Not only were the two choices largely unexpected, but, ultimately, so were all [...]]]> By appointing Archbishop Vittorio Francesco Viola as Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica and Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle as Dean of the College of Cardinals, Leo XIV marked the transition to a new generation and, probably, a new era for the Church.

Not only were the two choices largely unexpected, but, ultimately, so were all the decisions Leo XIV has made thus far. These two appointments demonstrate that the problem isn’t simply interpreting the Pope with old categories. Rather, it’s believing those old categories still hold.

It is also interesting that these appointments came on the eve of a surprise announcement that the Pope will undergo surgery this week after a lump was found in his lung. The Pope seems to want to leave the house in good order, though this seems like an easy surgery, and Leo might be back in action as early as next week.

Ultimately, Leo XIV himself is a Pope of the new generation. Ordained in 1982, he did not experience the Second Vatican Council’s diatribes firsthand. He is a priest with a solid liturgy, yet born of the Council, and he has never celebrated or even had any inclination toward the ancient liturgy. Leo XIV is not a progressive Pope, as progressives have been defined in recent years. Nor is he a Third World Pope, despite his missionary experience. But obviously, this Pope’s friendships and inclinations are with a new, different generation, with different priorities, and completely outside the conciliar debate.

How do these two appointments by the Pope demonstrate this reading?

Let’s begin with the appointment of the new archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica, who is also the Pope’s Vicar for the Vatican City State. Vittorio Francesco Viola arrived as secretary of the Dicastery for Divine Worship with a reputation as a progressive priest and a supporter of Annibale Bugnini’s liturgical reform, which traditionalist circles strongly contested. He therefore represented the type of bishop Pope Francis could favor to silence those who wanted to continue celebrating with the Ancient Rite, that is, the one prior to Paul VI’s reform.

In short, Viola was considered instrumental in the reform of Pope Francis, who wanted to completely erase the ancient rite, and who, for this reason, had also replaced Cardinal Robert Sarah, who had retired, with Cardinal Arthur Roche, who had been the “arm” that had drawn up the Pope’s instructions against the traditional Mass.

But Viola isn’t just this. He’s also the kind of bishop Leo XIV came to appreciate. He’s considered harsh in his manner, and not easygoing with the personnel, but honest. Some call him ideological, but he’s straightforward nonetheless. Above all, he’s not visible, and in this, he mirrors the Pope’s other choices, such as that of Archbishop Iannone as his successor at the Dicastery of Bishops. Not only that, Viola doesn’t favor traditionalism, but he celebrates Mass rigorously, with an impeccable liturgy.

In all this, he also reflects Leo XIV’s thinking. In recent years, the Pope has signaled a relaxation toward those who wish to celebrate outside the ancient rite, not by “strengthening” Traditionis Custodes, which barred any liberalization of the old rite, but by agreeing to authorize usus antiquior celebrations. However, he never said the Church should return to traditionalist Mass, and he did not give in when the issue of tradition was used as a tool to introduce other themes into the Church. The firmness with which the Pope responded to the Lefebvrist when they decided to ordain bishops without a pontifical mandate clearly signals this.

But Viola’s pick for a promotion was also understandable,  since he was already being discussed as a cardinal, and many thought he would end up leading the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints.  In short, Viola’s appointment is surprising, given the rumors pointed in a different direction, but not entirely surprising, since he was a popular prospect anyway.

It remains to be seen whether Viola, a Minor Franciscan succeeding a Conventual Franciscan like Cardinal Gambetti, can restore order to the management of St. Peter’s Basilica. All things considered, however, it is a logical appointment.

The choice to appoint Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle as dean is also surprising. Pope Francis had wanted the dean of the College of Cardinals to no longer serve for life, but then refused to let the cardinals vote when Cardinal Giovan Battista Re completed his term and needed to be replaced, Francis confirmed Re in his position in January 2025, a few months before he died. It seemed almost certain that Cardinal Pietro Parolin would be chosen. Parolin, in the end, acted as a Dean during the conclave, as both the Dean Cardinal Re and the sub-dean, Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, were beyond 80. Cardinale Parolin was however the dean in the Conclave, since he was elevated to the rank of Cardinal Bishop in 2018, while Cardinal Tagle was given the rank of Cardinal bishop in 2020.

A little explanation is needed here. Cardinals are divided into ranks based on an ancient functional division: cardinal deacons, cardinal presbyters, and cardinal bishops. Cardinal bishops, the highest rank, used to number at most seven because they are linked to the ancient suburbicarian dioceses of Rome. In practice, they were cardinals who served as bishops and were distributed across seven dioceses connected to Rome. Each cardinal bishop takes a titular church, while the dean always gets the title of Ostia. However, the title is added to the titular Church.

Paul VI decided to also consider cardinals who were patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris as cardinal bishops.

Pope Francis expanded the college of cardinal bishops by including five other cardinal bishops who retained their titular see and were elevated to cardinal bishop ad personam. When a titular cardinal dies, the title of cardinal is no longer a cardinal bishop. Cardinal Parolin was one of the cardinals co-opted into the order of cardinal bishops.

Voting for Parolin under Pope Francis was natural, considering that Parolin was the balancing act in a difficult pontificate, and because he was the most ancient cardinal in the ranks of the bishops and not of retirement age. But today, with a new pontificate, the cardinals have looked to the traditional college of cardinal bishops, and, after all, Cardinal Tagle holds the title of Albano, one of the most important, inherited from Cardinal Prevost, now Leo XIV. In addition, Cardinal Tagle was created a cardinal before Cardinal Parolin, in 2012, at the last consistory held by Benedict XVI.

But Tagle’s choice, confirmed by Leo XIV, speaks volumes. At the helm of the College of Cardinals is a cardinal with no Curia career, who reached the pinnacle of his career elsewhere and comes from the other side of the world to lead the Dicastery for the Evangelization. Tagle’s profile, the first Asian cardinal appointed dean, is not that of an institutional cardinal, one who understands the institution’s rules, history, and structures, but rather that of an outsider, a cardinal who brings to Rome his experience of the mission and the Global South.

Ultimately, it reflects the 2025 conclave, where the Roman Curia’s presence was significantly reduced and English was, for the first time in history, the lingua franca. But it also reflects the profile of Leo XIV: a Pope attentive to the institution and its symbols—and, in this, typically Western and North American—but also a Pope of a new generation who values personal relationships and, in any case, looks beyond institutional history.

These two appointments ultimately mark the beginning of a new world. A world that certainly won’t return to tradition, but that won’t necessarily mean the dawn of progressivism.

The Pope is now called to fill other Curia positions, and it will be interesting to see how he proceeds. Meanwhile, however, generational change is underway, and people will likely interpret it not through the lens of ideas or ideology, nor as marking continuity or discontinuity. There will be continuity, because Leo XIV’s generation has held responsibility and strength since Pope Francis. There will be discontinuity, because Leo XIV will then have to decide what to focus on most and what his priorities will be. Only then will we see whether the Pope intervenes, lets things happen, and for how long.

For now, we can simply note that a new generation has begun. A new world will emerge, though it’s hard to say what it will be.

Gambetti became Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica in 2021 and has completed his five-year term. He could have been reappointed. He could have been assigned to another position in the Vatican, but he hasn’t.

That speech, which will be delivered on Sep. 28, has been honed down to the last detail, studied for months, and translated again for the last time the day [...]]]> Last June, when asked in a private meeting about Leo XIV’s expectations and ideas for Europe, the Pope replied: “Wait for my speech in Metz.”

That speech, which will be delivered on Sep. 28, has been honed down to the last detail, studied for months, and translated again for the last time the day before the trip.

The Metz speech is eagerly awaited, and it should be.

Leo XIV is visiting the home of the venerable Robert Schuman, the father of Europe, and above all the father of a vision of a Europe that is non-bureaucratic and non-bureaucratized.

Schuman, in fact, wanted to make “war impossible,” and he did so by bringing old enemies together and creating a network that would benefit everyone, so no one would have to seek a peace table after stirring up the winds of war.

At first, Europe was primarily an idea of a coal and steel exchange, but it gradually became a broader reality, built around many initiatives that even transcended the Iron Curtain.

The Second Vatican Council gave rise to the idea of a Council of European Episcopal Conferences, born from the intuition of then-Monsignor Roger Etchegaray, who, in a simple note, highlighted the many activities developing on the European continent.

Poland’s millennium celebrations led the Polish Episcopate to an extraordinary initiative: sending letters to all national episcopal conferences. And, in particular, the letter to the bishops of Germany, conceived by Cardinal Boleslaw Kominek, Archbishop of Wroclaw, has remained in history.

Poland had also been a site of the Holocaust, the German extermination plans that were horribly implemented in Auschwitz, precisely on Polish soil. Poland had been invaded by Germany, and Poland, fell into the Soviet sphere of influence after the war, sacrificed by the Europe it so loved.

The Polish bishops went beyond all that, and wrote to the German bishops, with a formula that has remained in the collective memory: “We forgive and ask for forgiveness.”

In short, a European world took root. Schuman’s vision found fertile ground in which to grow – and it did grow, despite the Iron Curtain. It even helped bring down the Berlin Wall, reviving the great dream of a Europe breathing with both lungs, East and the West, in the words of John Paul II.

Leo XIV, however, decided to begin not from Europe but from Schuman.

He went to France but did not stop in Strasbourg, where they were waiting for him at the European Parliament with an open and already accepted invitation. Leo did not visit the European institutions, but he looked at Europe for the first time through the eyes of one of Europe’s venerable men.

He may not use the expression “Christian roots,” but that is certainly the meaning of the pope’s presence in Metz today.

The Pope arrives in Metz after visiting Paris and Lourdes. French President Emmanuel Macron tried in every way to exploit the Pope’s trip for a photo opportunity , much like when, at the reopening of Notre Dame, he had his picture taken with all the leaders who had gathered in front of the cathedral, rebuilt after the 2019 fire.

The Holy See, however, stood firm. No honorary dinners or lunches, no Legion of Honor for the Pope—in fact, the pope never accepts individual recognition—not even Macron’s idea of being able to personally accompany the Pope for ten minutes in the restored Notre Dame.

This request, among other things, seemed intended to demonstrate that France still owns the cathedral.

While French churches are state property, the state also cannot interfere in religious matters, and Notre Dame is no exception.

Nor did Macron attend the Pope’s Mass, as his predecessors had done. Of course, Macron attended Pope Francis’s Mass in Marseille in 2023, but that was because it was the only way he could welcome the Holy Father.

Francis set foot on French soil three times as pope, visiting Strasbourg, Marseille, and Corsica, always emphasizing that he was traveling to specific events and places, not France.

Leo XIV, however, chose France as the fourth stop on a European journey that began in Monaco, continued through Spain, made a brief stop in San Marino, and finally reached the Church’s eldest daughter.

Two microstates and two large nations, thus far perfectly balanced, and a clear choice: To look to those places that Pope Francis considered the center of faith, and which Leo XIV instead seems to treat as the new existential peripheries.

Monaco is on the periphery, where the Prince refuses to sign the abortion law, and from where the Pope has launched an extraordinary appeal for multilateralism.

Spain is on the periphery, having rediscovered its cultural Christian identity with the Pope’s visit, but still having to contend with rampant secularization.

San Marino is on the periphery, a tiny nation that few consider, yet extraordinarily active. And France is on the periphery, where, among other things, an incredible rebirth of faith is taking place.

It is incredible even for the bishops, considering that the bishops of the Paris region have called a regional council to understand the reason for the enormous number of adult baptisms that have been continuously growing in recent years (24,000 on Easter night 2026).

France is a periphery of faith because its government has set aside the great Catholic ideas and welcomes Leo XIV with a recently approved euthanasia law, which does not even consider the possibility of conscientious objection for nurses.

The pope will restore balance in the dialogue between the Church’s leaders and the people, dot the i’s on doctrine, and thus strengthen the extraordinary number of Catholics hidden in France.

It’s a tremendous challenge.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis, Pope Francis cut cardinals’ salaries—the so-called “cardinals’ plate”—and the measure certainly made headlines.

Leo XIV is bringing things back to normal, [...]]]> The news that Leo XIV has decided to revoke Pope Francis’s salary cut for cardinals has had a greater symbolic impact than one might imagine.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis, Pope Francis cut cardinals’ salaries—the so-called “cardinals’ plate”—and the measure certainly made headlines.

Leo XIV is bringing things back to normal, and this decision can lead to only two conclusions in the debate: either the pope has brought things back to normal, with the emergency period having ended; or the pope is canceling the previous pontificate and reestablishing the cardinals’ privileges.

These two readings, however, probably don’t fully explain what is happening today.

Leo XIV is not a man of radical change, and he certainly doesn’t want to position himself as a pope who has broken continuity with his predecessors, especially not his immediate predecessor, Francis.

He is, however, showing himself to be a pope with his own pragmatism, which allows him to “adjust” certain measures.

Francis, in fact, didn’t just cut the cardinals’ salaries. He also ordered everyone to pay market-rate rent for the apartments they received by virtue of their office, effectively conveying that he wanted to strip cardinals of their privileges and stay close to the people, even in their needs.

Although these choices had a significant media impact, they also revealed a desire to make Church leaders scapegoats for all evils.

The Vatican system, in fact, was not created to enrich or distribute privileges. Rather, it was created to allow everyone who works in the Vatican a dignified life. Vatican salaries are not particularly high, and neither is the cardinal’s salary.

It’s around five thousand euros a month, but this amount includes housing expenses, salaries for those who help the cardinals maintain the household, and expenses for official travel. Basically, it is a sort of per diem allowance, and not a particularly high one, given to each cardinal by virtue of his function.

The Vatican has a wealth of real estate built up over the years, managed primarily by the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See or the Dicastery for Evangelization, but it also has properties belonging to the Papal Household, for example.

This real estate has been used to generate revenue and leased out. It has also been rented to Vatican employees at prices that are generally below market value. This allowed employees with modest salaries—even if they were tax-free—to have decent housing.

When a prelate was called to Rome, he was assigned an office apartment, free to use, because of his role. This allowed the prelate to avoid additional expenses for a task he hadn’t requested, but had been entrusted with.

The Vatican’s economic system is designed to help everyone live a dignified life. The Vatican supermarket, for example, was created to give employees a “shop” with affordable prices, and the Vatican shopping center, located inside what was once the small city-state’s train station, serves the same purpose.

Furthermore, the Vatican has no taxes.

Salaries, therefore, arrive net, and similarly, Vatican gas stations benefit from the absence of Italian state taxes. But only Vatican employees can benefit; it doesn’t create unfair competition with the Italian state. It does, however, create a chance to live better and to give meaning to their Vatican presence.

Under Pope Francis, these “conveniences” gradually disappeared. Real estate was earmarked for profit, and in some cases its management was outsourced to external companies. The Vatican supermarket, the Annona, has been outsourced to an Italian supermarket chain.

Last, but not least, Francis tried to overcome the crisis by cutting the cardinals’ daily allowances and effectively putting a sort of target on their backs.

Leo XIV has begun to reverse this trend, starting with the salary cuts. Furthermore, the Pope abolished the freeze on seniority increases, also introduced under Pope Francis. But the salary issue goes hand in hand with another fact: the Vatican’s finances are not in such dire straits as the latest financial reports of Pope Francis’s pontificate suggested.

Debts were said to be € 200 million, but in reality the deficit is €70 million. Leo XIV overruled Pope Francis’s request to invest only through the IOR (the Institute for the Works of Religion, the so-called “Vatican bank”), and he closed the Donations Commission Francis established, if only because the Holy See already has departments responsible for collecting donations.

However, this return to normality involves small adjustments, not a change to the overall structure. The Holy See still relies on outsourcing—for example, the governorate has entrusted the management of procurement tenders to Consip—APSA still aims to hoard real estate assets, and, in fact, Leo XIV decided not to change economic policy, leaving Cardinal Reinhard Marx at the helm of the Council for the Economy for a third term.

Leo hasn’t launched any revolutions, in short, and he probably won’t.

He simply made a practical adjustment, which also tells the world that, in reality, the Vatican system isn’t terrible and must be defended and supported, despite the human frailty that always exists. Rules, in fact, never eliminate the possibility of corruption.

Leo XIV is thus sending signals. He makes small adjustments, but he has not yet taken a definitive and definitive direction, and he probably has not yet fully understood all the ins and outs of the Holy See and its administration.

Leo XIV hasn’t created his own team yet. It is unlikely he will replace anyone not due for replacement in any case. Leo served in the Curia for two years and enjoyed everyone’s personal courtesy. It’s difficult to remove someone who has always behaved correctly, at least in personal relationships.

His choices could also mean the pope is asking everyone who was part of Francis’s era to take responsibility, repay debts, or correct mistakes made under the previous administration.

In fact, there will be no real return to “normality” – not if “normal” means “the way things were before Francis – nor will Leo interrupt a process already underway, whether the financial reforms we’ve discussed or the synodal reform, which is always on everyone’s lips.

Leo XIV will simply adjust his focus, overcome some populist choices, and seek to build unity in the Church.

It will not be easy.

After 16 months, however, we still await [...]]]> Leo XIV’s plan for the Church was clear from the beginning: to seek to restore harmony within the Church. His episcopal motto, In Illo Uno Unum, says so. His actions, which have so far always sought not to divide, but rather to absorb tensions, also speak volumes.

After 16 months, however, we still await a great many needful things.

We are awaiting Leo XIV’s first consistory. We await a round of appointments that will affect at least five top positions in the Curia. We await Leo’s “corrections” to some of Pope Francis’s reforms.

But Leo XIV doesn’t seem to care about expectations.

We already know that people on every side of the various divides running through the Church will be disappointed.

The traditionalist world expected a sudden and clear reversal of the ostracism experienced during the Francis pontificate, and they have grown impatient (probably for an action that will never come). The progressive world, in what is almost a photo-negative of the traditionalist world, has performed mental gymnastics to interpret everything Leo has done in continuity with his immediate predecessor, and their gymnastics will only be able to stave off disappointment for so long.

Leo XIV’s vision for the Church became even clearer on September 10, when he met with the group of newly appointed bishops, who had arrived for the usual annual ”baby bishops” course held each year in Rome.

The Pope asked them to be paternal, as he had done with the bishops of the Latin Episcopal Conference of the Arab Regions in an audience on September 4. This fatherhood is nourished by discipleship, fully in keeping with the Augustinian charism and his own personal missionary charism. Leo XIV said he desires a Church with a hierarchy, but one that maintains strong communion and great collegiality. Communion entails a “disarmed and disarming peace”—according to the famous phrase the Pope uttered the first time he appeared as Pope—while collegiality means everyone’s participation in governance, or at least in discussions.

For this reason too, Leo XIV did not interrupt the synodal process, but called for progress on the question of synodality. The working groups that emerged after the 2023 Synod continued to meet, release documents, and make proposals. And it is precisely in this process, however, that one of the great risks of the pontificate lies.

The risk in this approach is as follows: That, in the desire not to cancel the processes, the ones already underway become merely bureaucratic. In short, the risk is bureaucratizing the Church. The reports of Groups 6 and 7 of the Synodal journey are an illustrative case-in-point.

Group 6 is studying the relationships between bishops, consecrated life, and ecclesial congregations. Group 7 discusses the nature and conduct of the visits. ad limina Apostolorum, that is, the periodic visits that the bishops of each country must carry out in Rome.

The reports are proposals submitted to the Holy Father, who can freely dispose of them. In short, they are not decisions, and even if the Pope were to decide, they would have to be translated into operational guidelines involving the relevant departments.

Why do they risk being bureaucratic?

Because the two documents address, in different ways, the Church’s possible forms of authority, but they do so by offering procedural solutions, and procedures always make everything more complicated.

Not to mention the language.

Regarding the relationship between dioceses and religious institutions, the report discusses a “relational conversion,” calling for overcoming “merely hierarchical” relationships. Furthermore, the report calls for greater clarity on the theological and legal criteria for recognizing new religious institutes and new forms of consecrated life.

It even proposes mandatory agreements or contracts of understanding between dioceses and religious institutions, which clearly define the commitments undertaken, the financial aspects, the management of the works, and mutual responsibilities.

These proposals arise from concrete problems: excessive authoritarianism or centralization, and a lack of understanding of how dioceses and religious institutions manage their relationships. But the problem isn’t the pattern itself. Rather, it lies with the people, in how they exercise authority.

Leo XIV knows this, and that’s probably why he insists on the issue of paternity. But at the same time, he let the synodal debate, its slow and cumbersome modus procedendi—in a word, its bureaucracy—grind on, and on, without even clarifying the practical issues, namely, that the Synod cannot be a deliberative body, and that the Synod is not a small parliament.

There are virtuous examples.

In Norway, Bishop Fredrik Hansen of Oslo convened the first diocesan synod in history, openly declaring that it was not a synod aimed at changing Church doctrine because it was not a parliament. He even cited the Synods of St. Charles Borromeo, the Cardinal Archbishop of Milan during the Counter-Reformation, as an example.

In the Netherlands, Auxiliary Bishop Rob Mutsaerts strongly criticized the Synod and called for pastoral experiences to be evaluated on concrete indicators, such as vocations, Mass attendance, and the spread of the practice of confession.

But Leo XIV’s decision to let the debate go without a clear word on the situation risks not only creating confusion but also creating the conditions for further bureaucratization of the Curia.

It seems like a vague topic, but it isn’t.

Pope Francis ushered in the era of commissions—for communications reform, for economic reform, for Curia reform—and this created, it’s true, a push for efficiency, but also a bureaucracy that was anything but efficient. A concrete example is the reform of the Vatican economy, in which the powers of the Administration of the Apostolic See were stripped and reinstated within a few months. The reform of the Vatican City State is another case in point, with three drafts of the Vatican Fundamental Law in just a few months.

What does Leo XIV intend to do?

On the one hand, the Holy See needs better organization. On the other hand, the Holy See needs good people with common sense who care about it and can manage a complex structure professionally and logically.

Then, there’s the need for managers.

For now, Leo XIV has chosen a manager, Montse Alvarado, to lead the Dicastery for Communication and to sit on the board of the Brother Sun Foundation. But he hasn’t yet chosen his generals, bishops, and cardinals who will assist him in governance. He has thus far relied on a structure with which he has had no conflict, but which, under Francis, in fact produced numerous declarations of intent and an image of the Church that reflects a democratic, parliamentary-like structure of participation rather than a community of the faithful.

While Leo proceeds at his slow pace toward choosing his own team, judgment on his pontificate remains suspended due to a lack of evidence. At some point, however, non-decisions become decisions. The bureaucratization initiated by Pope Francis will grind on, and will grind any momentum a change in papal leadership afforded.

Perhaps paradoxically, Pope Francis used bureaucratization to ensure he would be the sole decision-maker, while giving the impression of listening to everyone.

Leo XIV has an opportunity here, but the window is closing.

Some say talking about life and family is outdated, that we should focus more on social issues than on principles, and that the Catholic Church should focus less on principles and more on helping people.

The question of [...]]]> One theme lingers in the background of all the major debates surrounding the Catholic Church: Life.

Some say talking about life and family is outdated, that we should focus more on social issues than on principles, and that the Catholic Church should focus less on principles and more on helping people.

The question of life is so powerful and compelling, however, that it cannot be ignored, and certainly will not be ignored by Leo XIV.

The Pope is traveling to France at the end of September. France is a place experiencing, in an interesting way, a Christian rebirth. The Paris-Chartres pilgrimage, an initiative revived about forty years ago by an association of tradition-loving Catholics, has considerable numbers and is constantly growing.

The number of adult baptisms on Easter night is constantly growing, so much so that the Île de France, the ecclesiastical region that includes the Archdiocese of Paris, has convened a special council to understand the cause of this rebirth of faith.

However, Leo XIV will arrive on French soil after receiving a “gift” on the eve of his visit: A new euthanasia law. Strongly supported by the Macron government, the euthanasia law overcame every obstacle, and the French bishops were at the forefront of its opposition.

It is a law that even ignores conscientious objection for nurses, and thus effectively forces even those who feel morally obligated not to assist patients in dying, instead to comply with the law over and against their conscientious objections.

This isn’t the only step.

France had already incorporated the right to abortion into its constitution, with a formulation that didn’t directly refer to the “right to abortion,” but emphasized that the law determines the conditions under which a woman exercises her freedom to abort.

This step was followed by a European Union resolution, one of those “non-binding” practices that nevertheless constitute a sort of “soft law .”

In England, there is no law on end-of-life care, but the debate continues to be relaunched, with unprecedented pressure.

And then there’s Italy, where there’s no end-of-life law, but Veneto, one of its regions, passed it autonomously.

The law has sparked harsh reactions from the Patriarch of Venice, Archbishop Francesco Moraglia, as well as from other members of the Italian Episcopal Conference, such as the Archbishop of Modena, Giacomo Morandi.

But what is striking is that, in Italy, there has not yet been a strong movement of opinion on the issue; the bishops’ conference has left everything to the initiatives of individual ordinaries and pastors, and it is interesting that this is happening in a traditionally Catholic country.

In France, however, the bishops have taken to the front lines, without any ifs or buts, facing a political will that was difficult to dismantle.

This is where the Pope’s trip to France begins to take on a specific significance.

What will the Pope say on the subject of life? How will he address the care of the sick and the dignity of human life in his speeches?

The Pope could address the topic in his usual meeting with the diplomatic corps at the beginning of his trip, in his meeting with the sick in Lourdes, and in his speeches in Metz, where Leo XIV is expected to finally outline his policy for Europe.

The question, however, is how Leo XIV intends to combat this increasingly widespread culture of death, and not only in Europe.

In the pope’s native United States, for example, the Carmelite Sisters for the Aged and the Infirm have sued the state of Illinois to block an end-of-life law before it takes effect, since it would violate their freedom of conscience and oblige them to assist patients in taking their own lives if requested.

So far, Leo XIV has been very clear on the issue, but also very cautious.

Responding to a question about an award given by Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, to pro-abortion Senator Dick Durbin, the Pope emphasized that human life must be defended at all times, and that those who were against abortion but ultimately rejected migrants (this is a paraphrase of the Pope’s words) were also against life.

It’s a logical position, but paradoxically it seems far weaker than Pope Francis’s.

During his pontificate, Pope Francis favored an application of social doctrine that was less focused on life issues, and more oriented toward caring for the poor and migrants. With Pope Francis, the era of fighting non-negotiable values was over.

Pope Francis, however, was also the one who argued, without half measures, that abortion was like hiring a hitman to solve a problem.

These issues will likely test the stability of the new Leonine pontificate.

It is true that Leo XIV defended human life on every possible occasion. For instance, in the speech he delivered to the Spanish Parliament in June, and in several audiences and speeches.

However, Leo appears to have a measured, prudent, and reasoned approach to the Church’s social doctrine. When he speaks, he generally seeks to hold the faithful accountable first. The Church provides the principles; the faithful must apply them, according to the logic of the separation of Church and State.

But cultural impact must also be considered, and this impact must be built upon.

The texts produced in the Vatican likely still reflect a “soft” approach. The latest document published by the International Theological Commission, entirely dedicated to responsible care for the created order, emphasizes that life must always be protected, at all costs and in every way. The same document, however, dwells on ecological sins, indulges in technical and scientific data, and reflects an approach that, in effect, speaks of non-negotiable values, yet somehow sidelines the concept.

The still-new Leonine pontificate needs a cultural framework, in other words, and that framework must be built almost entirely from scratch.

The encyclical Magnifica Humanitas is a starting point, but it probably cannot be a point of arrival: The encyclical is too long, too diluted in many concepts, and, at times, too unbalanced towards the present to represent the foundations of a new political discourse.

Thus, to the great themes of the pontificate—from the new art of diplomacy to dialogue with the traditionalist world—is added the fight against the culture of death.

It was thought that this era had ended with John Paul II and then with Benedict XVI and his fight against cultural relativism.

We were wrong. And today, when even parties with values considered Christian have lost sight of the core of social doctrine, while Christians themselves are incapable of forcefully addressing the issues, it is necessary to start again with a new leap in quality.

This is probably the great, unrecognized challenge of this pontificate.

The opening remarks from both the Holy See and the Russian delegation [...]]]> Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher’s trip to Moscow marked a definitive paradigm shift in the Holy See’s diplomacy regarding the situation in Ukraine. We cannot know what was said behind closed doors during the bilateral meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

The opening remarks from both the Holy See and the Russian delegation ahead of the meeting, and at the press conference following it, were broadcast via video by the Russian Foreign Ministry, and a good deal can be gleaned from them.

Archbishop Gallagher is the Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, a position comparable to that of a Foreign Minister within the Holy See. He already visited Moscow in 2021, but this second trip, five years later, has a greater impact.

First, because it comes amid Russia’s large-scale aggression against Ukraine, which began in 2022, is still ongoing. Second, because Russian-Vatican relations were excellent under Pope Francis, who gave great credence to Moscow’s opinions, but at the same time were strained by the way Pope Francis himself had made it known that he had addressed Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, urging him not to be a “state cleric.” Finally, because they arrived with a new pontificate.

Leo XIV did not change the Holy See’s diplomatic line. The latter remained constant: the Holy See promotes peace, the Holy See promotes dialogue, and the Holy See never interrupts diplomatic relations, even in difficult situations.

However, Leo XIV brought a different, more “diplomatic” approach, if one could call it that.

Pope Francis relied heavily on his personal impressions and his personal charisma. Leo XIV, by contrast, took a more conventional, institutional approach, with keen attention to detail and the conviction that peace cannot be achieved without clarity.

From his first address to the diplomatic corps on May 16, 2025, Leo XIV has emphasized that the Church must speak the truth, even when it is incomprehensible to the world. At the Rosary and prayer vigil for peace on April 11, 2026, Leo XIV went further,  emphasizing that the Church often risks being despised.

This approach represents the lens through which Gallagher’s mission to Moscow can be interpreted.

Gallagher did not go to Moscow only with a mandate to engage in dialogue at all costs. Gallagher went to Moscow with a mandate to clarify the Holy See’s position, establish dialogue to the extent possible, and, in any case, not to keep anything secret, even going so far as to highlight some of the difficult situations facing the Catholic Church in Russia.

Thus, Gallagher’s trip to Russia represents a true paradigm shift.

Gallagher made it clear right away, in his inaugural speech, that he was in Russia because the Russian Federation had invited him, establishing a framework for dialogue and a balance of power. However, he also emphasized that there are ongoing relations between Russia and the Holy See, and a channel of information that has been kept alive – and Gallagher remembered it in an interview with Vatican News at the end of the trip.

The line that made the most headlines – rightly – was Gallagher’s insistent, “This war must end.” Only, Gallagher didn’t just say that the war must end. He called for clear and transparent negotiations. He emphasized the “lingering differences” between the Russian Federation and the Holy See in assessing certain situations, clarifying that the Holy See does not give in to Russian propaganda.

Gallagher’s words, however, did not make so large an impact in Western media as they might have, likely for two reasons.

The first is practical: the Holy See’s “foreign minister” spoke in English, but his words were drowned out by videos released with a Russian translation. While the Russian Foreign Ministry rushed to transcribe and release the exact content of Lavrov’s words, neither the Holy See’s Secretariat of State nor the Vatican media did, even though they had sent a journalist to accompany the archbishop.

The second reason is that Gallagher’s clarity leaves no room for manipulation. These are not words that can be used at the peace-and-war table with political bias, because the archbishop was clear and courageous in addressing the issues.

Gallagher’s work in Russia also has something refined about it.

On the one hand, he didn’t fail to emphasize Russia’s responsibility, with words that must have resonated forcefully behind closed doors. On August 26, Archbishop Gallagher met with Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign affairs advisor, in a particularly significant meeting. The Secretariat of State’s X account, @terzaloggia, reported the news. Kremlin spokesman Peskov declined to comment on the meeting, saying they had not communicated anything about it.

On the other hand, Gallagher managed to establish a consistent line of dialogue. So far, it has worked at the embassy level—an approach praised by the Vatican’s “foreign minister”—and now there will be constant contact at the level of the deputy foreign minister and, in particular, the foreign minister.

The Holy See recognizes that Russia is a global player that cannot be excluded from discussions, and it extends its hand to a Moscow that feels increasingly isolated.

In this ongoing contact, the Holy See will maintain its commitment to peace in Ukraine and to continuing its humanitarian mission. It will also open channels of dialogue with Russia on many other issues, from the situation in the Middle East to artificial intelligence.

What Gallagher has accomplished could be called “classic” Vatican diplomacy. It would not have been possible, however, without Leo XIV’s outlining of a different approach, with a personal discontinuity that nevertheless also translated into specific actions.

It remains to be seen whether the situation in Ukraine is an isolated case, or whether papal diplomacy will pursue this approach in different scenarios.

In a year and a half, for example, the agreement between the Holy See and Beijing for the appointment of bishops will face its next round of (re)negotiation: will Leo XIV prefer the approach of truth diplomacy, aiming to make the agreement clear and public? Or will he take a more pragmatic approach, accepting some Chinese pressure to maintain its presence?

Then, there are other high-impact issues that are very much open.

From the situation of the Catholic Church in Venezuela to that in Nicaragua, where the nuncio and Vatican diplomats have been expelled, Latin America is a veritable powder keg. The pope will experience Europe’s ferment firsthand during his upcoming trip to France. North America is in the midst of a trade war, and the pontiff’s native United States is facing crucial midterm elections this fall. There are wars in Africa and instability across the Holy Land, where the Holy See continues to advocate for the two-people, two-state solution.

Gallagher’s journey marked a turning point, but it remains to be seen where the turn will take the Holy See.