Some say talking about life and family is outdated, that we should focus more on social issues than on principles, and that the Catholic Church should focus less on principles and more on helping people.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Some say talking about life and family is outdated, that we should focus more on social issues than on principles, and that the Catholic Church should focus less on principles and more on helping people.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

The visit to la fille aînée de l’Église is scheduled for Spetember 25-28, and [...]]]> The big news this week was the Vatican’s confirmation – long expected – of Pope Leo XIV’s November journey to Argentina, Uruguay, and Peru, but before he undertakes his three-nation tour of South America, the pope will travel to France.

The visit to la fille aînée de l’Église is scheduled for Spetember 25-28, and it will be charged with significance.

It is a journey to the heart of secularized Europe, where, among other things, the law on the end of life was passed just months before the Pope’s arrival. It is, however, a journey to a country of ancient Christianity, where the Catholic faith is experiencing a remarkable revival and no one really understands why.

It is a journey that will reveal much about how Leo XIV intends to address what is shaping up to be a veritable attack on the heart of Christianity.

France, in fact, is also one of the places in Europe where Christianophobic attacks have become so widespread that there is even an observatory dedicated to recording them one by one. France represents the new existential periphery of Europe, a country that considers itself the “eldest daughter” of the Church yet has experienced an unprecedented wave of secularization over the centuries, naturally fostered by the cultural climate created by the French Revolution.

France is also likely the place from which to begin the reconstruction of a Christian culture – something for which Leo XIV has been preparing the faithful since the beginning of his pontificate.

His first trip was to Monaco, one of the world’s smallest countries, to pay homage to a nation with an ancient Christian tradition, but above all to emphasize that every nation counts in the multilateral world. Leo XIV was telling the world that the point was not to listen to powerful nations, but rather to benefit from the contributions of smaller nations as well.

Then, there was the trip to Spain, where 1.2 million people came to see – and hear – the pope in Madrid, while in secularized and anticlerical Barcelona, an incredible crowd held their breath in front of the extraordinary and heartfelt blessing of the Tower of Jesus at the Sagrada Família.

Now, France, where the pope will not touch the European institutions, as was thought – that will happen, it’s only a matter of time – he will nevertheless dedicate an entire day to Europe, going to Metz, the city of the venerable Robert Schuman, the one of the great architects of a united Europe after World War II.

A great deal has been made of European secularization, the twilight of the faith, even the eclipse of the divine, but Leo XIV seems to be saying it is precisely from the countries of ancient faith and recent secularization that we must begin again to build a Christian culture capable of influencing public opinion.

While preparations were underway for the pope’s trip to France, French President Emmanuel Macron successfully passed a law decriminalizing euthanasia. The government’s decision, in two parliamentary steps that seemed forced and ideological, had the effect of uniting the Catholic world.

For years, the French bishops have been united in the fight against the liberalization of end-of-life care, having published fiery statements on the issue and demonstrating incredible unity of purpose, but in this last, losing round, there was wide support from the (still culturally) Catholic rank-and-file.

There is great anticipation for the Pope’s words in France, especially in Lourdes, where he will address the sick who might face pressure to end their own lives, but also in Metz, where he will call for a reconstitution of European culture based on the dignity of the person.

But if there’s weeping in France, there’s no laughter in other parts of Europe.

There’s a tiny European country, Andorra, governed by two co-princes: one is the President of the French Republic, the other is the Bishop of Urgell. Now, Andorra is obviously Catholic, and abortion is prohibited under all circumstances. But there’s currently a fierce liberal majority in the country’s parliament trying to open the way for the legalization of euthanasia there, as well.

So much so that on July 29, Xavier Espot, the head of the Andorra government, met with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State, at the Secretariat of State. Accompanied by Ladislau Birò, Minister of Institutional Relations, they attempted to find a “solution compatible with the Andorran constitutional framework”—as Prime Minister Espot’s statement put it—to finally introduce abortion in the country.

The debate has been ongoing for two years, and it’s striking how strongly such an issue is felt in a small place like Andorra. The truth is that Andorra is a symbol: if even the last bastion of Christianity in Europe falls, how will the others resist?

Monaco rejected an abortion law because of the definitive veto of Prince Albert of Monaco. But how will a new prince, one day, faced with a similar situation, be able to oppose it once Andorra has also legalized abortion?

Therefore, Andorra is also, somehow, a workshop.

Andorra would be the last Catholic country, besides Monaco, where abortion is a crime. Malta opened the door to abortion on the eve of Benedict XVI’s visit in 2010, as did Portugal in 2007, a country with ancient Christianity that, however, must contend with liberal majorities that, in effect, advance an agenda based on individual freedoms, but never the common good.

Will the Old Continent be able to resist?

It’s hard to say, given new governments that seem to be instilling an individualistic shift even in European countries, while the United States’ State Department is launching a call for proposals to promote conservative values in Europe.

In short, the issue has become the subject of ideological conflict. There is no real interest in international politics in listening to the words of the Pope or the Church. Rather, there is an exploitation of Christian values for political gain, which is one of the great risks the pope is taking.

Thus, in France, Leo XIV is called to repel the attack launched at the heart of Christianity. In fact, the great theme remains the absence of God. Cardinal Robert Sarah, in an interview with Il Foglio on August 1, noted how people now live as if God did not exist.

It is fair to expect that to be the great theme of Leo XIV’s journey to the heart of Europe.

It is a crucial and delicate issue, difficult to manage. Yet, it is the only theme the pope can develop if he would overcome the cultural crisis of Christianity today. France is a starting point; Andorra can be a case study of how small nations can be at the mercy of large transnational political movements. Monaco, we know, was the place from which the pope affirmed that everyone, even the smallest, can and must have a voice.

Perhaps the underlying theme is that the Catholic world hasn’t truly created a culture and a cultural movement in recent years, let alone a purposeful activism.

Now is the time to rebuild everything.

The pope’s travels can be encouraging in this regard.

These decisions will be subjected [...]]]> Leo XIV has returned to the Vatican after a month-long vacation in Castel Gandolfo, and a series of important decisions await him. They aren’t all urgent matters, but what he decides in each of them will tell us a lot about how the pope intends to shape his pontificate.

These decisions will be subjected to the severe scrutiny of many, starting with those in the Vatican who championed Pope Francis’s decisions and refuse to backtrack.

The risk is that the pope will find himself, in the near future, facing a crossfire over the nominations and organization of the Roman Curia. You may even hear some chatter – some of it from persons highly placed – about abandonment or betrayal of Pope Francis’s curial reform project as expressed in his 2022 Apostolic Constitution, Praedicate Evangelium.

So, what are these decisions?

First of all, several dicastery heads have already reached retirement age and will need to be replaced.

They are: the prefect of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, Cardinal Marcello Semeraro; the prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship, Cardinal Arthur Roche; the prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Kurt Koch; and the prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family, and Life, Cardinal Kevin Farrell.

In November, Cardinal Lazzaro You, prefect of the Dicastery for the Clergy, will also turn 75.

So far, Leo XIV has operated consistently in all the dicasteries where he has been called to carry out generational replacements. The only exception is the Dicastery for Communication, where he has chosen Montse Alvarado, olim president and COO of EWTN News, who, starting in November, will be called upon to oversee the complex machinery of Vatican communications.

For the rest, there were no major surprises, nor even any disruptive decisions. Leo XIV kept a fairly low profile, and this works for all major issues.

Voices have whispered about another possible change, this one to the Secretary of State.

It bears mention in this regard that the current Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, has thus far enjoyed the Pope’s absolute trust and is a little more than three years away from 75. The pope, however, may indeed want someone of his very own choice to lead the Secretariat of State.

There’s already considerable speculation about who the new Secretary of State will be, but little is being said about what Cardinal Parolin might do. At 72, any new assignment would be incomplete, even with an extension until he turns 77, because there wouldn’t be time for reforms and action.

There is, however, the possibility that Cardinal Parolin could replace Cardinal Fernando Filoni, now in his eighties, as Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher. The position would have an international and diplomatic profile and would be an ideal transition to retirement.

Furthermore, it would avoid appointing Cardinal Parolin to a position where he would be unable to complete his five-year term.

The Holy See, in fact, always prefers that prelates who can complete their first five-year term be appointed to senior positions, so that they can work with peace of mind.

Some say that Cardinal Parolin could be replaced by Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, the Vatican’s current Secretary for Relations with States. But this is unlikely, given that Gallagher is already 73 and would therefore serve only two years before retiring.

This is a time for speculation.

There is growing talk of Bishop Erik Varden as the new prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity. There is talk of Cardinal Mauro Gambetti being transferred from his position as Archpriest of St. Peter’s to that of Bishop of Chieti. There is also talk of Bishop Guido Marini being appointed as the new Archpriest of St. Peter’s Basilica.

But it is rather difficult to distinguish between wishful thinking and real information, because the truth is that little is still known about Leo XIV’s way of governing.

Then, that’s why these coming appointments – and they will be coming, some sooner and some later – are so interesting.

So far, Leo has favored continuity in appointments, with the sole exception of the Dicastery for Communication.

Examples are Archbishop Filippo Iannone, Leo’s own successor at the Dicastery for Bishops. For the Dicastery for Integral Human Development, Leo XIV chose a woman, Sister Alessandra Smerilli, who was already secretary, and promoted Cardinal Fabio Baggio, undersecretary, to pro-prefect.

With that move, Leo XIV maintained the “female quota” of the dicastery but also put an end to the asymmetrical distribution of positions and honors, since it was objectively strange for the undersecretary of a dicastery to also be a cardinal.

It remains to be seen whether the Pope will continue this pattern, leaving decisions to the old guard.

It bears mention that Pope Leo XIV was a member of that old guard – albeit a latecomer to it – having served as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops for two years.

There is general confidence in the pope’s ability to carry out the work of his new office, but it remains to be seen whether this confidence will be repaid by the facts.

Meanwhile, the risk for Leo is that every appointment perceived as disruptive will undermine cardinals and bishops, leading them to attack the pontificate and create unfavorable public opinion.

It’s not that the pope cares about public opinion, but part of his mandate – as he understands it, his mission – is to “take down the temperature” in the Church, at Rome and around the world. The impact his decisions will have – on curial types in Rome and on people – is not to be discounted.

Indeed, the debate within the Church is still too heated, so much so that it’s difficult to understand [...]]]> The small traditionalist schism of the SSPX, with all its aftermath, has highlighted how the unity in the Church that Leo XIV set as the primary goal of his pontificate is still far from being achieved.

Indeed, the debate within the Church is still too heated, so much so that it’s difficult to understand the contourss of what is happening.

After the episcopal ordinations without papal mandate and the consequent excommunication latae Sententiae for all members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), many so-called traditionalists have highlighted a sort of disparity in treatment.

“Why are followers of the traditional Mass excommunicated,” they ask, “while new Chinese bishops, some of whom were directly appointed by the government and whose appointments the Holy See simply accepted, are not?”

This comparison between the traditionalist and Chinese cases is interesting because it contrasts two strikingly different situations.

The problem of the so-called Lefebvrians—named after their founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—is not limited to the liturgy.

Already when the first schism occurred in 1988, the Holy See created the Fraternity of Saint Peter, which includes priests who celebrate with the Missal preceding the one promulgated by Paul VI, but who are in communion with the Pope.

The key point is that the Lefebvrists reject the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council en masse, considering them non-binding, and therefore decide to ordain bishops without papal mandate, in complete autonomy, to maintain a link, even of apostolic succession, with tradition. Those who ordain bishops have been legitimately ordained, and therefore the ordination is valid. But it is an illicit ordination.

In fact, by ordaining bishops without papal mandate, one excommunicates oneself. For this reason, excommunication is latae sententiae, for simply having committed the act.

But ordinations without papal mandate also occurred in China, and bishops ordained without papal mandate were automatically excommunicated.

In 2018, when Pope Francis agreed to sign the agreement with China for the appointment of bishops, one of the conditions of that agreement was precisely the return to full communion of all illicitly ordained bishops. And so it happened. In fact, the principle of that agreement was to re-establish communion in the Church, and that communion could not occur unless the excommunications were lifted.

Since the agreement was reached, there have been several extreme cases. Joseph Shen Bin was appointed bishop of Shanghai without the Pope’s approval, and Francis then had to “rectify” the situation by personally making the appointment.

And then there was the case of the auxiliary bishop of Shanghai, Ignatius Wu Jianlin , and the bishop of the apostolic prefecture of Xinxiang, Francis Li Jianlin. These two bishops had been “elected” in China during the days of the vacant see, although Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, later said that the appointments had nevertheless been agreed upon.

On June 15, Chang Yanfeng was ordained as the new bishop of the diocese of Chifeng , but this news was released only a month later, on July 22, and this raised suspicions that the ordination had taken place without the consent of the Holy See and that it had subsequently been rectified.

In none of these cases, however, is there a direct challenge to the Pope’s authority.

There is a procedure, established by an agreement, and the Holy See is attempting to uphold that agreement, despite the Chinese government’s apparent overreach. There may be limits to the excommunication, but the reason for this excommunication would be unclear, considering that we are moving within the realm of dialogue.

It is a complex dialogue, but still vaguely regulated, although many in the Holy See say the agreement with China needs to be changed and redefined. How this should be done remains to be seen, as the text of the agreement has never been released, and this secrecy prevents us from fully understanding how it works.

The case of the traditionalists is different, for several reasons.

First, there was an official announcement of ordination that preceded the ordinations well beforehand. There was a dialogue with the Holy See, which sought to avert new ordinations. There was a letter from the Pope explicitly requesting that the ordinations not proceed.

There was also a conscious decision by the Society to move forward with the ordinations of four new bishops, despite their awareness of the consequences they faced. Indeed, the Lefebvrists decided to move forward without any dialogue, even going so far as to appeal for a suspension of the decision.

While the Chinese government is pushing to the limit an agreement that nevertheless concedes something, the Lefebvrists have carried out an action that they believe is necessary to maintain a continuity of apostolic succession in tradition, but without any agreement with the Holy See.

It may seem like a subtle and administrative distinction, but it isn’t. The Pope must accept a situation for it to be valid.

But Leo XIV has not yet succeeded in highlighting, with facts and charisma, the need to maintain unity around the Pope. Francis was a Pope who imposed unity through the spoils system and the targeted selection of certain collaborators.

Benedict XVI sought to achieve unity through reason.

Leo XIV’s governing style is still unclear – partly because his pontificate is still stuck in the past, unable to change the men who have handled the dossiers so far.

The negotiation with China is a self-sustaining one, and perhaps soon the secret agreement will be changed and “adjusted,” or made public, so as to prevent anyone from manipulating its terms.

But the traditionalist question is also suspended in the past.

In effect, a global excommunication—which, among other things, has many limitations, starting with the declaration of invalidity of the sacraments, which was also questioned by Cardinal Müller—resolves the problem of having considered the traditionalist phenomenon as something to be eradicated.

It is no coincidence that the head of the SSPX, Davide Pagliarani, asked Leo for the mercy of which Pope Francis spoke so often and so eloquently.

That the two cases are being compared despite their evident dissimilarity and even incommensurability demonstrates the division and confusion within the Church.

There is a world that sympathizes with traditionalism and cannot accept seeing traditionalists excluded from the “communion” of the Church, without considering that it was their own decisions that put them outside of communion.

This same world, however, cannot accept the peculiar situation experienced in China, where the agreement with the government—which should be improved, clarified, or even abolished in extreme cases—serves precisely to protect the Chinese. Communion has been sought, perhaps (almost certainly) naively, but certainly with the idea of creating a space for dialogue.

Could communion have been sought with traditionalists as well?

Yes, undoubtedly, and it was probably not “negotiated” well – if “negotiated” is even the correct term – but the communion sought in China is also a way to overcome the tight grip of the Chinese government and its policy of sinicization.

For now, the Holy See has been somewhat passive, but it won’t be forever. At least, that’s the hope.

Vatican media sought to reiterate that “The Pope always speaks as a shepherd.”

That was the title of an [...]]]> In a rare occurrence this past week, official Vatican media weighed in on a controversy surrounding some recent remarks by US Ambassador Brian Burch, who is his country’s diplomatic representative to the Holy See.

Vatican media sought to reiterate that “The Pope always speaks as a shepherd.”

That was the title of an editorial by Andrea Tornielli, the Editorial Director of Vatican Media, which appeared to be a direct response to an interview Burch had given to the New York Times.

Published a few days before Tornielli’s editorial but conducted in June, the Times’ interview with Burch quoted the ambassador as saying that the Pope’s opinion, when he speaks as head of state, is equal to that of other heads of state.

There’s a lot to unpack, both in Burch’s remarks and in Tornielli’s editorial.

Tornielli explains that the fact that the Bishop of Rome is also sovereign of Vatican City State does not mean he acts or speaks as a political leader when intervening on issues that concern humanity.

Tornielli notes that the existence of the Vatican City State serves to guarantee full independence for Peter’s successor in the exercise of his spiritual mission, but this does not mean that the Pope has both political and religious functions.

To support this argument, Tornielli recalls that Paul VI, at the United Nations on October 4, 1965, emphasized that the pope had “no temporal power nor ambition to compete” with the leaders of nations. Before becoming Pope Paul VI, Montini argued in 1962 that after the end of the Papal States, the papacy could better develop its mission as a teacher and witness to the Gospel.

In short, “any exaltation or exaggeration of the role of the pontiff as head of state is misleading” because it “diverts attention from his one true mission as universal pastor,” who, when he speaks in defense of life, peace, disarmament, or calls for moving beyond the concept of just war, or gives attention to the poor and religious freedom, ” simply proclaims the Gospel.

In the New York Times, Burch emphasized that the Pope, as head of state, should be considered on a par with a head of state, and therefore his opinions were equal to those of others.

He noted that the Holy See “has not said nor will it definitively declare” whether the conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran is a just war, that the pope would do so in his capacity as head of state, and that the doctrine of just war requires that governments decide; the Pope cannot have enough information to define it.

Now, the US ambassador’s statements have limitations.

For one thing, the Just War tradition of thinking has very clear criteria, developed over literally thousands of years, and Leo told journalists during his flight to Spain on June 6th of this year that the Iran conflict doesn’t meet them.

“I believe this has already been made very clear,” Leo said, “ in Iran, the criteria for a just war are not present.”

“The theory of the just war dates back to centuries when it was impossible to imagine the weapons and the destructive capacity available to humanity today,” Leo also said.

In his recent encyclical letter, Magnifica Humanitas, the pope said Just War Theory is “outdated,” largely because of modern weapons’ destructive power, following a path that started with the John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem In Terris.

Preventive war, in the end, can never be a just war.

That the Pope’s opinion, as head of state, is separable from that of a religious leader is true up to a point.

The Pope cannot be defined as a head of state like all the others; especially when he speaks diplomatically, he is the Holy See. He does not represent the Holy See. He is the Holy See. According to canon law, the Pope, the Holy See, and the Secretariat of State are synonymous.

So, the question isn’t whether the Pope is a head of state. He is, but of a functional territory. The issue is the international representation of the Holy See.

This international representation continued even during the period when, following Italy’s invasion of the Papal States, the Pope went into self-exile in Castel Sant’Angelo and the Holy See was left without a state.

In those years, however, diplomatic relations multiplied; Leo XIII was even invited to the 1899 Hague Peace Conference, and he did not attend solely because of Italian opposition—which did not want to recognize the Holy See’s sovereignty—but sent a message containing, among other things, the seeds of many of the reforms initiated by the era of multilateralism.

It is therefore striking that the Vatican News article focuses only on the Pope’s role as pastor.

The Pope is a pastor; the Pope proclaims the Gospel, but the Gospel is also proclaimed diplomatically, through an enormous diplomatic network (184 bilateral relations), and also by defending life, the family, and rights in international forums.

The Pope never speaks only as a pastor, because otherwise the speech the Pope gives to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, the speech to the diplomatic corps and to civil society that constitutes the first appointment of every apostolic journey, or even the speech the Pope gave before the Spanish Cortes during his trip to Spain, would be meaningless.

But all this is missing from the Vatican News editorial, which is primarily eager to eliminate the possibility of considering the Pope a head of state like any other. He isn’t, but he’s not simply a pastor either.

This nuance, likely considered obvious and implicit, isn’t found in the text, thus giving the impression that Leo XIV intends to exercise only that role, creating a short circuit in the perception of the Pope’s diplomacy.

Thus, both the interview that sparked the controversy and the response lack some key elements, essential for better understanding the context. The US ambassador isn’t surprising, if only because the Trump administration has always used this distinction between head of state and spiritual leader to try to separate the Pope’s words from the government’s actions.

It’s surprising that Vatican News didn’t emphasize the diplomatic work but rather sought to demonstrate that the Pope is merely a functional head of state, devoid of temporal power.

It has been said that the Vatican News article was requested by Leo XIV himself, or at least by higher-ups, and that the pope wanted to read and approve it first. If this information is confirmed, then three conclusions can be drawn.

Burch’s interview would have been almost uninteresting without this response, because, beyond the American linguistic narrative, Burch speaks to an American audience, using US terminology and therefore essentially local.

If the Pope asked for a response, it’s because he cares about US perception.

Indeed, if you think about it, he also gave his first interview for a book by an American journalist, Elise Allen, published in Spanish for a Peruvian audience, to clarify his position on certain past situations.

Leo XIV doesn’t want to give the impression that he’s prioritizing the United States in his thoughts, but US public opinion is taking it that way.

Second, there is a substantial difficulty in defining the Holy See as it is.

The Pope’s sovereignty over Vatican City State seems to obscure the fact that the Holy See has international sovereignty independent of territory. As if the Holy See’s presence in the international arena needs to be justified, rather than reaffirmed. These are new times, in which it is difficult to explain the meaning of the Pope’s diplomacy.

But not everything can be reduced to a pastoral understanding; otherwise, the Pope becomes—and truly in this case—one spiritual leader among many. But the Pope has never been one spiritual leader among many. And the Holy See, precisely in this sense, has been the third party remembered for peace since time immemorial.

Moreover, Montini wasn’t the only one who spoke of the providential nature of the loss of the Papal States. Benedict XVI, speaking in Germany, also spoke of the providential nature of the secular trends that allowed for a de-worldly Church.

That doesn’t mean, however, defending the loss of sovereignty. It means emphasizing that, if sovereignty becomes merely a structure, it loses sight of its original motivations.

The third conclusion concerns communication.

Why should the Vatican media respond to an ambassador’s statements, even indirectly? Why is there a need to clarify an ambassador’s statements?

This is an important issue because it concerns the very dignity of the Holy See and the way it interacts with the world.

Once upon a time, what was said would simply have been ignored, an internal protest launched, or the ambassador summoned for an explanation.

The fact that everything is now being exposed in the media is indeed evidence of a modernization of the Holy See.

It also demonstrates a surrender to the logic of the world, whose outcome is unclear.

It was also a clear sign of how much this pontificate has to say – and it’s much more than one might think.

Speaking to Italian media, US Ambassador Brian Burch said the [...]]]> Pope Leo XIV’s visit to the US ambassador’s residence to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the United States spoke volumes.

It was also a clear sign of how much this pontificate has to say – and it’s much more than one might think.

Speaking to Italian media, US Ambassador Brian Burch said the pope is frustrated by the fact that his actions are often interpreted purely politically, or worse, as in conflict with the US administration.

It’s not that there aren’t any disagreements – even the ambassador hasn’t denied them – but in reality, not everything concerns Trump and the United States.

But this should also prompt broader reflection.

Leo XIV doesn’t reason on “small” issues, but on broad lines.

Pope Francis had a love for detail, and for symbolic positions that clearly showed which side the pope was on.

He demonstrated this, for example, with his “remediation cardinals,” the cardinals appointed to redress past situations in each of his nine consistories; or again, with his visit to the Russian embassy at the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.

Seen in the proper light, his letter appointing then-Archbishop Fernández as prefect of the former Holy Office was another example, an act completely outside of protocol but aimed at constructing a precise narrative.

Leo XIV, on the other hand, doesn’t reason about reactions, much less specific reactions. Rather, he seeks to hold firm to principles and apply them in many ways, sometimes even pragmatically, but without ever deviating from the general idea or allowing it to degenerate into specific issues.

Ambassador Burch’s story, therefore, does not just tell a detail, but allows us to understand how we can read the pontificate of Leo XIV.

There are probably three criteria to consider.

The first criterion is that the pope does not speak in response to specific questions, and, in fact, he is very careful not to do so. The most striking example of this attitude is the urbi et orbi address last Easter.

Such occasions, it bears mention, have always been used by popes to address the most pressing global issues. For many decades, it has been a geopolitical speech – often called the pope’s “State of the World Address” – and frequently has included many references to specific war situations.

Leo XIV, however, imposed a different style.

His speech before the blessing Urbi et Orbi contained no direct references to conflict scenarios. He had specific requests for the world’s powerful, but didn’t going into the specifics of any region of the world.

In short, the pope has decided not to focus on details, but on principles. Therefore, his every message cannot be interpreted as a specific response to some political issue, especially with regard to the United States, since he is an American pope.

In fact, that wasn’t his approach as the General of the Augustinians, and it certainly cannot be as pope.

Ambassador Burch also noted that the pope feels deeply American but is keen to demonstrate that he is a pope for everyone, not just the United States. This is also the reason behind the pope’s decision not to return immediately to his homeland, but to first schedule a number of trips that demonstrate his concern for the entire world.

The second criterion is that of normality.

This week marked the beginning of Leo XIV’s vacation, which he is spending in Castel Gandolfo, in the Apostolic Palace, which has remained partly a museum and partly a residence for the pope.

The return to the Apostolic Palace of Castel Gandolfo, which probably also marks the end of the impromptu press gaggles, at least for a while, represents a return to papal normality of no small importance, together with Leo’s decision to live in the Apostolic Palace at the Vatican instead of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, which, Pope Francis had preferred.

Leo XIV is a pope who is not afraid to look to tradition when that tradition is solid. He is not a Pope tied to the past, but a pope who does not disdain the symbols that come from the past, as demonstrated by his choice to wear the mozzetta from the beginning of his pontificate.

The feeling is that the Pope wants to return to normality: liturgical normality, the normality of papal audiences, historical normality. Even the decision to convene a consistory for discussion at least once a year is a very clear signal of a search for normality and a return to the past.

Eventually, it will no longer be the Curia of the old days; it will be a Curia of the new, with new prefects.

Leo XIV has recently appointed two prefects, and they are two women: Sister Alessandra Smerilli to head the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Development, and Montse Alvarado to head the Dicastery for Communication.

These two appointments provide us with a third criterion for interpreting the pope: He cannot be labeled as either conservative or progressive.

That said, if this pope seeks a return to normality, it doesn’t mean he won’t make progress or continue on the path laid out before him. The appointment of two women to head dicasteries demonstrates the pope’s innovative spirit, which ties in with the previous pontificate but also with tradition.

Leo XIV is therefore not a pope who can easily be categorized.

On many issues, he is making a healthy retreat. On others, he is continuing a work that had already begun with Pope Francis, despite all the controversies involved, starting with the inaccurate use of the title “pro-prefect.”

But reading Leo means, in a certain sense, looking at everything in the proper light, and that means changing perspective..

He is a pope with many facets, and that means he gives us much to ponder and leaves us with many things to understand.

Leo found himself confronted with the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, when the breakaway traditionalist group illicitly ordained four bishops on July [...]]]> Leo XIV has made unity his guiding principle, so dealing with a schism will not be easy, but schism is what came to face the pope last week

Leo found himself confronted with the schism of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, when the breakaway traditionalist group illicitly ordained four bishops on July 1, without a papal mandate and in defiance of repeated warnings.

Leo inherited an internally divided Church, torn among factions at the mercy of a so-called “papal will,” and a pope — Francis – who had a personalist style of governance.

Leo came face-to-face with the SSPX schism just as he was seeking to restore a sense of collegiality among the bishops of the world and among his closest collaborators, the cardinals.

Over the last weekend of June, the pope effectively abolished the Council of Cardinals and reoriented the Synod to a consultative assembly.

He also began restoring order to the Roman Curia, after a year of long-awaited appointments.

And so, after appointing the new prefect of communications, Montse Alvarado, Leo XIV appointed another woman, Sister Alessandra Smerilli, to lead a major curial department: The Dicastery for Integral Human Development.

Sister Smerilli is supported by Cardinal Fabio Baggio as pro-prefect, as is already the case in the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life, where Sister Simona Brambilla is supported by Cardinal Ángel Artime as pro-prefect.

This detail alone suggests that Francis’s legacy remains, at least in its formal and institutional inaccuracies.

The title of pro- was, in fact, given to bishops who ended up in a cardinalatial role during the period before they had received the red hat.

Only, why does either dicastery – for religious or for development – need a pro-prefect at all?

The short answer is that the governing power of Holy Orders is needed to resolve certain disputes – at least in the dicastery for religious – and therefore Artime could not simply be co-prefect; he requires an additional title.

The Francis-era imprecision is evident throughout the reform of the Curia, where the idea of a dual mandate – that of Holy Orders and that of the “canonical mandate” conferred by the pope – has created no small amount of confusion.

Sister Smerilli and Cardinal Baggio represent a choice in complete continuity with Pope Francis, while Cardinal Michael Czerny, who is turning 80, is set to retire. But there will be no changes in the dicastery, which will maintain its current structure. Those who expected reform, or a new prophetic thrust on issues of Social Doctrine, have been somewhat disappointed.

The pope also strengthened the Office of Papal Charities, appointing Monsignor Lucio Ruiz as secretary, currently number two at the Dicastery for Communication. The appointment is interesting because, after choosing a new prefect, Leo XIV will need someone to support Montse Alvarado in initiating the long-term reform of the Vatican media, which is especially needed to relieve the Holy See’s coffers.

Even in this case, however, it remains to be seen how the new leaders will understand and maintain the institution’s language and history, and how they will reform it without necessarily applying corporate criteria.

And this is where the major issue comes in, which ultimately touches on the Lefebvrian schism.

While incorrect titles, such as pro-prefect, continue to be used, there is also institutional uncertainty in addressing the schism.

After the illicit ordination of four new bishops in Econe, a decree was required to certify the excommunication. The excommunication would be latae sententiae, meaning simply for having committed the act, but the Lefebvrites maintain that this excommunication cannot occur because a canon states that there can be no excommunication if the excommunicable act was committed in the face of a perceived grave danger to the Church.

And they say exactly that.

In 1988, Cardinal Gantin, then prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, issued the document defining newly ordained bishops as schismatic. But this time the document came from Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. In practice, the issue of schism was treated as a sin against the faith.

Indeed, an explanatory note states that the Society’s sacraments, including confession and marriage, are invalid, even though the ministers are the spouses. This is a broad interpretation of the issue because, in fact, until now, the sacraments administered by the SSPX have been considered valid, even though they were administered by illegitimate bishops or priests who formally belonged to a schismatic group.

What do these facts say about Leo XIV?

First of all, Leo XIV is not a man for great revolutions. He began with the consistory, and with a rather insistent call for unity. For the rest, he maintained Pope Francis’s structure, and did not concern himself with the question of women in the Church; in fact, he gave them more space.

Then, Leo XIV still faces the problems with a team that is still Pope Francis’s, with all the limitations that this team has in institutional, canonical terms and also in terms of dialogue with the traditionalist world – Pope Francis did not like them, and had practically eliminated any residual liberalization of the ancient rite.

Third,  Leo XIV doesn’t yet have his own government team and is relying primarily on continuity. Continuity isn’t a bad thing in itself, nor is it a good thing. In fact, however, some problems and issues that could have been addressed earlier will remain.

The major themes of previous pontificates will be absorbed, eventually, but it will take longer than expected.

There will be time for revolutions in the Curia, while the SSPX schism and its development will demonstrate how Leo XIV intends to exercise his government.