"Act of Reparation" by Bishop Schneider - Prayer, Protest and Political Sacralisation

 

Prologue: The Controversy in Rome

In early September 2025, an event in Rome sparked significant controversy among Catholics worldwide. The incident occurred during the Jubilee Year, a time traditionally marked by pilgrimage, penitence, and spiritual renewal. A group of activist Catholic LGBTQ+ organisations participated in a public demonstration calling for greater inclusion within the Church. 

The group entered several significant religious sites, including the Church of the Gesù and St. Peter's Basilica, carrying rainbow-coloured crosses. some were wearing T-shirts that bore slogans considered profane and irreverent. According to reports and photographs circulated online, one shirt read "F*uk the Rules."

Participants described their action as a "pilgrimage of inclusion," passing through the Holy Door to affirm that LGBTQ+ Catholics, too, sought mercy during the Jubilee. Organisers of the groups insisted their act was devotional, not defiant, a public appeal for pastoral recognition and the blessing of same-sex couples in light of discussions within the Church.

For many, this appeared as a deliberate provocation. The use of sacred symbols alongside slogans of defiance, particularly the act of processing through the Holy Door, was seen as blasphemous or sacrilegious by those who viewed it as an attempt to politicise an act of repentance and divine worship. Traditional Catholic commentators characterised it as an "abomination in the sanctuary," citing the Catechism's teaching that sacrilege consists in "profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God" (CCC 2120). h

The Vatican did not issue an official condemnation. While local clergy permitted the group to enter St. Peter's as part of the Jubilee pilgrimage route, no formal endorsement or coordination appears to have been granted beyond ordinary security and access permissions. This ambiguity, perceived by some as tacit approval, became a flashpoint for criticism among traditionalist Catholics, who accused Church authorities of moral complicity through silence.

The subsequent media coverage deepened the divide. Progressive Catholic outlets highlighted the pilgrims' plea for inclusion and their emphasis on mercy; conservative platforms denounced what they saw as a desecration of the most sacred spaces in Christendom. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, announced his intention to make reparation for a "sacrilegious offence against the holiness of God's house."

The Act of Reparation, performed publicly at the Catholic Identity Conference in Pittsburgh on October 4, 2025, drew on traditional prayers of reparation but expanded them into a comprehensive denunciation not only of the demonstrators but of those within the Church who, in their view, sought to "legitimise sodomy, fornication, and other sins against the Sixth Commandment." The prayer transformed a localised act of protest in Rome into a global symbol of moral and ecclesial crisis. 

The incident thus became more than a dispute over decorum or discipline. It crystallised deeper tensions in the Church's life between mercy and moral clarity, inclusion and orthodoxy, hierarchy and prophecy. The "sacrilege" in question, whether viewed as an act of devotion distorted by the imprudence of a few or a deliberate desecration of sacred space, revealed fault lines in how different Catholics understand the relationship between the Church's holiness and the sins of her members.

The events in Rome set the stage for the Act of Reparation in Pittsburgh. What began as a response to a specific event became a symbol of a broader struggle over Catholic identity, morality, and authority. It is within this charged atmosphere, where devotion, doctrine, and dissent intersect, that the 2025 Act of Reparation must be understood and critically assessed.

Introduction

On October 4, 2025, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, joined by Bishops Marian Eleganti, Robert Mutsaerts, and Joseph Strickland, led an Act of Reparation in Pittsburgh in response to what they described as a sacrilegious demonstration in Rome. The bishops' prayer sought to offer satisfaction to God for this "abomination perpetrated in the Eternal City," calling for repentance, purification, and renewal within the Church.

From the standpoint of sacramental theology, the demonstration in Rome was objectively problematic. Whatever the subjective intentions of the participants, the presence of profane slogans in a sacred space, the instrumentalisation of the Holy Door for advocacy purposes, and the explicit goal of pressuring the Church toward doctrinal revision do constitute violations of the reverence owed to places consecrated to God. These concerns are real and deserve a separate theological analysis.

This essay focuses on a different question: whether the bishops' Act of Reparation, however justified its outrage, remained faithful to the tradition of reparation it invoked, or whether its tone, structure, and public performance transformed prayer into something else entirely.

No Catholic could fail to share their horror at any profanation of sacred places or mockery of divine law. Yet the tone, structure, and theological framing of this Act of Reparation invite closer examination. Beneath its fervent piety lies a complex mixture of genuine devotion, rhetorical excess, and political intent, revealing deeper tensions within the contemporary Church.

I. The Theological and Devotional Context

The Act of Reparation belongs to a venerable Catholic tradition: offering prayer and penance to atone for sins committed against God, especially those involving sacrilege or public scandal. Historically, such acts are commended by popes, from Leo XIII's Reparatory Prayer to the SacredHeart (1899)  to Pius XI's Miserentissimus Redemptor (1928). 

In this sense, the impulse behind Bishop Schneider's act - sorrow for desecration and a desire to console Christ - is consonant with Catholic spirituality.

However, the manner and tone of reparation also matter deeply. Pius XI insisted that true reparation must imitate Christ's "patience and humility" rather than His righteous anger Miserentissimus Redemptor, 9–11 When reparation becomes a vehicle of denunciation, it departs from the tenderness that defines authentic Catholic piety.

II. Theological Concerns

a. The Scope of Accusation

The prayer imputes grave moral culpability not only to those who allegedly committed sacrilegious acts but also to "the authorities of the Holy See" for their supposed "complicity." This moves beyond lamentation into formal denunciation, implying moral certainty about the intentions of others, a presumption foreign to Catholic tradition outside legitimate ecclesial processes. Such language risks undermining the Church's unity by casting suspicion on its leaders in the very act of praying for purification.

b. The Conflation of Moral Categories

While the denunciation of sexual immorality is doctrinally sound, the prayer's repetitive focus on "sodomy, fornication, and other sins against the Sixth Commandment" narrows the moral horizon of reparation. True acts of reparation encompass all offences against God, impiety, injustice, unbelief, and indifference, since all wounds to charity injure the Mystical Body of Christ. The disproportionate emphasis on sexual sins risks distorting this universality, inadvertently presenting the Church's crisis as moralised through one category alone.

c. The Implicit Ecclesiology

The prayer's appeal that the Church "shine again, Catholic, free, and chaste" implies that she has lost these qualities. The suggestion sits uneasily with the Church's indefectibility. The sins of her members can defile the Bride of Christ, but she remains holy in her essence (Lumen Gentium, 8). To imply otherwise risks confusing the holiness of the Church's nature with the moral state of her ministers.

III. Pastoral and Spiritual Concerns 

a. Tone of Denunciation

The prayer speaks about sinners more than for sinners. Phrases such as "blinded by error" and "enslaved by vice" convey condemnation rather than compassion. While scriptural precedent for such language exists, contemporary pastoral theology, especially since MisericordiaeVultus (2015) emphasises mercy as the first form of justice. The Act's rhetoric risks alienating those most in need of grace.

b. Absence of Shared Contrition

Traditional prayers of reparation, such as those of Fatima, begin with collective repentance: "We have offended You, O Lord." In Schneider's text, however, the pronouns shift decisively to they: "those who blaspheme," "they who offend." This rhetorical distancing fosters moral self-righteousness rather than solidarity in guilt, undermining the universal humility that should characterise Christian reparation.

c. Public Character and Performative Dimension

By being proclaimed publicly, naming Vatican authorities and describing "abominations," the act becomes less a prayer of contrition than a statement of protest. Public prayer, when framed as condemnation, takes on a political function. It risks transforming the language of devotion into the rhetoric of resistance, an inversion of the contemplative spirit that animates penance.

IV. The Rhetoric of Indignation

The prayer's form, a litany of accusation punctuated by "Lord, have mercy," creates a rhythm of outrage rather than contrition. Its scriptural references (Jude 4; 2 Tim. 3:5; Ps. 73) cast offenders as enemies in the sanctuary, risking the portrayal of internal sinners as external foes and undermining communion.

The cumulative effect is moral exhaustion: a prayer that leaves little space for hope or renewal. True reparation is rooted in the conviction that grace can transform even the gravest sin. Without this horizon of redemption, sorrow hardens into bitterness, and prayer into protest.

V. The Political Recasting of Reparation

While presented as devotional, the public performance of the Act at the Catholic Identity Conference, a gathering known for its criticism of Pope Francis and advocacy of traditionalist reform, gives it unmistakable political significance.

Public penitential acts have historically carried prophetic weight, as in the lives of Catherine of Siena or Francis of Assisi, yet their hallmark was obedience and self-accusation. They prayed for the Church, not against her. By contrast, a prayer performed to a politically unified audience functions more as a declaration of identity than as humble intercession. The gesture moves from the altar to the arena.

This blending of prayer and protest confuses two distinct modes of speech: “oratio,” which supplicates God in humility, and “prophetia,” which denounces human wrongdoing. In Scripture, prophetic denunciation flowed from personal sacrifice, not factional display, a distinction lost here. When these modes collapse into one another, the result is spectacle rather than sanctity.

VI. The Risk of Political Sacralisation

This conflation reflects a broader pattern within some currents of contemporary traditionalism. The sacralisation of dissent. Doctrinal and moral concerns become embedded in ritualised gestures that simultaneously express piety and political opposition. Devotion becomes a badge of faction rather than a sign of communion.

While such acts may inspire fervour, they risk subverting the unity they seek to defend. Liturgy and devotion belong to the whole Church; they lose integrity when turned into markers of ideological identity. To pray authentically is to open the heart to the conversion of all, not merely to vindicate one's own cause.

Conclusion: From Prayer to Protest

The 2025 Act of Reparation arose from genuine piety and moral concern for the desecration of the sacred. Its participants sought to console the Heart of Christ and defend the honour of His Church. Yet in tone and execution, it crossed an invisible line from prayer into protest, from sorrow into indignation, from communion into faction.

Doctrinally, it affirms Catholic moral teaching. Pastorally, it lacks the humility of collective repentance. Spiritually, it risks transforming the Cross's sorrow into an emblem of ideological defiance.

The Church indeed needs reparation, but reparation rooted in love, not outrage; in repentance shared, not guilt assigned. The wounds of Christ's Body are not healed by denunciation but by tears. When devotion becomes a language of division, it ceases to console the Heart of Jesus and begins instead to mirror the very scandal it seeks to repair.

In Summary: 

Key Failures of the 2025 Act of Reparation
The Pittsburgh Act of Reparation originated as a sincere effort to console Christ for alleged sacrilege, but it faltered in execution. Its main failures were theological, pastoral, and spiritual:

From Prayer to Protest:
What should have been a penitential act of love became a public denunciation. The bishops’ language and staging turned reparation into a political performance rather than an act of humble intercession.
Misuse of Tradition:
By referring to Vatican officials and attributing guilt, the act departed from the spirit of classical reparation, which laments sin within the Church, not against her. It mistook lament for accusation.
Narrow Moral Focus:
The repeated emphasis on sexual sins reduced the universality of sin and grace, presenting the Church’s wounds through a single moral lens rather than the whole horizon of human brokenness.
Ecclesiological Confusion:
Implying that the Church has lost her holiness undermines her indefectibility. The holiness of the Bride of Christ is not negated by the sins of her members.
Loss of Mercy’s Tone:
The prayer spoke about sinners, not for them. It lacked the tenderness that makes true reparation redemptive, substituting indignation for compassion.
Political Sacralisation:
Performed at a conference known for ideological opposition to the Vatican, the act blurred devotion with dissent, turning reparation into a badge of faction rather than a sign of communion.

In short, the Act defended truth but forgot charity. It invoked piety but performed protest. Instead of healing the Church’s wounds, it risked deepening division.