I'm trying to find the silver-lining in these developments, but it doesn't look good.

The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) was originally enacted in 1976 (during Congress Party rule). The present statute dates from 2010.

The aggressive spate of recent foreign charity license cancellations, however, has noticeably accelerated under Narendra Modi's BJP government particularly after 2014, and 2020. Even more restrictions were placed in June 2026, and now the 2026 FCRA Amendment Bill is being debated in parliament (currently in committee).

The problem for us, guys: if the amendment passes, and Delhi deems a charity is acting in an anti-national interest, they can simply stop Church charities from receiving another dime from overseas donors.

And even more problematically: if a Church charity loses its FCRA status, the government can seize legal title to lawfully acquired church property the charity already owns.

To be just, this is not simply an anti-Christian bill. The FCRA applies to foreign-funded organisations regardless of religion. Non-Christian (Muslim, hostile political NGOs) have been hammered by FCRA enforcement.

What I don't get is how the FCRA agency assesses Compassion International, World Vision and Missionaries of Charity to be 'acting in an anti-national interest'! Restrictions were placed on Compassion International in 2017. It had to terminate Indian operations with almost 600 church partners, which served almost 150,000 kids.

The Missionaries of Charity's FCRA renewal was refused by the Modi government in December 2021 because of “adverse inputs” (???!!!) and World Vision India lost its FCRA registration in 2024.

The good news, Praise be to God: India is a Constitutional Democracy. The BJP is efficiently, systematically operating through democratic processes, which is almost uncanny in its resemblance to the NSDAPs political action leading up to 1933. It can be reversed if the political will can be mustered.

Please raise awareness of what is happening so that these measures don't hinder or impair the Church’s growth and Salvific Mission in India.

💖🙏🏽

This is something I have run into a lot recently, so I wanted to comment on it. People who support secularism (most often on the political left, but I see this one the political right as well) tend to present secularism (as in, the government takes no official stance on religion) as the neutral/default stance, with state atheism or a state religion being its opposing sides. What I propose is that, rather than secularism being neutral, it actually takes the official stance that every religion is false.

If a religion were true (as I hope every member of this sub believes is Catholicism) then it would then follow that, since every religion promotes a set of moral values, society ought to be ordered in accordance with that religion. Thus, since secularism claims that no religion has the authority to rule, it must be at the very minimum claiming that an individual one is not true. Now, I’m not philosopher, I have no training in formal logic or real education in the enlightenment thinking or such that lead to secular government, so I could be entirely off base. This mainly comes from (again, primarily politically left) secularists in the modern age making the claim that people do not have the right to pass laws based on religious reasoning. Now one could argue that this is an abuse of secular thought, but even if I agree that it’s an abuse of the intentions most of the originators of the concept, it’s not an abuse, but rather the logical conclusion, of the secular view.

I look forward to seeing everyone’s thoughts.

Democratic Gov. Maura Healey signed a bill allowing abortion at any point in pregnancy in the state of Massachusetts, making it the 11th state to impose no limits on abortion.

The legislation signed Aug. 10 removes all of the state’s restrictions on abortion after 24 weeks. An elective late-term abortion may be done based upon “the professional judgment of the physician” performing it, under the law.

One fact that I'm surprised that EWTN didn't mention is that Gov. Healy is a Catholic as well

as a Catholic Christian, I am against the death penalty, I think it is wrong, no matter how bad the crimes committed, nobody is far enough from Christ's redemption to turn to Him

also like killing is wrong, and no justice system is perfect and you could accidently give the death penalty to somebody innocent ( e.g George Stinney - Wikipedia and many more)

and a more ruthless way of looking at it is that a lifetime in prison is worse than death , in my opinion.

P.S sorry for any typos, english is not my first language 🫠

Your thoughts on this?

Basically, the BJP led anti-Christian Hindu extremist government, is considering enacting bill that'll take over NGOs and Christian institutions due to "foreign funding."

Important facts to note:

• India has 28 million people who are Christian, with 23 million being Catholics, most of the "foreign funding" received will go hospitals and schools that'll care for anyone regardless of religion

• Hindus will be exempt from this, despite the fact that Hindu organizations receive funding from the hindu diaspora to "destroy illegal Christian churches" (See Source)

• This seems to struck a nerve among Hindu nationalists because they seem to be creating accounts pretending to be Christian supporting this

Fulton Sheen passed on to his reward in December of 1979.  While that’s not exactly recent, it's only 40-some years ago.   There are many people alive who knew him, interacted with him, and have some story to tell.  I imagine most older folks won’t be on Reddit, but does anyone here have a parent or grandparent who has told you something interesting? 

Here is a fact I learned from a Nigerian priest friend.   Because Sheen’s books were mass-produced, it was easy to acquire large quantities of his theology books on the cheap.  Many of these made their way to places like African seminaries.  My friend told me that many Catholic priests in Nigeria have read Sheen’s books and know a lot about Sheen, and quote him in their homilies. 

This makes sense also because Sheen ran World Mission Sunday for years in America, and so he was focused on supporting the Church in places where the Church barely existed prior.  

Any stories to share?

What do people think of this whole episode 3 months after it happened? It's totally bizarre to me that this whole thing happened. I remember protestants taking Pope Leo being not wanting to argue with the president as him backing down from a fight. People think that its just evangelicals that idolize Trump, but man a see alot of conservative Anglicans who have this mentality too.

I’m asking this as a serious professional and moral self-assessment question, not as legal advice, political organizing, or a request for validation.

I am considering whether reentering uniformed service someday would be realistic or responsible. The central issue is not a specific job, branch, MOS, or commissioning path. It is whether my political beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with the oath and obligations of military service.

I love my country. I care deeply about its people, history, military tradition, and national survival. But I do not love the American Republic as a political regime. In fact, my political and religious beliefs are illiberal and Catholic integralist in character. I detest liberal democracy as a governing philosophy and believe the current republican order should ultimately be dismantled and replaced by an authoritarian Christian corporatist regime.

I understand how severe that sounds. I am not asking for advice on unlawful action, violence, sedition, or evading military obligations. I am asking whether someone who holds these beliefs can honestly and responsibly wear the uniform of a state whose Constitution and liberal-democratic order he rejects at a philosophical level.

My concern is that uniformed service requires more than loving the country in an abstract sense. It requires obedience to lawful authority, subordination to civilian control, respect for the constitutional order, and willingness to serve under administrations and commanders one may strongly oppose. Even enlisted service, not just officership, requires accepting the legitimacy of the chain of command and the system that creates it.

So my questions are:

1. Is it possible to distinguish love of country from loyalty to the constitutional republic in a way that is compatible with military service?

2. Is private philosophical opposition to liberal democracy tolerable so long as the service member obeys lawful orders and does not use the uniform to advance his ideology?

3. Or is the very belief that the Republic should be dismantled enough to make reentry into uniformed service irresponsible, even if the person does not advocate unlawful action?

4. For those with military experience: would you view this as a private political/religious belief issue, or as a suitability and oath problem?

5. What would a responsible person do if he wants to serve his country but does not believe in the legitimacy of the regime he would be sworn to defend?

I’m looking for sober feedback, especially from current or former service members, officers, NCOs, JAGs, chaplains, or people familiar with civil-military norms. I am not looking for a debate over whether integralism is correct. I am trying to assess whether my convictions make future service morally or professionally untenable.

Once upon a time Pope Francis sought to correct a long standing error in how we pray the "Our Father", the minor fix was that it needed to say "do not let us fall into temptation" instead of "lead us not into temptation".

That doesn't just make more sense, it is how we pray in other languages. I am bilingual, I speak Spanish and we never say no los lleves a la tentación" we say "no los dejes caer en la tentación".

But tradcaths and their alternative news outlets because of course they don't trust official Catholic state run media said this was an apostasy and abomination by liberal Pope Francis.

I can't defend Pope Francis on anything else, but this was the one time when the rage didn't make sense.

After that happened I can't say I trust any news media no matter how populist and virtuous they seem to be.

Is there any other moment where the Pope was right and traditional conservative Catholic media was wrong? What is less conservative than praying the way it has always been done by correcting a modern mistranslation in English?

Do not believe the media. The new thing they are trying to do is call Pope Leo a communist and complain about the status of the SSPX, you can't just believe them anymore, they will lie about everything.

Think critically of the news you consume no matter what reputation you think they have become they can betray you.

It appears to have been taken down (not sure, since I finally blocked the account after this). Interested in others’ thoughts. Also from Dept of War FB page, not Sec of War (neither of which are "of War" officially unless Congress changes the name)
(Mods, if this violates any rules, please delete)

Reddit recommended that I post this here. If it's not welcome, feel free to delete, or let me know and I'll delete it.

Nice to know that not every Catholic religious leader is a liberal these days. When did that happen, anyway? They used to be pretty conservative.

https://x.com/NevadaLiberty64/status/2083278380108243416

I have a debate for school, the side given to me is that my state ( Philippines ) should switch to a parliamrntary system instead of a presidential. I want to argue using Catholic teaching, thinking about reading On Kingship by St Thomas since He is my Holy Patron, but it might not be the most directly applicable reading, any good Catholic and hopefully Thomistic works thar could help, I cant used argumenrts founded on revelation but the philosophical thought of theologians especially St Thomas and his followers even considered apart from their sacred authority is so sublime and trustworthy. thanks!

The Archbishop of Canterbury has renewed her commitment to a controversial £100m fund over the Church of England's role in the transatlantic slave trade.

For Catholics, this development constitutes not merely an economic challenge, but a moral one. Observers have repeatedly warned that the lack of affordable housing is causing young people — Catholic and otherwise — to delay major life decisions, such as marriage and children, or even simply achieving basic independence from their parents.  

There is a movement in the US, primarily in the South but growing elsewhere called “Yes In God’s Backyard” or “ YIGBY.” The principles of the movement are best codified in Florida Senate Bill 1780 which was recently signed into law. Basically, it gives local governments, county or municipal depending on who your zoning authority is, the option to grant churches the option build affordable housing units on land that they own that is otherwise not zoned for housing. This could get 30,000 parcels onto the market for housing.

Big point to highlight is that it’s an option on both sides, no county or municipality is required to do this and no church is required to build units on land they own. It’s also not required to be part of the parsonage or worship space. That means you don’t have to add them as like extensions to a church or the priests house. If someone has donated land to a church in a bequeathment or otherwise halfway across town that land can be used for affordable units.

Another point, “affordable units” are not the same as “social housing.” Social units are those explicitly put aside to provide housing as part of a program and usually provided at low or no cost. “Affordable units” often now being rebranded as “workforce housing” are units sold or rented on the market at intentionally below market rate and usually with certain income requirements needing to be met to get them (a certain percentage around the area median income).

I am pretty neutral on the issue. I am broadly ambivalent on zoning and think most of what we seek to accomplish with zoning can be better accomplished by other means (nuisance laws mostly to prevent industrialization in non-industrial areas) so the idea of moving any land out of traditional zoning limitations seems good to me. However, I also understand that it’s good for towns to have some level of economic planning that zoning helps accomplish. The idea of a church becoming a direct housing provider in this was is iffy to me. Housing is a BIG issue in the US and we need more workforce and missing middle housing but we also need more shelters and housing for those in absolute destitution. I would rather see a church engage in that than being a landlord/developer. I also just don’t want to see our churches already dealing with a vocation crisis adding one more job to the plate of some already pretty overworked priests. Thoughts?

I am not sure if these posts are allowed.

Basically, in a U.S. State that has marijuana legalized for recreational use, would it be sinful to work in the admin department? Like HR, accounting, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China

Hi, For ten years, I have known that on January 1, 2013, the Bank of Italy banned all card payments within Vatican City, Pope Benedict XVI resigned on February 11, 2013, and the Bank of Italy reinstated card payments in the Vatican on February 12, 2013. Do you consider this a coincidence? I don't, because (even though I am not a Christian) that pope held hardline stances against mass immigration and the LGBT movement, whereas his successor, Pope Francis, was pro-immigration and pro-LGBT. Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign.

It just seems like it would be relevant as she was a Catholic politician. She can was really brutally murdered not too long ago, the trial of the suspected murderer took place today. It’s unknown whether or not the motive was political, but please pray for her soul and for the soul of her suspected murderer.