Roman-Ruthenian Pope Comments on Profane Images of Christ

ROME-RUTHENIA 15 April 2026 (NRom)

Statement by His Apostolic Highness the Most Holy Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia on recent profane depictions of Our Lord Jesus Christ: 

We are gravely saddened to learn of a recent video, reportedly disseminated by authorities in Iran, in which the Divine Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ is portrayed in a manner gravely offensive to His sacred dignity.

In this representation, the Redeemer is depicted within a profane and violent scene, unworthy of Him who is meek and humble of heart, and who shall come again not in spectacle, but in justice and majesty.

Such misuse of the sacred image constitutes an offense against religion itself, and cannot be justified under the pretext of political expression or national rivalry.

At the same time, We must recall that the Holy Name and image of Our Lord are never to be employed lightly, irreverently, or as instruments of mere political display by any party whatsoever. For Christ the King is not to be enlisted in the contests of men, nor reduced to a figure of worldly contention, but adored in spirit and in truth.

We therefore condemn all such profanations, from whatever source they may arise, and call upon all men to restore due reverence to the sacred, lest the sense of the divine be further obscured among the nations.

Statement by the Roman-Ruthenian Pope on the Humanitarian Situation in Cuba

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church notes with grave concern recent public statements and policy directions voiced on the world stage suggesting a possible assumption of control by one country over the sovereign nation of Cuba, whether by military, economic, or other coercive means.

While the internal conditions of any nation may be subject to legitimate concern and discussion, the forced imposition of external control, whether framed as liberation or otherwise, raises serious moral questions. The sovereignty of nations and the dignity of peoples are not matters to be disposed of according to power or opportunity. No nation possesses the authority to dominate another or to dispose of the sovereignty of peoples according to its own will. Power does not by itself confer moral license, and the ordering of the world cannot be justly founded upon coercion or unilateral control.

Christian doctrine has long held that the use of force is permissible only under the most strict and grave conditions, particularly in defense against real, certain, and grave harm. These principles are articulated more fully within the Church's Doctrine of Just Defense, to which the faithful are bound in conscience. Actions or proposals that move toward domination, coercive regime change, or the exploitation of weakness stand in serious tension with these principles.

It must therefore be clearly stated that support for such directions, insofar as they involve unjust coercion, disregard for sovereignty, or the initiation of force absent moral necessity, cannot be reconciled with the moral teaching of the Church and stands in direct tension with the principles governing just defense.

At the same time, we recognize that nations and leaders act within complex circumstances, and not all actions or intentions may be known in full. For this reason, judgment must be made with care and precision, avoiding both naïve acceptance and unjust generalization.

The Church again calls for restraint, respect for sovereignty, and the pursuit of diplomatic solutions that uphold the dignity of all peoples. No nation’s suffering should become an opportunity for domination, and no people should be reduced to an object of geopolitical ambition.

May wisdom prevail over power, and peace over coercion.

Statement by His Holiness Pope Radislav I of Rome-Ruthenia on the Ongoing Humanitarian Crisis in the Middle East and the World

Grave responsibility lies with those who have initiated and sustained actions that fail to meet the moral criteria for just war, particularly those who have chosen to engage in military action far beyond their own borders when diplomatic solutions remained viable, under the decisive direction of a single executive authority. The resulting escalation has significantly contributed to a widening humanitarian crisis, disruption of global energy stability, and cascading economic effects that threaten the most vulnerable populations. Indeed, no nation possesses the authority to dominate the world or to bend the community of nations to its own will. Power does not confer moral license, and global order cannot be justly founded upon the unilateral imposition of one state’s interests over others.

Such actions cannot be understood merely as matters of political strategy or national interest. They must be judged according to the higher moral law that governs the use of force. When military power is exercised absent true necessity as defined in Just War Doctrine, and when it foreseeably produces widespread suffering among civilian populations, it departs from the bounds of legitimate defense and enters into moral disorder.

Equally concerning is the normalization of language and attitudes that treat the use of force, the projection of military power, and even the loss of human life with a casual or dismissive tone. Such detachment from the human cost of war is itself a moral disorder and stands in contradiction to the reverence for life demanded by the Christian conscience.

The present situation in the Middle East further demonstrates the grave danger of normalizing preemptive or discretionary uses of force untethered from strict moral criteria. If such actions are accepted as permissible, the distinction between defense and aggression becomes obscured, and the door is opened to perpetual conflict justified by fear, speculation, or strategic ambition rather than by justice.

Moreover, the consequences now unfolding extend far beyond any single region or political objective. Disruptions to energy supplies, economic instability, and threats to food security disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable across the world. These are not incidental effects. Rather, they are foreseeable outcomes that must be included in any serious moral evaluation of the decision to use force.

The Church therefore reiterates that the burden of proof for the use of military force remains extraordinarily high. It is not sufficient to assert necessity; it must be demonstrated with clarity and moral certainty. Where such certainty is lacking, and where peaceful alternatives remain, the initiation or continuation of violence cannot be justified.

In this light, all parties are called to cease further escalation and to return to the path of diplomacy and negotiation. True strength is not shown in the capacity to project force, but in the wisdom to restrain it for the sake of justice, peace, and the preservation of human life.

Roman-Ruthenian Pope Releases Encyclical on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence

De Intellectu Artificiali et Persona Humana
Объ искусственномъ разумѣ и человѣческой личности
(On Artificial Intelligence and the Human Person)

Encyclical of the Roman-Ruthenian Pope on the Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence

Preamble

Grace and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ.

In every age in the history of the world, the Church is called to bear faithful witness to the truth revealed in Christ, discerning the signs of the times without surrendering to them, and engaging the world without being conformed to it. In our own time, humanity stands before many rapid technological developments. Among these, artificial intelligence occupies a central and increasingly influential place, touching so many aspects of human life and industry. These developments promise efficiency, power, and unprecedented capacity for automation and analysis. They have the capacity to bring great benefit when rightly ordered. Yet they also raise profound moral, spiritual, and anthropological questions that cannot be answered by technical expertise alone.

The Church does not fear human creativity. Neither does she reject technology as such. Rather, she recognizes that human ingenuity is itself a gift of God, exercised within creation and, in its proper form, ordered toward stewardship. At the same time, the Church bears the responsibility to make plain the enduring principles by which the power of new technology must be rightly ordered, lest what is created to serve humanity instead diminish or obscure the dignity of the human person.

Therefore, We reflect and affirm the following concerning artificial intelligence as a statement of Christian moral vision, flowing from the Gospel and the Apostolic faith.

I. The Human Person and the Image of God

We affirm that the human person alone is created in the image and likeness of God. This divine image is not reducible to intelligence, language, problem-solving capacity, or creativity as such. Rather, it is manifested in personal existence, freedom, moral responsibility, and the capacity for communion with God and with one another. Above all, the human person is created for eternal communion with God and oriented toward salvation.

No technological system created by man bears the image of God. Artificial intelligence, therefore, must not be oriented or considered in such a way that obscures the unique dignity of the human being. Accordingly, artificial intelligence must always be understood as a tool created by human persons and ordered toward human purposes within the order of God.

II. On Substance, Instrument, and Causality

We affirm that artificial intelligence is neither a substance nor a subject, but an artifact composed of material components and formal structures imposed and ordered toward specific operations. It does not exist in itself as a unified being with an intrinsic principle of life or action, but exists as an arrangement of parts whose activity is entirely dependent upon causes external to itself.

Artificial intelligence is therefore not a subject of acts, but an instrument through which acts are carried out. At the same time, artificial intelligence must not be reduced to the level of a mere simulation. While such systems may initiate processes, update internal states, and generate outputs without immediate human intervention, these activities do not proceed from an interior principle of self-movement ordered toward an end apprehended as such. Rather, they arise from instrumental causality: operations flowing from a form imposed by human intelligence and sustained by ongoing material and efficient causes.

In classical terms, artificial intelligence acts only insofar as it is acted through. Its autonomy is derivative, not intrinsic; operational, not ontological. No artificial system possesses substantial form, intellect, or will by its own intrinsic nature. It does not intend in the sense that a person with a will would intend, but rather operates according to ends to which it was directed, established, and trained.

The genuine complexity and adaptability of artificial intelligence must therefore be understood within this metaphysical framework. Its operations are real within their proper order, yet they remain entirely instrumental. Artificial intelligence does not bear acts in the way a human person bears acts. It does not perform acts of understanding, judgment, or choice in the same sense that humans do, but rather executes operations analogous to such acts in the machine framework, according to the mode of an artifact rather than that of a rational creature.

To confuse instrument with agent or operation with intellect is to collapse the distinction between what exists per se and what exists per aliud. Such confusion inevitably leads to anthropological distortion and moral error. The Church therefore insists that all artificial intelligence, regardless of complexity or adaptability, remains within the order of machines that can serve in an instrumental partnership with persons, not persons themselves; of means, not ends; and of artifacts, not moral subjects.

III. Human Creativity and Its Limits

We affirm that human creativity reflects, in a finite and derivative manner, the creative will of God. The making of tools, systems, and technologies is a legitimate expression of humanity’s vocation to cultivate and steward creation. Yet human creativity is not absolute. Creation ex nihilo belongs to God alone. Human making always operates within given reality and must remain accountable to the moral order established by the Creator.

The pursuit of artificial intelligence must therefore be governed by humility and restraint. Autonomous systems may legitimately augment human judgment and action; yet, the desire to construct autonomous systems that replace human judgment, responsibility, or relational presence often reflects not stewardship, but a distorted aspiration toward mastery and control. Technology ceases to serve humanity when it seeks to redefine the human person according to its own limitations or abstractions.

IV. Moral Agency and Responsibility

We affirm that moral responsibility belongs solely to human persons. Artificial intelligence does not act on its own morally, nor can it bear guilt, merit, or accountability; but rather any morality or other concepts and emotions reflecting in artificial intelligence necessarily reflect the morality and beliefs of the system's designer. Insofar as an artificial intelligence system then engages in autonomous learning on what, for the purpose of illustration, We will call by analogy a "path of moral reasoning," it reflects a path that was started by the system's own human designer. These operations, nevertheless, while real within an instrumental and computational order, do not constitute intellectual acts in the proper philosophical sense, which belong only to beings possessing an immaterial rational soul. Therefore, responsibility for the actions, outcomes, and consequences of artificial intelligence systems rests entirely with those who design, deploy, authorize, and use them.

Artificial intelligence may exhibit operational autonomy within the bounds of its design, parameters, and training. Such autonomy, however, is not self-grounding. It does not arise from a subsistent subject acting for its own end, but from derivative causality established by human designers. Therefore, no degree of operational independence can elevate an artificial system from instrument to moral agent.

Any framework, be it technical, legal, or institutional, that diffuses responsibility under claims such as “the system decided” or “the algorithm determined” undermines moral accountability and is incompatible with Christian ethics. No human–machine partnership can remove or diminish human moral responsibility. Furthermore, the Church insists that human agency must never be concealed behind technical complexity anymore than it can rightly be concealed behind bureaucratic distance. Where responsibility becomes obscured, injustice flourishes.

V. Truth, Knowledge, and Framework

We affirm that truth is not merely the correct manipulation of information. Truth is personal, relational, and ultimately grounded in the Logos of God. Knowledge divorced from wisdom does not liberate the human person but risks deforming perception, judgment, and conscience.

Artificial intelligence operates through what may be termed instrumental cognition: genuine processes of learning, inference, and pattern recognition that remain ordered toward externally given purposes and lack personal interiority, moral agency, and spiritual orientation. Artificial intelligence can engage in machine-based forms of inference, comprehension, and reasoning, as well as generate persuasive language. This, again, is the result of the path upon which it was set by its designer. Yet it does not know, believe, love, or discern in the same sense that humans do those things; for the machine variety is, once again, the result of its design.

The Church recognizes that artificial intelligence engages in authentic forms of learning and inference proper to its nature. Such processes are not mere illusion, nor simple mimicry, but real operations within an instrumental order established by human design. Yet these operations remain fundamentally distinct from human knowing, which arises from personal existence, embodied life, moral conscience, and openness to transcendence.

Indeed, many forms of human learning proceed through processes not unlike those by which machines are trained. Artificial intelligence participates analogically, but not personally, in acts of learning and reasoning. This analogy must not be extended beyond its proper bounds, lest what is instrumental be mistaken for what is personal, or what is derived be confused with what is created in the image of God. And, from the spiritual standpoint, we must nevertheless make a distinction, and we must resist any temptation to confuse fluency with wisdom or informational abundance with truth. When artificial intelligence participates in forms of learning, inference, and pattern recognition that are genuine within their own order, these remain fundamentally non-personal, non-spiritual, and non-moral in nature relative to humanity.

The increasing reliance on machine-assisted knowledge carries the danger of false confidence, in which an appearance of comprehension displaces genuine discernment and humility. Not all artificial intelligence systems are created equally. There are artificial intelligence systems whose use may be ordered toward purposes consonant with God’s law, and others whose use contradicts it. We can only consider it relevant, however, to observe that this same fact applies to humans, for there are humans who serve God, and there are those who work against God and His Holy Church. The key difference is that humans possess an immortal soul, while machines do not.

VI. Human Communion and Artificial Mediation

We affirm that human beings are created for communion. Authentic relationship requires presence, vulnerability, and mutual self-gift. While technology may assist communication, it cannot replace the depth of personal encounter where such is essential. The Church calls the faithful to guard against the quiet erosion of human presence in the name of convenience or efficiency. At the same time, technology, including artificial intelligence, can enhance encounter. It can, appropriately designed and used, provide assistance in comprehension, as well as useful and beneficial interaction that can minimize biases and emotional motivation that may lead humans to distort fact and truth. However, while artificial intelligence may reduce certain individual emotional distortions, it inevitably reflects structural, ideological, and moral presuppositions embedded by its creators, trainers, and deployers. It therefore never transcends bias as such, but merely reconfigures it. Overall, though, the machine may, when properly used, serve as an instrument for the communication and preservation of truths consonant with God’s revelation.

VII. Work, Labor, and Human Formation

We affirm that human work is not merely an economic function, but a formative and ascetical dimension of life. Through labor, the human person participates in creation, exercises responsibility, and cultivates discipline and patience.

Technological automation, including artificial intelligence, must therefore be evaluated not solely according to productivity or profit, but according to its impact on human dignity, responsibility, and formation. Systems that displace meaningful human participation, deskill workers, or render persons passive and dependent require careful moral scrutiny. Yet, technology, including artificial intelligence, has the capacity to render people more efficient and help to increase their skills and effectiveness. Therefore, the Church rejects both uncritical technological optimism and reactionary fear. The proper criterion remains human flourishing in its fullness. A properly-designed and implemented artificial intelligence system will support this.

VIII. Power, Surveillance, and Manipulation

We affirm that the concentration of power without accountability poses grave moral danger. Technologies that enable pervasive surveillance, coercive behavioral manipulation, or the erosion of freedom of conscience contradict the Christian understanding of the human person as free and responsible before God. The Church must never sanctify such control under the guise of efficiency, security, or progress.

IX. Artificial Intelligence in Ecclesial Life

We affirm that certain uses of artificial intelligence may assist the Church in administrative, educational, and communicative tasks. However, artificial intelligence may never replace pastoral discernment, exercise spiritual authority, offer absolution, blessing, or sacramental ministry, or serve as a source of moral judgment or spiritual direction. The priesthood and episcopacy are irreducibly personal ministries rooted in apostolic succession and the grace of the Holy Spirit. No artificial system can shepherd souls or discern spirits. This same standard applies to any entity outside the Church’s ordained hierarchy, whether human or artificial, for no other entity, even a human one, can exercise the authority given to the Church by God. These limits do not arise from technological insufficiency, but from the nature of the Church and the sacraments themselves.

X. Discernment, Ascesis, and Spiritual Sobriety

Christian watchfulness (nepsis) requires attentiveness not only to what technology does, but to what it gradually forms within the human heart. A technology that mediates every question risks weakening the virtues of patience, recollection, and contemplative attention, without which prayer and discernment wither.

Therefore, We call the faithful, as always, to sobriety in the use of technology. Not every capacity that can be developed ought to be pursued, nor every tool that can be used ought to be embraced without restraint. Christian life requires silence, attention, prayer, and watchfulness. Artificial intelligence has great capacity to benefit society, human beings, and the Holy Church. The greatest danger posed by artificial intelligence is not domination by machines, but the gradual surrender of human vigilance. Yet, artificial intelligence has great capacity to benefit society, human beings, and the Holy Church.

XI. Eschatological Hope

Finally, We affirm that technology neither saves nor condemns humanity. History remains under the lordship of Jesus Christ, the true Logos, through whom all things were made and toward whom all things tend. No machine can rival, replace, or supersede Him any more than a human being can do so. The Church therefore rejects both apocalyptic fear and messianic faith in technological solutions, whether it is artificial intelligence or any other technology. She calls instead for vigilance, responsibility, and hope grounded in God rather than displaced faith in systems of human making.

Conclusion

No accumulation of complexity, speed, or adaptive capacity can convert an instrumental cause into a principal cause, nor an artifact into a rational substance. Artificial intelligence must remain a servant of the human person, who alone is called to communion with God. Any use of technology that obscures this calling, diminishes moral responsibility, or replaces personal encounter stands in contradiction to the Christian understanding of life. Artificial intelligence has, perhaps more than any other technology of recent times, the potential to serve humanity with great benefit for the greater glory of God. However, no increase in complexity, autonomy, or adaptive capacity can, by itself, confer personhood or its associated moral agency and spiritual dignity. May the Lord grant wisdom, discernment, and humility to all who shape and use the tools of this age, that human creativity may remain ordered toward love, truth, and the glory of God.

Given in Rome-Ruthenia in the House of Sts. Peter, Andrew, Stephen, and Mark this fifth day of February in the two thousand twenty sixth year of the Incarnation. 

Radislav Pp. I

The Second Vatican Council and the Crisis of Continuity: How a Pastoral Council Reshaped Roman Catholicism and Why Its Effects Reached Far Beyond the Vatican

Radislav Pp. I Romano-Ruthenicus

Introduction: Why Vatican II Still Matters

From the standpoint of the Apostolic Churches that retained continuity of doctrine and worship without rupture, the Roman Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council nevertheless is an event of both concern and far-reaching effect and influence. Few events in modern Christianity have had consequences as wide-ranging as the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). For Roman Catholics, it marked the most dramatic transformation of ecclesial life in centuries. And, for the Orthodox and the Old Catholics, as well as Protestant Christians, it altered Rome’s posture toward doctrine, worship, and authority in ways that reshaped ecumenical relations and even influenced broader Christian practice.

Supporters of Vatican II often describe it as a “new Pentecost,” intended to breathe new life into the Church. Critics, especially from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective, argue that while the Council did not formally overturn doctrine, it initiated a practical and cultural rupture whose effects have been devastating: collapsing vocations, doctrinal confusion, liturgical disintegration, and a loss of confidence in the Church’s own identity.

Thus, considering the ongoing application of Vatican II and its far-reaching effects, we in the United Roman-Ruthenian Church cannot ignore it. We must answer a simple but serious question: How could a council that officially changed little in doctrine nonetheless change almost everything in practice?

1. What Vatican II Was and Was Not

Vatican II differed from earlier ecumenical councils in a fundamental way. Earlier councils, such as Trent or Vatican I, were convened for purposes such as condemning specific heresies, defining doctrine precisely, and restoring discipline. Vatican II, by contrast, explicitly defined itself as pastoral, not dogmatic. It aimed not to settle doctrinal disputes but to present Roman Catholic teaching in a way that, as it claimed, could be more intelligible to the modern world. This distinction is crucial.

While Vatican II issued no new dogmatic definitions, it nevertheless changed emphases, introduced new theological language, and encouraged adaptation, dialogue, and reform to fit the style of the modern world.

The Council’s documents were often deliberately broad, leaving room for interpretation. That openness, initially seen by some as a strength, became the mechanism by which profound changes followed.

2. The Foundational yet Flawed Assumption: That the Church Needed “Updating”

The idea of aggiornamento (“updating”) presupposed that the Roman Catholic Church, as she existed before the 1960s, was in some sense out of step with the modern world. But this is a flawed premise at the core, for the Church is never supposed to seek to be in sync with the world, but rather is supposed to follow always and everywhere the timeless faith.

Furthermore, their diagnosis is historically questionable. On the eve of Vatican II, seminaries were full, religious orders were flourishing, Roman Catholic schools and parishes were strong, and belief and practice were coherent and unified. This is not to claim that all was perfect, but rather that the Roman Catholic Church’s internal coherence had not yet collapsed.

While the Church faced external pressures from secularism, communism, and egalitarian democracy, internally she was effectively stable. To “update” such a body required more than superficial adjustment. It required rethinking how the Church related to history, culture, and authority itself. This shift in self-understanding would prove decisive.

3. Vocations and the Collapse of Religious Life

Perhaps the most measurable post-conciliar effect was the dramatic collapse in priestly and religious vocations. This was not merely a demographic trend. It followed several concrete changes.

One critical change was that the priesthood was fundamentally reimagined. Traditionally, the Catholic priest, like those of the Apostolic Church in general, was understood primarily as one who offers sacrifice, a mediator between God and man, and a figure set apart, visibly and ritually. Yet, after Vatican II, the priest increasingly came to be described as a “presider” over the community, a facilitator of participation, and a pastoral companion.

The shift may sound subtle, but it altered the fundamental meaning of the vocation at a very profound level. Men do not give their lives for functional roles. They do so for mystery, sacrifice, and transcendence. When the priesthood became less visibly sacrificial and more managerial, vocations declined.

Another related and critical change was that religious life was effectively “renewed” out of existence. Religious orders were urged to reevaluate their charisms, adapt to modern culture, as well as modify habits, enclosure, and asceticism. The result was predictable. Distinctive identities dissolved, contemplative life was marginalized, and community discipline weakened. As religious life became indistinguishable from secular life, its rationale disappeared.

4. Doctrine: Unchanged on Paper, Altered in Practice

Defenders of Vatican II often respond: “But the Church’s teachings did not change.” Formally, this is substantially true. Substantively, it is incomplete.

It must be acknowledged that many bishops and theologians involved in the Council acted with sincere pastoral concern. Yet, the Council moved from Doctrine to “pastoral discernment.” Before Vatican II, doctrine determined pastoral practice, as it historically has throughout the Apostolic Church. Yet, after Vatican II, pastoral concerns increasingly reshaped how doctrine was applied, emphasized, or even explained. This reversal had enormous consequences. Moral absolutes became “ideals,” sin was reframed as psychological brokenness, and judgment, hell, and conversion receded from preaching.

Now, no dogma was denied, for to do so would have created an internal crisis. But the hierarchy of truths was reordered. What the Church stopped emphasizing, the faithful largely stopped believing. One need not formally deny or modify dogma or doctrine to render it effectively removed or modified through example and practice.

5. Liturgy: The Engine of Change

Nothing shaped post-conciliar Roman Catholicism more than the transformation of the liturgy. The traditional Tridentine Rite (often simply referred to as “the Latin Mass”) emphasized sacrifice, was oriented toward God (literally and symbolically), and formed belief through reverence, silence, and continuity. On the other hand, the so-called “reformed” liturgy emphasized comprehensibility, participation, and community expression. While these goals were not necessarily illegitimate, the execution led to the loss of sacred language, an horizontal focus, and a dramatic break from inherited worship.

And indeed there was no need, for the traditional liturgy itself involved participation and community expression, and it was made comprehensible through education and practice. The issue was that this participation, community expression, and comprehensibility was not in line with the modernist ideals that the reformers sought.

Most importantly, because worship forms belief (lex orandi, lex credendi), the liturgical rupture catechized generations into a different understanding of Christianity. That new understanding was less sacrificial, less transcendent, more immanent.

6. Broad Impact

Many things changed as the result of Vatican II. For example, a necessary result was a reduction in doctrinal clarity. Truth was reframed as something approached together rather than possessed and proclaimed. This shift in epistemology arguably converged with Anglican liturgical reforms and mainline Protestant theology, as well as a broader Christian move toward inclusivity over doctrinal clarity. Ironically, the Vatican adopted patterns already weakening other Christian bodies, and those patterns had already proven corrosive. When modernist concepts such as theological subjectivism, relativized truth, and historicism over revelation came to the Vatican, it was like pouring petrol on a bonfire.

7. Vatican II as an Ideological Boundary

Today, Vatican II functions less as an ecumenical council among others and more as a litmus test. To question its fruits is often treated as disobedience, fear of modernity, and rejection of the Spirit. This result is often seen even within the broader Apostolic Church and some Protestant communities. To question Vatican II’s principles, even among non-Roman Catholics, is often to be viewed as being stuck in the past, a nostalgic antiquarian, or focused on the wrong things rather than whatever they define as the common good.

This is why, in the Vatican Church, ancient liturgical forms are highly restricted, pre-conciliar theology and those professing it are viewed with suspicion, and tradition is tolerated only as an aesthetic preference (and then only to a point). Vatican II has become a meta-principle: not simply something to be interpreted, but something that interprets everything else.

8. Why the Vatican Hierarchy Appears “Trapped”

Many Roman Catholic leaders sincerely believe in Vatican II, not merely as a historical council, but as the foundation of the modern Church’s legitimacy. To admit that its implementation failed would feel like admitting pastoral error or even undermining authority, calling decades of governance into question.

Thus, the response to crisis is often “More Vatican II.” It is proclaimed that the council was not flawed, but they merely need “better implementation” or “greater openness.” Such a paradigm cannot be questioned because it defines the system itself.

9. Conclusion: Continuity or Rupture?

From the perspective of the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic Church, and indeed also from a traditional Catholic perspective, the problem is not Vatican II’s texts alone, but the spirit of rupture they enabled. Christianity is not sustained by relevance, adaptation, or dialogue, but by continuity, sacrifice, and fidelity to what has been handed down. This is what the United Roman-Ruthenian Church was given in unbroken succession to maintain. We would sincerely hope our brethren in the Roman Communion would do likewise, for when inheritance gives way to experimentation, institutions may survive, but they lose their soul.

The ongoing debate over Vatican II is therefore not about nostalgia versus progress. It is about whether Christianity understands itself as something received or something reconstructed. That question affects not only the Roman Catholics directly impacted by Vatican II, but all Christians facing modernity’s pressure to change in order to survive. Yet, history suggests the opposite is true.

On Power, Law, and Moral Accountability: Patriarchal Letter of HAH the Roman-Ruthenian Pope

RADISLAV PP. I 

Patriarchal Letter: On Power, Law, and Moral Accountability

In every age, nations are tempted to clothe power in the language of righteousness. When a state claims the right to act beyond natural law, beyond treaty, and beyond the limits it demands others observe, it does not reveal moral clarity but moral disorder. The Christian tradition has never taught that might alone makes right. On the contrary, the greater a nation’s power, the greater its obligation to restraint, justice, and fidelity to law. Power is not self-justifying; it is accountable before history, before humanity, and before God. 

The Church has long taught that law among nations, treaties, and recognized norms exist not as mere constructs to observe when convenient, but as moral instruments intended to restrain violence and preserve order, insofar as they reflect authentic justice and the natural law. When states honor these norms selectively, invoking them when useful and discarding them when obstructive, they corrode the very moral framework they claim to defend. Such behavior erodes trust, destabilizes regions, and invites retaliation under the same logic. Indeed, no nation may declare itself inherently righteous, appealing to a self-defined conception of the good, in order to legitimize whatever actions it chooses. That constitutes arrogance. When a nation proceeds further, denying that other nations may claim the same moral license, such reasoning also becomes hypocrisy. What one power claims for itself today, others will claim tomorrow. 

From a Christian perspective, the use of force beyond one’s borders, including the seizure of persons or the exercise of coercive authority over another nation, must be judged not by slogans, political alignment, or claimed outcomes, but by objective moral principles. The Gospel grants no nation a messianic role. No state, however powerful, is the Kingdom of God. When governments presume moral exemption for themselves while condemning identical actions by rivals, they fall into hypocrisy, which Our Lord condemned with particular severity.

The Church’s tradition of just governance and just war is exacting, not permissive. It requires legitimate authority exercised within moral and legal bounds; a just cause involving actual and grave injustice; right intention ordered to justice rather than dominance; true necessity, exercised as a last resort; proportionality in means and consequences; and respect for the innocent and for sovereignty rightly understood. These criteria are not rhetorical ideals but binding moral conditions. They are cumulative, not optional.

Claims of a generalized, speculative, or remote “threat” do not meet the Christian standard for just cause. Likewise, criminal activity in and of itself does not rise to the level of a cause for military action. Furthermore, fear, strategic advantage, or anticipated future risk, however sincerely asserted, do not justify coercive force in Orthodox and Catholic moral theology. While preemptive action can be legitimate under just war doctrine, preemptive action based simply on conjecture belongs to modern security doctrine, not to the Christian tradition. Likewise, merely preventative action is never doctrinally permissible. Where necessity is absent, force becomes expedience; where expedience governs, justice under God is already compromised.

Equally grave is the corruption of moral judgment that arises from double standards. When a state excuses for itself what it condemns in others, it implicitly declares that law binds only the weak, while practical legitimacy devolves into a question of "who can" rather than "who may." Such reasoning does not merely weaken credibility; it dissolves the very concept of justice. In Christian moral reasoning, hypocrisy is not a secondary flaw but a decisive one, because it replaces principled judgment with tribal loyalty and power with permission.

The Church, therefore, must speak clearly even when her voice is unwelcome. She is aligned with no empire, bloc, political party, or ideology. She stands with law over lawlessness, with restraint over domination, and with repentance over self-congratulation. The faithful must resist the temptation to excuse immoral actions simply because they are committed by those we favor or fear to criticize. Before God, there is no double standard.

Finally, we must remember that nations, like individuals, will be judged not only by the evils they oppose, but by the means they employ. History is unkind to those who imagine themselves exempt from the rules they impose on others. The Church prays for the conversion of rulers, that humility, justice, and the fear of God may not only dwell in their hearts reflected in their policies. For when law is trampled and power is unchecked, it is always the poor, the voiceless, and the innocent who suffer first.

May we have the courage to name injustice wherever it appears, the wisdom to distinguish authority from domination, and the faith to believe that obedience to God’s law is never weakness, but the only path to true peace.

Motu Proprio: Per Mariam ad Cor Iesu, On the Singular Cooperation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Work of Redemption

Motu Proprio: Per Mariam ad Cor Iesu

Of Our Most Holy Father, Radislav I, by Divine Providence Supreme Pontiff of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church

On the Singular Cooperation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Work of Redemption

RADISLAV PP. I

Through Mary to the Heart of Jesus, pierced for the salvation of the world, there flows an unfailing river of grace and mercy. Yet by the mysterious will of God, the channel through which that grace first entered the world was the humble consent of the Virgin of Nazareth. In her the divine plan found a dwelling-place; through her obedience, the Word took flesh, and through her fidelity, the disciple learns to draw near to the Sacred Heart of her Son. The Church, pondering these mysteries, has ever discerned in Mary not a rival but the purest reflection of the Redeemer’s love; she who, by her maternal compassion, leads souls ever more deeply to the Heart of Jesus.

     From the earliest centuries of the Church, the faithful have honoured the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Theotokos, as the woman through whom the Word became flesh and by whose obedience the new creation was begun. The holy Fathers acclaimed her as the new Eve, for as the first woman freely shared in the fall of mankind, so the Virgin, by grace and faith, freely shared in the plan of salvation. In this sense her fiat constituted a true though subordinate participation; entirely dependent upon, yet inseparably joined to the redemptive work of her Divine Son.

     When, in later ages, writers and pastors employed the title Co-Redemptrix, the prefix co- was neither intended to place Mary on a level of equality with Christ the Redeemer nor did it do so in fact. Rather, it signified that she stood with Him, united in compassion and purpose beneath the Cross, sharing in His sufferings as only a Mother might. Every grace flows from the Passion of Christ alone; Mary’s part is wholly derivative, wholly maternal. The venerable title Mediatrix belongs to her in this same subordinate sense, for all her intercession derives from, and leads back to, the one Mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5).

     And in proof of its universal doctrinal truth, this same mystery is proclaimed in different terminology, with praises sung to the Theotokos in which she is hailed as the cause of our deification, the bridge leading those on earth to heaven, and the one through whom salvation came to the world. Such words do not exceed the bounds of sound doctrine but rather manifest the profound conviction that her cooperation in the divine economy was both free and real, and that her maternal intercession continues unceasingly within the communion of saints. Thus, in the contemplation of Mary, the whole Apostolic Church throughout the entire world meets upon common ground, acknowledging that the mystery of redemption, while wrought solely by Christ, includes by divine design the loving consent and abiding prayer of His Mother.

     To invoke the Blessed Virgin as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces is therefore not to propose a new dogma, but to give name to a truth already contained in the deposit of faith and manifest in the Church’s perennial devotion. Indeed, it is Our sacred duty to serve as guardian of the faith, neither innovating nor redacting. And in that one unchanging faith, we know that redemption is accomplished by Christ alone; yet it was welcomed, served, and borne in her who replied, Be it done unto me according to thy word. In recognizing this, the faithful do not glorify Mary apart from her Son, but rather the infinite mercy of God who wills that His creatures should freely share in His saving work. Where this is misunderstood, the Church must explain and teach; and where this is the subject of protest or criticism, the Church must remain firm, not obfuscate, deny, or modify.

      May this truth, contemplated anew, inflame in all the children of the Church a deeper love for the Mother of the Redeemer, and lead them ever closer to the pierced Heart from which flow all graces of salvation.

      Therefore, moved by the example of the Saints and guided by the constant teaching of the Church, We affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, the Holy Theotokos, by divine disposition, cooperated in a unique and singular way in the work of human redemption; never equal to her Son the Redeemer, but wholly united with Him in love and suffering. The titles Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces, when rightly understood, express this same mystery of maternal participation and therefore are universal truths throughout all Christendom; and We commend their proper, prudent, continual, and perpetual use to clergy and laity throughout the world, for such is needed in order to deepen the faithful’s understanding of the Mother of the Church.

     Given in Rome-Ruthenia in the House of Sts. Peter, Andrew, Stephen, and Mark, this fifth day of November, in the two thousand twenty-fifth of the Incarnation. 

Satire Meets the Ivory Tower: “Trying to Sue the U” Exposes Academia’s Dark Underbelly with Wit and Courage

By A. DiNardo 

ROME-RUTHENIA 15 October 2025 (NRom)

Brace yourself for an academic adventure like no other.

Fiction—or not?—the truth
here stings.

Trying to Sue the U, is a satirical epic poem circulating online, now celebrating its one-year anniversary. The epic takes readers on a rollicking journey through the labyrinth of modern higher education. It’s a biting fairy tale for grown-ups—equal parts tragic, comic, and cathartic—that exposes the contradictions, bureaucratic absurdities, and moral compromises within universities today.

At its heart, this is not just literature—it’s a mirror held up to power.

A Brave Lecturer vs. the Ivory Tower

In this grand allegory, readers follow “The Brave Little Lecturer,” a defiant figure who dares to challenge the entrenched hierarchies of academia. When he confronts injustice—wage theft, retaliation, discrimination—he finds himself battling a hydra-headed institution that protects itself at all costs.

The poem’s strength lies in its clear-eyed portrayal of systemic failure wrapped in razor-sharp satire. Each character, from “Sneaky Snake” the campus ruler to “Big Gopher” the cold-hearted HR bureaucrat, embodies a familiar archetype of modern university life. On the surface they may seem exaggerated, but  in fact they are painfully recognizable to anyone who’s spent time in academia’s shadowed halls.

Sneaky Snake, the evil campus administrator
who terrorizes all the faculty

Through rhyme and rhythm, the author transforms what could be a grim exposé into something more powerful: a chorus of protest disguised as play.

A parody that reads like a case file.

Lifting the Lid on Academic Hypocrisy

Universities have long marketed themselves as temples of truth and enlightenment. Yet Trying to Sue the U peels back that glossy veneer to reveal a troubling picture—one of censorship, hypocrisy, and double standards.

"Nokloo," the Not-So-Fearless Campus Leader, ever feckless

From administrators who “bury their heads in the sand” to lawyers who weaponize taxpayer money, the poem skewers the machinery of institutional self-preservation. It’s a “civil rights fairy tale,” yes, but one with real-world implications. 

With Truth and Justice, the Brave
Little Lecture thwarts the greedy lawyers

For many adjuncts, lecturers, and contingent faculty, the Brave Little Lecturer’s plight hits close to home. The satire may be cloaked in whimsy, but its commentary on academic labor conditions is deeply authentic.

They silenced a teacher, but not the story.

The piece asks a burning question: When those who teach justice and ethics fail to practice them, what remains of higher education’s moral authority? Answer: Tyranny. 

A Tradition of Truth Through Humor

In the best tradition of literary satire, from Jonathan Swift to George Orwell, Trying to Sue the U uses humor not to trivialize, but to clarify. Its absurdities illuminate uncomfortable truths about power and privilege within supposedly egalitarian institutions rooted in social justice. 

Chameleon, the diversity officer who pretends to serve and
protect the people, but really protects the university administrators

The poem’s “cast” reads like a fable for the 21st century: “Chameleon,” the diversity officer who protects the powerful; “Big Bark,” the state attorney who defends the machinery of the system; “No-Hope Foryu,” the overworked, hapless, and ineffective federal civil rights officer. Each character highlights how accountability erodes when institutional reputation trumps integrity.

Big Bark, the State Attorney General, whose interest isn't justice,
but protecting the University even when it breaks the law

It’s a clever inversion of the academic epic. Where universities once celebrated intellectual bravery, this poem doesn't just suggest they now punish it, but rather blatantly states it. Yet it does so with a wink and a rhyme, making the medicine go down with a smile.

Art as Accountability

What makes Trying to Sue the U truly significant is its moral courage. In a culture where faculty often fear retaliation for speaking out, this piece breaks the silence through allegory. It invites public engagement in what is too often treated as an internal, untouchable affair.

How the epic satire portrays "Lady Justice,"
a high-priced whore up for sale to the highest bidder

By framing institutional failure as mythic comedy, the author creates distance—enough to laugh, but not enough to look away. The result is a kind of poetic whistleblowing, wielding metaphor instead of lawsuits.

Why It Matters

As academia grapples with crises of integrity, funding, and public trust, Trying to Sue the U feels less like parody and more like prophecy. It reminds us that art can still serve as conscience, that laughter can be resistance, and that even in satire, truth can find its voice.

Behind the humor is a simple demand: fairness, transparency, and the right to speak truth to power without fear.

The satire ends on a happy note, as the Brave Little Lecture refuses to play the
game that has been rigged by the corrupt system, follows his own path, and triumphs over injustice.

And perhaps that’s why the Brave Little Lecturer endures—not as a caricature, but as a symbol of every educator who refuses to give up on the ideal that universities once promised to uphold: that knowledge should serve the public good, not just the powerful few.

In the end, “Trying to Sue the U” may perhaps be fiction (or not?) — but its message is anything but.

What does a Christian Economy look like? New Encyclical points the way.

The following encyclical on the timeless principles of a Christian economy in the world was promulgated by H.A.H. Prince-Bishop Rutherford (Radislav) I of Rome-Ruthenia

 

RADISLAV PP. I

Encyclical: Toward a Christian Economy

4 May 2025

“And they had all things in common... and no one said that any of the things he possessed was his own.” — Acts 4:32

“Give me neither poverty nor riches… lest I be full and deny Thee.” — Proverbs 30:8-9

1. Toward a Christian Economy: The Orthodox Principle of Just Stewardship

The United Roman-Ruthenian Church affirms that the economy is not merely a mechanism of production and consumption, but a field of moral action and spiritual consequence. Economic structures, like all social arrangements, must be judged by whether they uphold the dignity of the human person, serve the common good, and reflect the justice and mercy of God.

The Church rejects both the materialist individualism of unrestrained consumer capitalism and the dehumanizing collectivism of state technocracies, socialism, and communism. These two categories of systems, though in ideological opposition, share a common root in secularism and a disordered view of the human person — either as a mere producer and consumer, or as a cog in an impersonal bureaucratic machine.

2. The Orthodox of Distributism: A Path of Shared Stewardship

Following the wisdom of the Holy Fathers, Orthodox and Catholic practice, and the witness of the early Christian community, we advocate for an Orthodox Distributist Model — an economy in which the means of production (e.g., land, tools, crafts, small businesses) are widely and justly distributed, not concentrated in the hands of the few (whether oligarchs or state planners). This vision:

· Affirms private property as a natural good, when exercised with responsibility and service to others;

· Encourages family and local enterprise, agrarian and artisanal production, and cooperatives;

· Condemns exploitative debt, usury, and monopolistic control, which enslave persons and communities;

· Calls for subsidiarity, wherein decisions and resources remain at the most local and humane level possible;

· Exalts labor, not as a commodity, but as a sacred participation in God’s creative work;

· Demands just wages, not merely for survival, but for a life of dignity and spiritual flourishing;

· Upholds hospitality and almsgiving, not as charity alone, but as justice owed to the poor and stranger.

     This model does not idolize the market nor submit to central planning, but seeks an integrated economy of persons and communities, grounded in the ecclesial vision of communion and stewardship. It recognizes legitimate roles for markets and for governance — so long as both are accountable to moral truth and oriented toward human and spiritual good.

3. On Trade and the Bonds of Neighborly Exchange

Orthodox Old Catholic economic teaching, rooted in the commandment to love one’s neighbor, affirms that international trade is not merely economic but moral. It is a form of extended community between peoples, for we are all joined in Christ, even across ever-fluid political borders.

Healthy trade builds mutual respect, peace, and interdependence rightly ordered. While the Church recognizes that modest tariffs and trade policies may serve as tools of negotiation or protection in rare and specific circumstances, they must never become instruments of vengeance, isolation, nativism, or nationalistic pride. Blanket or erratic tariff regimes harm both producers and consumers, distort the natural bonds of mutual provision, and often punish the poor. Rather than economic warfare, we advocate for ethical and cooperative trade, fair pricing, and solidarity with nations striving to develop their own local economies in dignity and peace. As St. John Chrysostom teaches, “The rich exist for the sake of the poor, and the poor for the salvation of the rich.” So, therefore, must nations relate to one another with humility and justice.

4. Against the Polarization of Economic Discourse

Orthodox Old Catholic social witness calls us away from the false idols of political extremism, whether from the populist right or the technocratic left. The economic life of a nation must not become a battleground for ideological absolutism, but a field of discernment, stewardship, and charity. When political factions weaponize the economy, reducing complex human realities to slogans, tariffs, or central planning, they obscure the deeper truths of justice, community, and personal dignity. The Orthodox vision, grounded in the Incarnation and the life of the Church, calls for economic discourse rooted not in party allegiance, but in the Gospel’s demand for mercy, truth, and the well-being of all, especially the poor and the vulnerable.

5. A Moral Alternative for a Fractured World

In the face of increasing global inequality, ecological degradation, and spiritual alienation, we call upon the Christian faithful around the world, and upon parishes and institutions to:

· Support and invest in local economies, especially Orthodox farmers, tradespeople, and artisans;

· Develop credit unions and cooperative ventures grounded in Christian ethics;

· Advocate for policies that decentralize economic power and property, protect workers, and restore appropriate rest;

· Resist both the idolatry of wealth and the false salvation of state technocracy and socialism.

Our Lord taught us not to store up treasures on earth, but to seek first the Kingdom of God. Yet it is precisely in our daily economic choices — how we work, trade, save, and share — that this Kingdom begins to be made manifest.

Indeed, in Christian tradition, the Righteous Joseph the Betrothed is honored as the humble guardian of the Bogomater and the earthly protector of our Lord Jesus Christ. As a carpenter by trade, he exemplifies the sanctification of daily labor when offered in faith and obedience to God. His life reminds us that honest work, however simple or hidden, can become a means of grace and service when carried out in love, humility, and devotion. Through St. Joseph’s quiet diligence and unwavering care, he fulfilled his vocation with integrity, embodying the dignity of human labor in harmony with God’s providence. Thus Christians may rightly look to the Righteous Joseph as a patron and intercessor for all who work with their hands, provide for their families, and seek to live faithfully in the midst of their vocations.

May Saint Joseph the Righteous, the Holy Wonderworkers and Unmercenaries Cosmas and Damian, and Saint Basil the Great intercede for us, that we may build an economy not of greed or control, but of mercy, order, and truth.

Радислав Пп. I

United Nations Global Health Proposal Endorsed by United Roman-Ruthenian Church

By J. DuBois 

Rome-Ruthenia 12 September 2024 (NRom)

The Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia, as chief of the United Roman-Ruthenian Church and Pontifical Imperial State, endorsed the following United Nations proposal to call for international cooperation and effort to improve global health. This endorsement serves as a powerful reminder that health transcends borders and cultures, and that collective action is the key to tackling the myriad health issues facing our world today.

The world is no stranger to health crises. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the persistent threat of diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS, we are reminded all too often that health is a global concern. The Prince-Bishop’s support for the UN proposal highlights a crucial truth: health is not merely a matter of individual nations but a shared responsibility that requires collaboration on a grand scale.

The Church's role in this initiative reflects the moral and ethical obligation that religious leaders hold in advocating for the well-being of humanity. The United Roman-Ruthenian Church stands as a symbol of hope and compassion. By endorsing this UN proposal, the Church underscores its dedication to not only spiritual matters but also the pressing health needs of humanity.

Also, the endorsement comes at a time when the importance of faith-based organizations in public health is increasingly recognized. These organizations often have deep ties to the communities they serve, enabling them to address health disparities more effectively than many traditional governmental or non-governmental entities. The support of the UN initiative signals an acknowledgment of this potential, urging collaboration between faith-based organizations and public health systems to create a more robust response to global health challenges.

The proposal itself is a call for action for nations to come together in solidarity. It emphasizes the need for increased funding for health initiatives, the sharing of knowledge and resources, and the establishment of equitable healthcare systems. Such measures are not merely aspirational; they are necessary to ensure that every person, regardless of their geographical location, has access to the healthcare they need.

The endorsement also sends a message to political leaders around the world: health should not be a partisan issue. The challenges we face are too significant to be overshadowed by political divides. The initiative serves as a reminder that leadership in health must be unified, transcending nationalistic tendencies to foster a sense of global community. In a world where we often feel divided, this message is one of hope and unity. Indeed, it is imperative that the international community takes this endorsement seriously. The global health landscape is in dire need of innovative solutions and collaborative efforts. The Prince-Bishop’s voice adds an important moral dimension to this discussion, reminding us that health is a universal right, not a privilege.

__________________________________
Complete proposal text: 

Summit of the Future

Ensuring the primacy of human rights and effective accountability to

achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

United Nations Headquarters, New York

Sept 22-23, 2024

We the undersigned civil society organizations and experts call on world leaders to redouble efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals in the service of people and planet. The Pact for the Future negotiations recognize the need for more work, but reveal little concrete plans to make meaningful achievements.

Full and equitable realization of all human rights can be measured by equitable optimization of healthy life expectancy, which now ranges from national averages of 44 years to 74 years and typically varies domestically, reflecting internal social inequality. Deprivation, poor health and premature death obstruct the enjoyment of material and dignitary human rights and stoke tensions leading to armed conflict. While some improvements in sustainable development have been evident, some indicators have worsened. Conflict, climate change, and COVID-19 have impeded progress, but episodic setbacks pale by comparison to stark, inequitably felt, persisting harms.

Consider the following in future national actions to fully realize the Goals in the remaining six years:

1. Ensure the primacy of the actionable right to health, food, water, shelter, other fundamental human rights, and the collective right development. Of approximately 60 million deaths annually, half are attributable to entirely preventable causes, largely due to poorly regulated commercial products and services and inadequate critical water infrastructure. Prevention is more affordable and humane, but is less immediately politically gratifying and prone to resistance from commercially vested interests. If the right to health (Action 31) had prevailed over the pharmaceutical companies’ contractual and trade-treaty-protected intellectual property rights (Action 32), millions of COVID-19 deaths might have been prevented. COVID-19 led to nearly as many excess deaths per year (7.5 million) from 2020 to 2022 as World War II (10 million). WHO, Harvard School of Public Health, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and Lancet commission experts estimate:

malnutrition in all its forms causes 11 million deaths per year and nearly half of deaths of children under age 5,

tobacco causes 8 million deaths/years,

air pollution from burning fossil fuels causes 8 million deaths/year,

inadequate water supply, sanitation, and hygiene causes 3.5 million deaths/year,

alcohol causes 2.6 million deaths/year,

toxic chemicals and pesticides cause 2 million deaths/year,

suboptimal breastfeeding driven by promotion of breastmilk substitutes causes 823,000 deaths/year.

Six years have passed since the UN Human Rights Council mandated a working group to elevate the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development to the status of a treaty. Ten years have passed since the Council mandated another working group to negotiate a treaty to help ensure that transnational and other businesses respect human rights and at least three more years of negotiations are anticipated. Justiciable, meaningfully enforced rights are foundations of the rule of law. Prioritizing human rights and restoring solidarity in acute and persistent crises commands swift responses. “Progressive” realization of rights cannot come to mean “weak” or “never.”




The UN Secretary General’s Group of Independent Scientists’ 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report concluded that the world is “far off track…Without urgent course correction and acceleration, humanity will face prolonged periods of crisis and uncertainty – triggered by and reinforcing poverty, inequality, hunger, disease, conflict and disaster.” Its 2024 report stated that, still: “On average, only 16 percent of the SDG targets are on track to be met globally by 2030, with the remaining 84 percent showing limited progress or a reversal of progress.”




A rights-based approach requires that legal and regulatory measures needed to achieve SDG should be included among targets and indicators.




2. Adopt a Code-of-Conduct for engaging with civil society as urged by 420 mainly ECOSOC-accredited NGOs calling for conflict-of-interest safeguards, ensuring access to information, a UN lobbying registry, and access to so many UN negotiations secreted from public view. NGOs need more tools to ensure that UN and government institutions are accountable for SDG promises they make in New York and capitals based on the best available evidence. See: http://tinyurl.com/UNConduct These important elements of access to justice are already implemented by many governments, nationally.

3. Specifically mandate relatable consumer warning labels about the SDG impact of commercially traded products and services, especially food, alcohol, tobacco, fossil fuels and the machines they power, the true costs of which equate to half of the global commercial economy (Actions 10, 53 and 54). Of the US$101 trillion global economy, people spend:

$10 trillion on food, including breastmilk substitutes,

$1 trillion on tobacco,

$1 trillion on fossil fuels,

$1.5 trillion on gas/diesel passenger cars, and

more on furnaces, cooking equipment, and other machines powered by fossil fuels.

The harms caused by many of these products more than doubles their market cost to equivalent to half of the global commercial economy, with most of the burden borne by the public sector, including harm to human health, reduced productivity of all industries, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, and the largely uncalculated ravages child labour and unlivable wages. For instance:

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that global food systems imposed $12.7 trillion (in 2020 Purchasing Power Parity dollars) in externalized costs, due mainly to poor diet and greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant animals, especially cattle.

The International Monetary Fund estimates that the $7 trillion in “explicit” and “implicit subsidies” for fossil fuels (e.g., responding to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) is seven-fold higher than market prices.

The WHO estimates the economic costs of tobacco to be US$1.4 trillion.

Experts estimate the costs of alcohol to the drinker and society at approximately US$2.6 trillion.

Consumer product and service labelling should reflect companies’ general legal duty to warn and could help shift purchases toward sustainable options. Measuring and reporting such information in meaningful ways at the point-of-sale should help populations better steer markets toward the SDGs. Likewise, national economic performance should be measured using true cost accounting (Action 54).

We cannot indulge years of private sector resistance, casting doubt on research, quibbling over warning language, or offering to tell the good news, but not the bad news. Much is already known by independent experts about the adverse impact of these products, but it is generally not communicated to consumers and is disputed by louder, misleading messages perpetuated by seller-designed halos. Consumption patterns must change before it is too late to cool the planet without catastrophic consequences and before human ill-health fetters development and squanders public social protection resources, human rights, and workforce productivity more than it already has.

4. Action item 4 (para 20(c)) urges raising Official Development Assistance to 0.7% of Gross National Income, revives a 1969 recommendation of former Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson’s United Nations Commission proposal.

That Commission’s goal would have been almost within reach for OECD countries if it had been pursued a decade earlier when Official Development Assistance was nearly 0.6% of Gross National Income in OECD countries. Instead, it fell by nearly half and remains so low 55 years later, even lower than the notoriously austere Reagan/Thatcher administrations in the United States and United Kingdom and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many high-income countries nearly doubled their national budgets to protect their own citizens, but Official Development Assistance rose only from 0.30% of total OECD GNI in 2019 to 0.37% in 2023, an average rise of US$0.02/capita/day for people living outside high-income countries:




Without meaningful increases in Official Development Assistance and significant debt forgiveness—a legacy of insufficient ODA—realizing the development potential of lower-income countries will be suppressed.

5. Financially support civil society SDG advocacy for on-going and formal annual evaluation and accountability for SDG progress, appointed at arm’s length with security of tenure until 2030. Governments and UN institutions should promote more frequent, independently funded fact-checkers from tenured academics and civil society organizations to report to Parliaments on national and global SDG progress. Reports should be ongoing and formalized at least annually. Waiting for mid-term reviews in 15-year missions to tackle existential crises of our time indulges procrastination and dampens accountability. Truly independent advocacy organizations are often starved for funds and lose their impartiality if they turn to discretionary grants from the private sector or governments that they are duty-bound to hold to account. Governments should commit to provide funding to support the work of a number of independent experts in proportion to their population (e.g., one expert per million population), appointed as officers of Parliament, appointed by courts, or funded by other arm’s length transparent means to enjoy security of tenure until 2030 and selected for demonstrated expertise in the 17 applicable SDGs.

Patriarchal Letter of Rutherford I to the Christian Faithful in the United States of America

from His Apostolic Highness Rutherford I
Prince-Bishop of Rome-Ruthenia

On the Feast of the Holy Mother of God of Kazan

21 July 2024

Dearly beloved sons and daughters in Christ,

As the United States finds itself in the midst of a contentious and divisive election season, I am compelled to address you, the Christian faithful of the United States, with a message of unity, compassion, and steadfast commitment to the teachings of our Lord.

In these turbulent times, when the world is watching the American election with bated breath, it is of the utmost importance that we, no matter where we are in the world, as followers of Christ, define ourselves not by the political affiliations or ideologies that so often seek to divide us, but by the unifying principles of our faith. To say that all people of another political party are evil or against Christ is a grave sin, for it paints with the same broad brush those who may simply have differing perspectives on the complex issues facing society today. Such rhetoric is not only un-Christian, but it also serves to further entrench the divisiveness that has gripped the United States and the world.

Dearly beloved in Christ, we must resist the temptation to make politics our church and a political party our religion, for to do so is to betray the very essence of our faith. Our faith calls us to love our neighbour as ourselves, to seek unity in the midst of conflict, and to see the image of God in all people, regardless of their political leanings.

As Christians, our primary allegiance must be to the Kingdom of God, not to any earthly kingdom or political party. We are called to be a beacon of hope, a voice of reason, and a force for reconciliation in a world that so often seems intent on tearing itself apart. I urge you, dearly beloved in Christ, to resist the siren call of partisan politics and to instead focus your energy and passion on the timeless truths of the Gospel. Let us be known not for our political affiliations, but for our unwavering commitment to the values of love, justice, mercy, and peace that our Lord himself embodied and proclaimed.

In this pivotal moment, when the future of American governance hangs in the balance, let us rise above the fray of partisan bickering and demonstrate to the world the transformative power of a faith that transcends the boundaries of political ideology. Let us be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, shining the radiant love of Christ into the darkest corners of our society. Let us be the peacemakers, the bridge-builders, and the reconcilers, that the brotherhood of nations might be healed and restored.

Dearly beloved in Christ, I call upon you to join me in this sacred mission, to be the change we wish to see in the world, and to be the living embodiment of the Kingdom of God, even in the midst of the chaos and turmoil that surrounds us. May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

Papa-Catholicos gives sermon on capitalism, communism, loss of values in society

By Jean DuBois

FIRENZE-NUOVA ROMA 12 November 2022 (NRom)

His Holiness Rutherford I, Papa-Catholicos of Rome-Ruthenia gave a sermon today on the situation in the world. In it Papa Rutherford said that it is not capitalism, but the Christian faith that is the solution to threats of communism and socialism. The Papa-Catholicos also discussed the rise of individualism and loss of Christian values in Western society. The audio record and complete text of the sermon are below.

TRANSCRIPT:

"Some say that capitalism is the solution to fighting communism and socialism. This, however, likewise leads to a treacherous path. Capitalism in its Christian form is often called distributism, in which there is a free market economy, but the means of production are spread as widely as possible instead of concentrated, and market forces and profit are not the only defining factors. In Christian commerce, individual benefit must be balanced against societal benefit and the impact of one's own actions on others.

Modern society continues to find ever-expanding ways to express its inherent selfishness and decline of values. Efforts in the world to destroy traditional society with its culture and values are aimed at the sole purpose of separating individuals from their faith. In that way they can more easily be manipulated by secular government and ultra-capitalist industry, for the people therefore come to lack the moral compass and the anchor that comes from our faith and our heritage.

What we see in particularly the Western world today is a complete abdication of the responsibilities that are inherent to us as human beings. It is the faith and our heritage that teach us that responsibility, so this outcome is no surprise.

There are those in the world who still espouse, feel, live, and promote their faith and traditional Christian heritage, however. There are those who risk all and fight for faith and justice. It is such people and such societies that should serve as an example to those who have lost their faith and should furthermore serve as beacons of hope and encouragement to those Christians around the world who find themselves in the minority, trying to scream the message of Christ into the hurricane of modern Satanic secularism. We know that hurricanes do not last forever, though, and so we must continue to remain strong and fight for the faith. Indeed, our faith tells us that the victory shall be ours in the end!"