For over three decades, Father Boniface Ramsey attempted to inform any Church authority willing to hear about his worries concerning the misconduct of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick with young priests and seminarians.
“He undoubtedly received the benefit of the doubt,” Father Ramsey shared with Our Sunday Visitor during a phone interview a few days ago. after the Vatican released its 450-page report regarding how McCarrick, the ex-cardinal-archbishop of Washington, ascended the church hierarchy despite widespread allegations of sexual misconduct.
Father Ramsey was among the initial individuals to expose the misconduct of McCarrick, who was dismissed from the clerical state by the Vatican in January 2019 after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith determined that he was guilty of “solicitation in the sacrament of confession and sins against the Sixth Commandment with minors and with adults, with the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.”
In the late 1980s, Father Ramsey served as a Dominican priest and was part of the faculty at Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University in New Jersey when he informed his rector about the accounts he was encountering — specifically, that McCarrick, who was the archbishop of Newark at the time, was inviting seminarians for overnight stays at his beach house on the Jersey Shore and was sharing his bed with them.
These worries were never addressed, but Father Ramsey continued to raise the alarm within Church circles as he subsequently became a parish priest for the Archdiocese of New York, while McCarrick went on to be awarded a cardinal’s red hat.
In 2018, after allegations of child sexual abuse against McCarrick surfaced, Father Ramsey reached out to the media with his worries, which helped to spur calls for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s career.
Father Ramsey, 75, currently the pastor of St. Joseph Church in New York City, expressed a sense of justification now that the McCarrick Report has been released. He contemplated on the report’s findings and expressed his views on how McCarrick managed to evade responsibility for many years.

April 28 marks the celebration of St. Louis de Montfort.

Dear Friend,
I wish to discuss dating with you. However, I first want to acknowledge a simple yet frequently overlooked reality: Dating doesn’t simply occur on demand. Many people, at various points, desire to pursue a romantic interest—whether a particular “interest” or not—but cannot just will it into existence. After all, we are not addressing the logistics of pet ownership, as acquiring a pet is something you can often do at any moment you wish. When we discuss dating, we are referring to the process of forming a bond with another individual who, unlike a pet, needs to be a willing and engaged partner. There is no shop for “potential dates” situated beside the pet store in the shopping center. Please understand that I recognize this.
That’s an unusual yet sincere way to start a letter of this nature. However, upon reflection, we have already started to explore what dating entails and what it doesn’t encompass. It isn’t about you acquiring something. Instead, it’s about you openly participating in something that another person is also willingly engaging in. What you are both partaking in is discovering, appreciating, and wishing well for one another. That’s my uninteresting definition of dating: a mutual connection focused on learning about, enjoying, and wanting the best for someone else.
(By the way, I would never succeed as a producer of “The Bachelor.”)
I often applied significant pressure to every romantic involvement I encountered, starting with fleeting infatuations in middle school. Hidden in my thoughts was the belief that for a relationship to be deemed successful, it needed to become increasingly intense and endure indefinitely. Any bond that didn’t last eternally was regarded as a failure. Any connection that didn’t grow in intensity was viewed as stagnant. With such ingrained beliefs, you’re not genuinely engaging with another individual; you’re engaging with a collection of expectations and covertly imposing secret standards on the other person.
Key points to keep in mind
Keeping secrets is where the decline of relationships often starts. Therefore, it’s fair to assert that the primary aspect of dating is committing to honesty. This does not equate to being brutally honest, where one feels obliged to share every thought or feeling, including whether their laughter bothers you or if they don’t appear great in their favorite outfit. Honesty involves maintaining transparency. Value the other person sufficiently to allow them to feel comfortable around you, never giving them cause to doubt your sincerity. Additionally, value yourself enough to truly express your thoughts and feelings, rather than merely portraying an image that doesn’t reflect your true self or beliefs.

“What are you sacrificing for” Lent?” For numerous Catholics, this inquiry seems to arise almost instinctively — often even before the final box of Christmas decorations has been put away and stored. Having spent the majority of my life within that group and among those individuals, I believe it’s due to the fact that Lent can resemble a contest, a 40-day spiritual race featuring victors and defeated.

Every Ash Wednesday, it appeared to me, the church cast personal sanctity down like a challenge. The objective, I believed, was to embrace the test and do all I could to succeed in accomplishing it. My inherently competitive spirit signifies that I have consistently been eager to accept nearly any challenge. Practicing the faith was no different.

Raising the stakes during Lent

That’s one reason I concluded that the more challenging and exhausting Lent was, the more beneficial it would be. It was a question of straightforward reasoning. If fasting on Fridays showed my devotion to God; therefore, fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays would enhance that even further. If praying one novena was valuable, then doing two or three must be even more advantageous. Each time I learned of another’s sacrifice, I would challenge myself to do more. If someone was abstaining from coffee, I’d pledge to only drink water. When someone I was acquainted with would forego chocolate (and there was always at least one), I’d strive to eliminate all sweets. There were years when I even placed pebbles or toothpicks in the bottoms of my shoes throughout the season. Nothing was excessive for me.

The esteemed Dominican theologian St. Thomas Aquinas was canonized 700 years ago, on July 18, 1323, by Pope John XXII. In honor of St. Thomas’s feast day, which is celebrated on Jan. 28, here are 10 quotes to enhance your understanding and appreciation of the theology of this Doctor of the Church.
1. Regarding the essence of companionship
“It is inherent in friendship that it is not unnoticed; otherwise, it would not constitute friendship, but simply goodwill. For a genuine and strong friendship, the friends require a reciprocal affection for one another; this reciprocity renders it genuine and robust. Our Lord, wishing for perfect friendship among his followers and disciples, imparted this command of mutual love: whoever reveres the Lord aligns his friendship properly (cf. Sir 6:17).”
— Analysis of the Gospel of John, c. 13, l. 7
2. The suffering of Christ was the most appropriate means of freeing us from sin.
“That individual was saved through the suffering of Christ, and numerous other factors, in addition to freedom from sin, contributed to humanity’s salvation. Firstly, an individual becomes aware of how deeply God cares for him, which encourages a reciprocal love for God, and this represents the fulfillment of human salvation; thus, the apostle states: ‘God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners … Christ died for us’ (Rom 5:8).”
— Summa Theologiae, III, q. 46, a. 3
3. Is the mercy of God in conflict with justice? Absolutely not!
“God demonstrates mercy, not by contradicting His justice, but by performing acts that exceed justice; thus, a person who compensates another with 200 pieces of money, despite only being indebted 100, does not violate justice but acts generously or compassionately. The situation is similar for someone who forgives an offense directed at him, for in pardoning it, he can be considered to offer a gift. Therefore, the Apostle refers to remission as forgiveness: ‘Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you’ (Eph 4:32). Therefore, it is evident that mercy does not undermine justice; rather, it represents its entirety in a certain manner. Thus, it is stated: ‘Mercy exalteth itself above judgment’ (Jas 2:13).”
— Summa Theologiae, I. q. 21, a. 3, ad. 2

(OSV News) — Following the celebration of Jesus’s arrival through posadas, live Nativity scenes, Midnight Services and Nochebuena (Christmas Eve) customs, countless Latinos in the United States will carry on the Christmas season through festivities. Epifanía, or Epiphany.

Epiphany, or “the revelation of the Lord,” honors Jesus revealing himself to the entire world, stated Alejandro Aguilera-Titus, assistant director of Hispanic affairs for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat for Cultural Diversity in the Church.

In numerous parishes, there are performances of the “Wise Men from the East” bowing before the infant in Bethlehem, as narrated in the Gospel of St. Matthew. These Three Kings or Magi — commonly referred to as Melchior, Gaspar (or Caspar) and Balthasar — serve as a reminder for all to take a moment to reflect on the love and compassion of God manifested in the Christ Child.

As the silhouettes of the Magi draw near the manger, it becomes evident — particularly to the younger ones in the household — that Jesus is “the king of kings,” stated Aguilera-Titus.

J.K. Rowling, the writer of the popular “Harry Potter” series, is facing extensive backlash on social media for the second time in half a year. What prompted this uproar? A clever tweet highlighting that the term for “individuals who menstruate” is “women,” followed by a daring essay asserting that “sex is real” and that only biological females are classified as women. She further expressed on Twitter: “If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived experiences of women worldwide are invalidated. I know and care for trans individuals, but dismissing the notion of sex eliminates the opportunity for many to discuss their lives meaningfully. Speaking the truth is not an act of hatred.”
Six months ago, Rowling sparked outrage on Twitter by supporting Maya Forester, a female academic in the U.K. who was dismissed for stating that “sex is real” and “transwomen are men.” An employment tribunal determined that Forester’s “absolutist perspective that sex is unchangeable” was “not deserving of respect in a democratic society.” For these actions, Rowling has faced severe public backlash and has been metaphorically executed. She is a continual target of mob animosity, enduring horrific threats and explicit messages. To her credit, Rowling remains steadfast and asserts that she will not be silenced.
In a comprehensive essay, she articulates her stance that “we are currently experiencing the most misogynistic era I’ve encountered. In the 80s, I envisioned that my future daughters, if I were to have any, would enjoy a far better existence than I ever did; however, due to the backlash against feminism and an online culture inundated with pornography, I feel that conditions have deteriorated considerably for girls. I have never witnessed women being belittled and dehumanized to this extreme before. … I want trans women to feel secure. Nevertheless, I do not wish to compromise the safety of natal girls and women. When you widely open the doors of restrooms and changing facilities to any man who claims or feels he’s a woman — and, as I’ve mentioned, gender confirmation certificates can now be issued without any requirement for surgery or hormones — then you invite any and every man who wishes to enter. That is the straightforward reality.”

Question: The phrase “non serviam” has been linked to Satan and his reply to God upon being expelled from heaven. Is this found in the Bible? If not, where did this originate?
— Deacon Paul VanHoudt, Erie, Colorado
Answer: The declaration “non serviam” (“I will not serve”) is linked to Satan by tradition; it does not appear in the Bible. Yet, it embodies the basic attitude of all demons who, due to arrogance, refuse to comply, will not be “directed.” It is also the primary temptation that Satan presented to Adam and Eve, namely, that they should not allow God to dictate their actions and that they should aspire to be like gods (cf. Gn 3:1-5).
Regarding the conflict you reference, it is said that a battle took place in heaven when Lucifer (Satan) opposed God’s intentions for the Incarnation. This conflict occurred well before the biblical age, yet its precise timeline remains uncertain. It is believed that a third of the angels allied with Lucifer in this uprising. St. Michael and the righteous angels retaliated, resulting in Lucifer and his followers being expelled from heaven and descending to earth. They transformed into “demons.” This is the commonly recounted traditional narrative.

Question: I am currently engaged with a book on Catholic moral theology. Within its pages, it references a famous theologian from the 20th century who states: “Pursuing pleasure and satisfaction in (sexual) relations is incorrect. … it represents an inherently immoral aspect, a kind of necessary wrongdoing. Nonetheless, this wrongdoing must be accepted since it cannot be eradicated.” My inquiry is how, within a legitimate biblical marriage, is it considered wrong to take pleasure in the act of intimacy between a man and woman? Are they expected to act as if it is not an extremely enjoyable experience?
— Name, location withheld
Answer: It is not malevolent, and partners are not obligated to engage in what would be challenging or perhaps unfeasible. I will not refer to the “renowned theologian” or the text you cite since I am skeptical about the authenticity of the quotation in that text and, because of the references to the eclipses and the absence of more detailed citations regarding its origin, I am unable to confirm it or consider it within the broader context. However, as mentioned, it does not align with Catholic doctrine.

Nearly 20 years have passed since Mel Gibson’s groundbreaking movie “The Passion of the Christ” debuted. It garnered massive success upon its release in theaters but also incited waves of controversy, and it remains a divisive film to this day. Two specific issues particularly prevent viewers from engaging with the movie: the claim that it’s exceedingly violent, and the allegation that it’s antisemitic.
I would like to begin by stating that I am a Catholic who values my Jewish heritage, and because of this, I regard antisemitism — particularly that which occurs among Catholics — with utmost seriousness, feeling a specific responsibility to address it. Additionally, I typically avoid violent films. I consider them unpleasant, and I believe they can dull the moral sense and promote a lack of respect for human dignity.
I hadn’t intended to view this film. However, individuals whom I respected spoke of it so favorably that I ultimately decided to watch it with considerable apprehension, curious if the claims were valid. Since then, I have seen it multiple times. Here is my opinion on it.

I didn’t witness any brutality that existed merely to display violence. It was a challenging experience to observe, and that was intended.

Is it gratuitously violent?
Inherently, no. Undoubtedly, a portion of the audience enjoyed the cruel violence and vivid bloodshed it depicts, and certainly this element is why certain individuals are so fond of it; however, I’m also fairly certain that some came for the bloodshed and encountered more than they anticipated. Yet, I don’t believe the violence served merely as a lure to deceive gore-loving viewers into an enlightening film. It serves as a means to convey just how incomprehensibly shocking the crucifixion, the killing of God, truly was.
Gibson is certainly not the initial to depict the passion and death of Jesus in grotesquely heightened terms, as even if we struggle to comprehend the spiritual terror of the event, we can still experience the physical dread and build upon that. While it’s not essential to portray the crucifixion in such a vivid manner, it isn’t unjustifiable or inherently unsuitable; plus, it serves a function beyond merely satisfying the audience’s thirst for violence.
For example: Following the infamous endless whipping scene, there is a breathtaking overhead shot of Jesus’ blood spread across the courtyard. An unimaginable volume of blood. Pilate’s spouse emerges with a bundle of clean cloths and nervously presents them to Mary and Mary Magdalene, as the two descend onto their knees and start to meticulously soak up every single drop. An unfeasible endeavor. That moment has led to a lasting shift in my perspective, altering the phrase “precious blood” from a devout platitude into a core truth that reshaped my approach to the Eucharist.

Is it wrong to gossip if the information is accurate? That doesn’t violate the Eighth Commandment, does it? The one that prohibits giving false testimony against your neighbor?
False testimony, not good. Alright. However, a genuine narrative … let’s see. This appears to have some potential.
Maybe the issue lies with the term “gossip.” So let’s use “share” instead. Is it wrong to share if the narrative is accurate? I don’t want to come off as overly sanctimonious, but as Catholics, aren’t we obligated to convey the truth?
Hold on! Could this imply that spreading rumors … um … conveying the truth is the appropriate action? Should we even label it sacred!? Let’s examine what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states regarding the Big VIII:
“The eighth commandment prohibits the distortion of reality in our interactions with others. This ethical directive arises from the calling of the holy community to testify to their God, who embodies the truth and desires the truth. Violations of the truth communicated through speech or action signify a rejection of dedication to moral integrity: they represent essential betrayals of God and, in this light, they weaken the bases of the covenant.” (No. 2464)
So refrain from lying. Okay. Even though “lie” seems severe. Let’s refer to it as providing “false truth.” However, if you possess information that is accurate — and, if you’re fortunate, it’s something particularly intriguing — then you can let it out. Correct? Incorrect.
Transgressions against the eighth
Returning to the Catechism (No. 2477), it further states:
1. “Honoring the dignity of individuals prohibits any behavior or statement that could unfairly harm them. He [a gossiper] is held accountable:
“– of hasty conclusions who, even implicitly, takes as fact, without adequate basis, the ethical wrongdoing of a neighbor;”

I have not yet watched Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster “Oppenheimer.” However, #CatholicTwitter has advised me that, prior to my decision, I should take into account the movie’s sexual elements, particularly nudity. What #CatholicTwitter has not provided is a thorough Catholic perspective on the matter of nudity in films in a broader sense.
The uproar started with the assertion that no Catholic, especially clergy members, ought to witness “Oppenheimer” because of the existence of nudity. The reaction to such a simplistic assertion was unsurprisingly intense — and unsurprisingly simplistic. Two main counterarguments emerged. The first was a straightforward reference to the Vatican’s collection of art. The second indicated that the depiction of sexuality in films was akin to the depiction of violence in films. The underlying message, in both instances, was that the individual who posted originally was being hypocritical if he failed to denounce nudity in the Vatican Museum and violence in movies equally.
These are reasonable arguments, yet they are far from conclusive. Nudity at the Vatican Museum suggests that depictions of nudity in art are not inherently and universally inappropriate. It does not specify whether it is advantageous in specific instances. Certainly, significant differences exist between how the nude human body is presented in traditional art versus modern cinema — or even among various contemporary films. Moreover, as supporters of the original post noted, the depiction of violence in films is crucially distinct from that of nudity — the violence is acted out. Nonetheless, while this argument holds merit, it does not provide a conclusive answer either. Just because something is simply acted does not inherently validate its representation in particular situations.

Question: I recently came across a video featuring a well-respected, prominent priest who expressed the view that uttering “Oh my God” constitutes a mortal sin, as it employs God’s name in a frivolous or empty manner. Conversely, I encountered an article by another reputable priest who stated, “Although it is morally questionable to carelessly utter the name of God, it does not reach the threshold of a grave sin.” I also ponder whether it can be considered mortal even when it is expressed not out of anger or disdain towards God, but rather as a sign of joy and delight. Is saying “Oh my God” truly a mortal sin?
— Michael Quigley, via email
Answer: From an objective standpoint, it can constitute a mortal sin. Nevertheless, this does not imply that every instance of exclaiming “Oh my God” is a mortal sin. To engage in a mortal sin necessitates that the matter is serious, and that the individual, with awareness and full understanding of its wrongness, deliberately chooses to commit it anyway.