Republican Virginia State Sen. Glen Sturtevant meets with students in his office at the General Assembly Building in Richmond during Virginia Pro-Life Day Jan. 15, 2026. (OSV News photo/Claire Bebermeyer, Diocese of Richmond)
RICHMOND, Va. (OSV News) — The Virginia General Assembly has sent a sweeping amendment enshrining a “fundamental right” to abortion in the Constitution of Virginia to a statewide referendum on the November ballot.
If the voters approve the amendment, it will establish virtually unlimited abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a “fundamental right” in Virginia’s constitution.
Virginia Pro-Life Day
The amendment passed the General Assembly Jan. 16 despite the best efforts of the bishops and more than 600 pro-life advocates who met with legislators a day earlier, on Virginia Pro-Life Day.
Two proposed changes to the amendment were voted down: first, a proposal to keep the current parental consent law enforceable; second, a “born-alive” protection that would guarantee the right to medical care for a child born despite an attempted abortion.
The parental consent law currently upholds parental rights in decision-making for minors under 18 on a variety of issues, including abortion, though there is a judicial override on abortion.
‘Shocking to the conscience’
Richmond Bishop Barry C. Knestout joined Arlington Bishop Michael F. Burbidge in calling the amendment “radical,” “extreme” and “shocking to the conscience” in a Jan. 16 statement.
“We will be deeply engaged in the work of helping to educate voters on these proposed amendments, and we will fight the extreme abortion amendment with maximum determination,” said the bishops.
The state Legislature first approved the proposed amendment in early 2025, but by Virginia law, the proposal must pass in two consecutive state legislatures. The House of Delegates approved the 2026 version of the amendment Jan. 14.
‘Will be most extreme in nation’
“It will be the most extreme abortion amendment in the nation. This prevents the state from regulating abortion in any way, shape or form, all the way down to inspecting clinics for basic safety standards,” said state Sen. Glen Sturtevant, a Republican, who belongs to St. Edward the Confessor Parish in Richmond.
The amendment goes far beyond even what Roe v. Wade previously allowed and provides no protections whatsoever for preborn children. It does not include any age restriction or safety standards. Besides severely jeopardizing the parental consent law, it will also impact conscience protections for health care providers.
“This amendment was drafted by very smart lawyers to look innocuous and friendly, so that people will say, ‘Oh, that’s nice. Reproductive freedom — who could be against that?'” said Sturtevant. “In practice, this amendment is going to allow a human trafficker, or an adult that gets a minor pregnant, to bring that young person to this state for an abortion. This amendment would protect that person from prosecution.”
Continuation ✠ of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew
℟. Glory be to Thee, O Lord. Matt 5:43-48; 6:1-4 At that time, Jesus said to His disciples, You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and shall hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, Who makes His sun to rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those that love you, what reward shall you have? Do not even the publicans do that? And if you salute your brethren only, what are you doing more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do that? You therefore are to be perfect, even as you heavenly Father is perfect. Take heed not to do your good before men, in order to be seen by them; otherwise you shall have no reward with your Father in heaven. Therefore when you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and streets, in order that they may be honored by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be given in secret; and your Father, Who sees in secret, will reward you.
BREAKING: 1st Detransitioner to Take a Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit to Trial Wins $2 Million Judgement
Fox Varian sued her Westchester, NY, area psychologist and plastic surgeon for the gender-transition mastectomy she got at 16.
I was the only reporter to attend the entire 3-week, historic trial. Subscribe to my Substack to receive an alert about the feature article I have coming out next week in a major publication out about the trial: benryan.substack.com. I cover pediatric gender medicine as a specialty on my Substack.
Sorry to just give just a teaser for now about the case! But I wanted to get the word out about the verdict promptly, the slower pace of feature-article publishing notwithstanding.
The entire case file was put under seal when the trial started (although I obtained all those documents before they was sealed), and all the transcripts from the trial are also under seal. The riveting trial was sparsely attended and there was only one other reporter at the trial; and he only attended for part of it and, as I observed, took few notes. So my own hundreds of pages of notes from the trial will likely remain the only way for the public to learn about the all finer details of what transpired, possibly ever (or until an appeal, should that happen).
In addition to my article coming out in the media outlet soon, I intend to write a lot about what I observed and learned on my Substack over the coming weeks. Stay tuned…
Just discovered this morning while hunting for another title. Too late for me as I already purchased this one at the regular price. Sharing with readers to avail them of the savings. Available now for the low, low price of $19.95. A goodly discount.
First of all, I thank you for receiving me on 12 February, and for making public the content of our meeting, which promotes perfect transparency in communication.
I can only welcome the opening of a doctrinal discussion, as signalled today by the Holy See, for the simple reason that I myself proposed it exactly seven years ago, in a letter dated 17 January 2019.1 At that time, the Dicastery did not truly express interest in such a discussion, on the grounds—presented orally—that a doctrinal agreement between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X was impossible.
For the Society’s part, a doctrinal discussion has always been—and remains—desirable and useful. Indeed, even if we do not reach an agreement, fraternal exchanges allow us to better know one another, to refine and deepen our own arguments, and to better understand the spirit and intentions behind our interlocutor’s positions—especially their genuine love for the Truth, for souls, and for the Church.
This holds true, at all times, for both parties.
This was precisely my intention in 2019, when I suggested a discussion during a calm and peaceful time, without the pressure or threat of possible excommunication, which would have undermined free dialogue—as is, unfortunately, the situation today.
That said, while I certainly rejoice at a new opening of dialogue and the positive response to my proposal of 2019, I cannot accept the perspective and objectives in the name of which the Dicastery offers to resume dialogue in the present situation, nor indeed the postponement of the date of 1 July.
I respectfully present to you the reasons for this, to which I will add some supplementary considerations.
1. We both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council. This disagreement, for the Society’s part, does not stem from a mere difference of opinion, but from a genuine case of conscience, arising from what has proven to be a rupture with the Tradition of the Church. This complex knot has unfortunately become even more inextricable with the doctrinal and pastoral developments of recent pontificates.
I therefore do not see how a joint process of dialogue could end in determining together what would constitute “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, since—as you yourself have recalled with frankness—the texts of the Council cannot be corrected, nor can the legitimacy of the liturgical reform be challenged.
2. This dialogue is supposed to clarify the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council. But this interpretation is already clearly given in the post-Conciliar period and in the successive documents of the Holy See. The Second Vatican Council is not a set of texts open to free interpretation: It has been received, developed, and applied for sixty years by successive popes, according to precise doctrinal and pastoral orientations.
This official reading is expressed, for example, in major texts such as Redemptor hominis, Ut unum sint, Evangelii gaudium, or Amoris lætitia. It is also evident in the liturgical reform, understood in the light of the principles reaffirmed in Traditionis custodes. All these documents show that the doctrinal and pastoral framework within which the Holy See intends to situate any discussion has already been firmly established.
3. One cannot ignore the context of the dialogue proposed today. We have been waiting for seven years for a favourable response to the proposal of doctrinal discussion made in 2019. More recently, we have written twice to the Holy Father: first to request an audience, then to clearly and respectfully explain our needs and the real-life situation of the Society.
Yet, after a long silence, it is only when episcopal consecrations are mentioned that an offer to resume dialogue is made, which thus seems dilatory and conditional. Indeed, the hand extended to open the dialogue is unfortunately accompanied by another hand already poised to impose sanctions. There is talk of breaking communion, of schism,2 and of “serious consequences”. Moreover, this threat is now public, creating pressure that is hardly compatible with a genuine desire for fraternal exchanges and constructive dialogue.
4. Furthermore, to us it does not seem possible to enter into a dialogue to define what the minimum requirements for ecclesial communion might be, simply because this task does not belong to us. Throughout the centuries, the criteria for belonging to the Church have been established and defined by the Magisterium. What must be believed in order to be Catholic has always been taught with authority, in constant fidelity to Tradition.
Thus, we do not see how these criteria could be the subject of joint discernment through dialogue, nor how they could be re-evaluated today so as not to correspond to what the Tradition of the Church has always taught—and which we desire to observe faithfully in our place.
5. Finally, if a dialogue is envisaged with the aim of producing a doctrinal statement that the Society could accept regarding the Second Vatican Council, we cannot ignore the historical precedents of efforts made in this direction. I draw your attention to the most recent: the Holy See and the Society had a long course of dialogue, beginning in 2009, particularly intense for two years, then pursued more sporadically until 6 June 2017. Throughout these years, we sought to achieve what the Dicastery now proposes.
Yet, everything ultimately ended in a drastic manner, with the unilateral decision of Cardinal Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who, in June 2017, solemnly established, in his own way, “the minimum requirements for full communion with the Catholic Church”, explicitly including the entire Council and the post-Conciliar period.3 This shows that, if one persists in a doctrinal dialogue that is too forced and lacks sufficient serenity, in the long term, instead of achieving a satisfactory result, one only worsens the situation.
Thus, in the shared recognition that we cannot find agreement on doctrine, it seems to me that the only point on which we can agree is that of charity toward souls and toward the Church.
As a cardinal and bishop, you are above all a pastor: allow me to address you in this capacity. The Society is an objective reality: it exists. That is why, over the years, the Sovereign Pontiffs have taken note of this existence and, through concrete and significant acts, have recognised the value of the good it can accomplish, despite its canonical situation. That is also why we are speaking today.
This same Society asks you only to be allowed to continue to do this same good for the souls to whom it administers the holy Sacraments. It asks nothing else of you—no privileges, nor even canonical regularisation, which, in the current state of affairs, is impracticable due to doctrinal divergences. The Society cannot abandon souls. The need for the sacraments is a concrete, short-term need for the survival of Tradition, in service to the Holy Catholic Church.
We can agree on one point: neither of us wishes to reopen wounds. I will not repeat here all that we have already expressed in the letter addressed to Pope Leo XIV, of which you have direct knowledge. I only emphasise that, in the present situation, the only truly viable path is that of charity.
Over the last decade, Pope Francis and yourself have abundantly advocated “listening” and understanding of non-standard, complex, exceptional, and particular situations. You have also wished for a use of law that is always pastoral, flexible, and reasonable, without pretending to resolve everything through legal automatism and pre-established frameworks. At this moment, the Society asks of you nothing more than this—and above all it does not ask it for itself: it asks it for these souls, for whom, as already promised to the Holy Father, it has no other intention than to make true children of the Roman Church.
Finally, there is another point on which we also agree, and which should encourage us: the time separating us from 1 July is one of prayer. It is a moment when we implore from Heaven a special grace and, from the Holy See, understanding. I pray for you in particular to the Holy Ghost and—do not take this as a provocation—His Most Holy Spouse, the Mediatrix of all Graces.
I wish to thank you sincerely for the attention you have given me, and for the interest you will kindly take in the present matter.
Please accept, Most Reverend Eminence, the expression of my most sincere greetings and of my devotion in the Lord.
Davide Pagliarani, Superior General
+ Alfonso de Galarreta, First Assistant General
Christian Bouchacourt, Second Assistant General
+ Bernard Fellay, First Counsellor General, Former Superior General
Franz Schmidberger, Second Counsellor General, Former Superior General
“A leading cardinal and former secretary of the Roman Curia has spoken to theCatholic Heraldabout the state of the Church, the role of the papacy, and how Catholics should approach authority.
“Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, described the veneration of the private and political opinions of the late Pope Francis as a “heresy” and said that criticising it was his “duty”. The German prelate insisted that Catholics should not fall into a heretical leaning spiritual posture known as “ultramontanism”, which exaggerates the role and doctrines surrounding the papacy, and said they should remain conscious of the historical context in which such attitudes emerged in the 19th century.”
Card. Burke: "Prophétis meis"
-
Non relíquit hóminem nocére eis: et corrípuit pro eis reges.
Nolíte tángere christos meos: et in prophétis meis nolíte malignári.
-- Sanctae Mariae in Sabbat...
Sabbato post Cineres ~ Feria major
-
*Introitus*
*Ps 29:11.*
*A*udívit Dóminus, et misértus est mihi: Dóminus factus est adjútor meus.
*Ps 29:2*
Exaltábo te, Dómine, quóniam suscepísti me: ne...
