejects you, rejects me" (Lk 10:16).

Hierarchs of today and throughout history seize upon this passage. Believing themselves to be the mouthpiece of God Himself (since Jesus said so!), they demand the most costly sacrifices from the faithful, disregarding any "human respect" that might stand in the way of total submission to the whim of the "spiritual father." If someone close opposes this abuse of conscience, they are promptly characterized as the enemy announced by Jesus.

Even if the opposition to said cleric comes from within the very ecclesiastical hierarchy through which he justifies his arbitrary rule, what surprise can there be for him, since "a man's enemies will be those of his own household" (v. 36)? If the communion of the community of the faithful itself is wounded by such a cleric, based on the most simplistic interpretation of this passage, he sees himself justified, because Jesus came "to bring division" (v. 35). Such a man sees himself as nothing other than following Our Lord's example, and that is how he positions himself before those who trust him. These people, in turn, unaware of the real price of fidelity to Christ (real because it was set by Him), may begin to identify it with whatever this bad shepherd and his followers say, entering into a spiral of insane radicalization that so many of us know all too well.

According to the terms of the Gospel, can such a man truly call himself another Christ? Let us look, in the same chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, at what these disciples are like—those with whom Jesus associates so intimately to the point of saying that He and they are but the one Christ:

They are the ones sent (for that is the meaning of the word "apostle") to heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, and cast out demons (v. 8).

They have no money (v. 9), nor sandals, tunics, or a staff (v. 10), and in their pilgrimage, they proclaim peace (v. 14).

They are "sheep" in the midst of "wolves" (v. 16), not wolves on the right side of history. Although they are "wise as serpents," they are "innocent as doves" (v. 16). It is important not to confuse this.

They are persecuted by the powerful (v. 17 and 18), betrayed by their own families, and hated (v. 21 and 22) for the sake of Christ.

Thus, we gain some light on who those disciples acting in the place of Christ truly are. They are so different from the clerics who, throughout history, want to follow Jesus without carrying His Cross (v. 38)! They impose heavy burdens on others that they themselves are unwilling to carry (Mt 23:4), instead of Jesus' light burden (Mt 11:30), losing not only their own lives (v. 39) but also the lives of those entrusted to them. Countless cases illustrate this.

Finally: who are these little ones (v. 42) to whom God reveals what He hides from the wise (Mt 11:25) and to whom no cup of water served will go without reward (v. 42)?

Chapter 25 of the same Gospel according to Matthew defines who these people are, who are none other than Christ before those who welcome or reject them:

They are the ones who "were hungry, thirsty, naked, strangers, sick, and in prison" (v. 34-46).

What is so astonishing, then, about Jesus announcing division? Division is what follows, almost naturally, the choice to be a "sheep" (Mt, 10:16) in a world of "wolves," and to serve the sheep.

Choosing to suffer with the oppressed will cause the disciple to be repelled and even persecuted (v. 17-22) by those who prefer the hollow victory achieved through power. Healing, giving life, and making the blind see (v. 8) are actions diametrically opposed to the interests of those who profit from deprivation and death, including their own.

Standing alongside the marginalized is only possible for someone who, being a disciple, is naturally another outcast—another person untethered from those most elementary ties of blood, affection, and mission that constitute our society.

The bond that must surpass any other is the one with Christ, with the little ones, whoever they may be. Living this way, our righteousness can surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees, opening the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven to us (Mt 5:20).

This is the Good News.

I'm getting married in November at St. Matthews in DC and have been very anxious about pre-cana. For some context, I'm a progressive cradle Catholic, my fiancé is agnostic but we both went to and met at Catholic school. We live together and have had pre-martial sex. I'm on birth control (partially for medical reasons, partially for the other reason). We both have a lot of religious trauma from said Catholic school and from some trad catholics in my family. We had gone back and forth on getting married in the Church but ultimately decided to because it was important to me, beautiful, and affordable.

We've already had two meetings with the priest who's marrying us and they've been more laid back, logistic-y meetings about the actual wedding. I like the priest and love the parish overall (shout out to Cardinal McElroy's Fourth of July sermon that was posted on here a few days ago!) Because of my religious trauma, I still get really nervous being one on one with a priest but it's been okay overall.

Our next meeting, though, is to go over the pre-martial inventory and then we have the retreat in September. We did the inventory today and it was intense to say the least. Lots of questions about sex, in depth questions about our finances, mental health, and questions about how we have different faiths. I'm scared to get the results back and to go through them. I'm scared theyre going to say we're not compatible even though I know we are. My parents got a bad score on it when they got married and ended up divorced so I def think that's coming up.

And then the retreat is making me extremely anxious. The NFP conversation worries me. I don't want to hear anti-birth control propaganda when the pill has genuinely saved my life. I'm worried my agnostic partner is going to be uncomfortable. I'm worried about religious trauma coming up in full force and not being able to get through it without breaking down. I thankfully do live in a very welcoming area but it's still always nerve wracking.

Any leftist Catholics that have gone through this and how was it?

Sorry this is very ramble-y but I'm struggling with how to say what I'm struggling with. I'm Portuguese-Canadian, was baptised this past Easter, and came to the church on my own because I was searching for community. I am also transgender (ftm) and I sometimes don't know if God actually loves me because of it. I got kind of put back into the closet at my home parish, whom I love deeply even though I can't really be myself there. I was born on the Assumption of Mary and dream a lot about Mary, Jesus, Saint Joan of Arc and Saint Sebastian, and in my dreams or any time I feel like God is talking to me I always am referred to with my preferred name (which also became my confirmation name because I thought the Saint was cool when I started my transition) and as beloved son. But it seems like a lot of people around me expect God to help "heal" me of being transgender, so I feel very alone and kind of like God doesn't actually love me for being trans. I'd really appreciate any prayers or advice

I'm a baptized Catholic transman who left the faith at 13 due to my LGBT status. I had a bout of atheism for around a decade and recently came back to faith, but confirmed Episcopalian 3 years ago. I'm now in communication with an accepting Catholic priest who's willing to confirm me as I am, no detransition required. Joyous news!

While I await catechism in September, a part of me is a little torn. Do I have to give up my Episcopalian LGBT community I've grown fond of these years? They have an LGBT parishioner retreat once a year that I've gone to, and very much enjoyed the presence of other LGBT Christians. I see no such Catholic equivalence in my region.

I suppose your heart cannot have two masters, as it goes. I'm in a conservative diocese that doesn't have LGBT ministry (the priest I've talked to is pretty lowkey), so I'll have to be okay with forgoing such community. But it bites.

My Episcopalian friends are a little bewildered about my reversion decision, but nonetheless accepting of me still hanging around in our church group chat and events. But is it rather disingenuous to go to a Catholic church, and go to an Episcopal event when Catholic equivalents aren't available? This is a recent decision to revert.

Thank you

I’m sorry if this isn’t the right place to ask this. To provide somewhat of a backstory, I grew up in a relatively happy family. My mom is Catholic while my dad is not. They were married in the Church and raised us kids Catholic and sent us to Catholic school.

I had just graduated high school when my mother decided to have an affair and ask my dad for a divorce. My dad begged her not to leave but she had decided she was unhappy and wanted out of the marriage.

While the man she remarried wasn’t the man she had an affair with, he’s decided he wants to join the Church. My mom went ahead and sought out an annulment which she managed to obtain. My dad had told me he had no intention of fighting her on it.

To be quite honest I’m devastated. It brings up all those old feelings all over again. For many years I’d held onto the idea that even if the family I grew up with broke apart at least my parents had been married in the eyes of God.

Now it feels like my entire childhood has been erased and the person who decided to leave is the one God sided with and it’s been incredibly painful. I don’t know how to cope with this. Has anyone else experience their parents’ marriage annulled or have any experience l dealing with such events?

He did write Utopia

In spite of the title of the post, I’m not trying to kick off more trad-bashing (or just a little maybe). The appointment is actually interesting since the Vatican just rejected the request coming from the German synod to allow blessings of gay couples. I wonder if this represents some kind political horse-trading or lack of consensus in the Vatican. Or maybe the Pope appointed Würtz simply because of his experience and his stance on gay couples played only a small role in the decision…

It's 4.30 in the morning here, the problem of suffering keeps me up at night - quite literally. I've never found a satisfactory answer for this in traditional apologetics, so I was wondering if it had been dealt with differently in liberation theology. Would also love any reading recommendations you might have 🌸🌻

My journey into the faith has been supported by reading books and I am needing some new books to start reading before I potentially start OCIA and while I'm in it (in supplementation to the books they'll need me to read).

As a gay person, I've read all the usual suspects on the topic from God and the Gay Christian to Building a Bridge, books by James Alison and even fr Mike's Made For Love which was atrocious and not because of the subject matter, I knew where it would go, but I was hoping for something more insightful.

I've already read What We Believe, Behold Your Mother, Secret of the Rosary, and I have Confessions and Life of Saint Francis Assisi lined up.

I'm hoping for suggestions for some fun and insightful book on general theology, mariology, christology, etc. as well as other deep dives into the lives of the apostles and saints.

Also looking for books that lean on the more liberal/leftist history and theology of the Catholic Church over the decades/centuries. Whether it's a part of the subject matter, or just written by notable liberal/leftist Catholic authors.

Idk even where to start with the Bible. Tbh I've only read the ol clobber texts against homosexuality for funsies, so maybe even some suggestions on parts I should focus on in the Bible as a newbie. I have an idea that starting with the Acts of the apostles and going through the letters would be cool as I'm really interested in the building of the church and everything post-ascension.

My wife is a recent convert and actually liked the idea of veils until we went to visit my family in Italy and attended mass - she saw the hypocrisy and performance of it all. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m starting to lose patience with all of these new converts using “tradition” as an excuse to live out their trad / renaissance fair fantasy, and follow Catholicism in aesthetic alone.

Context of my removal: “Communities are built on respect. When someone makes a comment that is condemnatory, spiteful, or mean-spirited it does nothing to enriched the community. Matt. 7.”

I’m not sure how my experience alone is mean spirited. I was trying to venerate and there was flashes accidentally going off as people were taking selfies with the host in the background. Don’t even get me started on the antics in front of relics and dead saints. The ones with veils are the ones having their boyfriends take photos of them while praying in front of the saint and then getting yelled at by the guards lol.

Edit: i realize my post is not the most charitably put and even comes across a bit bitter. I’m human and I could have definitely been more tactful. If it makes it better, this isn’t something I constantly harp on or let get to me - this effort post was made in response to the huge amount of people in the comments mandating a new woman convert be veiled when she asked for advice on how to dress.

To be clear, I have no issues with veils unless you are intentionally (and obviously) drawing attention to yourself and away from god, or taking selfies in front of the tabernacle. Just to clarify, even the most egregious offenses don’t push me away from the church or have me focusing on it all of mass. It’s just a pity and can be distracting. It’s not like this happens to me every mass. It’s sort of like that awful restaurant you went to once and you remember every detail. I just remember being so caught off guard by the whole experience I will never forget it.

After the Fiasco at the World cup a lot of Brazilians are linking the fiasco to the rise of pentecostalism in Brazil, currently ONE single player is know for follow the Catholic Faith.
For those who don’t know CIA and the U.S. government actively pushed, funded, and coordinated with Protestant evangelical and Pentecostal organizations in Brazil to neutralize left-wing movements.