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.

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 archbishop of Chieti-Vasto. 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.