Pope Leo signed this Saturday morning, on the feast of Saint Francis of Assisi, his first apostolic exhortation, which is titled Dilexit te in Latin, meaning it refers to God, he has loved you. He loves you. It was practically written entirely by his predecessor, Pope Francis. And yet, Pope Leo, just as Pope Francis did in turn with the encyclical that Pope Benedict had already finished, Pope Leo has decided to read it, uh, send it for review, and now he publishes it and by publishing it, he makes it his own. It is the continuation of Pope Francis’s fourth encyclical, which is titled Dilexit nos, that is, he has loved us, always referring to God, although he signed it today, the Vatican has announced that its content will not be known until next Thursday, the 9th. Well, we’ll have to wait until Thursday to know what it says, although from what has been leaked, it seems to refer to God’s love toward all those who suffer, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the victims of war or violence of any kind. I repeat, we’ll have to wait until next Thursday to know the content of this first apostolic exhortation, that is, of this first official, formal, important document of Pope Leo XIV.
But throughout the week, other things have also happened. Uh, before talking about them, I think we need to make a premise that is valid at least as far as I’m concerned. I have no intention of criticizing the Pope. I’m not the one to do that. For me, Pope Leo XIV is the Pope and deserves my obedience and respect. But to help him fulfill the Petrine ministry, which includes the goal he has set as the north of his pontificate, that of uniting the Church, perhaps I can humbly collaborate in achieving that goal by pointing out some things that could harm him and even damage the very image of the pontiff. My only desire is to help and serve the Church, and to help and serve the Pope who is the Pope, I repeat, whom I love and whom I want to obey and whom I not only love and want to obey, but also respect as a human being.
Around any leader of any kind, a company, political leader, religious leader, a clique of flatterers quickly arises who will tell him that everything he does is wonderful and perfect. It’s possible that the leader enjoys hearing flattery permanently and may end up believing that any minimal objection, even if made with much love, any minimal objection made to him is a lack of respect or even an attack. When this happens, I repeat, in the case of any leader, his government is doomed to failure. A leader who only surrounds himself with applauders and considers as mortal enemies those who make the smallest objection. I insist, of any entity, that leader is doomed to failure.
This week, the controversy over the award to the Democratic Party US Senator Dick Darwin, which the Archdiocese of Chicago, persecuted by Cardinal Kupik, wanted to give him, has continued to stir things up. In the face of the scandal produced, it has been the senator himself who has decided to reject the award. In reality, what seems to have happened is that not only the 10 bishops who publicly protested, but many more have written privately to the president of the US episcopate demanding a public pronouncement, which is possible, even according to rumors, that it is already being drafted. This news reaching the nuncio, who intervened is not known, but someone possibly had to advise either Cardinal Cupic or the future awardee to withdraw, I don’t say his candidacy, but to refuse to accept the award, to say that he doesn’t want to accept it. This resignation, this rejection on the part of Durvin has been praised by all. Even, for example, one of the most critical, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Monsignor Cordi Leone, has highlighted the good deed in rejecting the award and the favor he has done to the cause of unity in the Church. The matter could have ended there. Just like that, the Archbishop of Chicago decides to give an award to a Democratic Party senator who has spent his entire life in favor of abortion, even the most radical abortion. A group of bishops protest, some openly, and others uh with private letters, and the interested party says he doesn’t accept it. It could have ended there, if it weren’t for some statements by the Pope in a brief press conference granted upon leaving Castel Gandolfo, in which in some way he aligned himself with the thesis that the 40 years of service of the senator should be valued, and in particular what he had done in favor of immigrants, when granting him that award. He compared abortion with the death penalty, not equating them, but questioning whether those in favor of the death penalty were pro-life.
These words from the Pope have caused surprise and pain to many Catholics and have naturally harmed, in my opinion, the Pope’s goal of uniting the Church. A prominent Italian Catholic writer, Stefano Fontana, went so far as to say that with this type of off-the-cuff interviews, the papacy degrades to the bazaar of opinions. And Mr. Fontana assured uh that with gestures like this, what was happening and what was being done was feeding confusion. It was Benedict X who rejected equating abortion with the death penalty, starting with the fact that in one case the victim is totally innocent and in the other is guilty, barring judicial error. At this point, I want to make it clear that I am totally against the death penalty, but that said, it seems to me a mistake to equate abortion with the death penalty, among other things, because abortion is the leading cause in the world of mortality among human beings. Uh, I believe with Pope Benedict that both things cannot be equated. And if we go down to the issue of immigration, which does not imply the murder of illegal immigrants, the equation is even more unjust. Considering that killing an innocent is the same as deporting an illegal immigrant seems to me an abuse that even from a rational point of view cannot be accepted. I repeat, I am against the death penalty and now I also say that I am against how President Trump is acting with the deportation or sending back to their countries of illegal immigrants. I believe there are ways and ways of doing things and I am sure that the vast majority, if not all, of the US bishops think what I do. From there to saying that killing a child is the same as deporting an illegal. It seems to me there is a big step.
That said, returning to the case of the Aurbin award, I think we have to add that as long as the prohibition on politicians who have supported pro-abortion laws from receiving Communion is in force, it seems inconsistent to give them Catholic awards. You can’t receive Communion, but we’re going to give you an award.
And now I come to what worries me the most, discerning who is the separator and who is the separatist, who polarizes, who divides. The bishop who decides to give a public award to a politician who is excommunicated in his diocese of origin without even consulting or informing that bishop, or the bishop who finds out through the press and protests. It’s that we’ve reached that point. The bishop who protests because a person whom he has excommunicated fulfilling canon law and who finds out through the press that the neighboring bishop is going to give him an award, the bishop who protests now turns out to be the guilty one. Who creates the division? The one who goes against the law or the one who defends it? I do what I want and if you protest, you’re the guilty one. The left has taken over what in Spain we call the narrative, the narration of what happens with an astonishing capacity for manipulation. In that way, we can reach the conclusion that the murderer or the rapist is the victim and that the one who has been murdered or raped or the police who capture the criminal and put him in the hands of justice are the guilty ones.
What happened in this unfortunate matter goes beyond the delivery of an award that has no major importance. What is at stake in the background is whether those who defend Catholic doctrine are the guilty ones for there being division and polarization, or if those who infringe and teach to infringe that doctrine both in the dogmatic and liturgical or moral aspects are the guilty ones. Who is the one who divides? Who is the one who polarizes? Because that is the fundamental question. Who is the one who divides? The one who teaches that the laws of the Church have to be changed and even teaches not to respect them, to violate the law of the Church, or the one who defends them, because if we’ve reached the point where the one who says that the law of the Church in the liturgical, dogmatic, or moral aspect is applauded and is the one who unites. And on the other hand, the one who says, «We cannot achieve unity if we are not faithful to the truth, that one is the one who divides.» We’ve reached this terrible point in the situation we are in.
And so we come to the second matter of the week. Four bishops have decided to carry out an act of reparation for the official admission to several LGBTQ organizations as pilgrims who crossed the Holy Door of St. Peter’s to gain the plenary indulgence. At least some of them, the photos uh came out immediately because they themselves published them. They did it with public displays of claiming their demand that homosexual acts be accepted as morally licit by the Church. That pilgrimage could not have been avoided, which these bishops consider a profanation of the temple where the remains of the chief of the apostles are. The smiling interview with photo included of the Pope with one of the promoters of said act was necessary. Have both things, the pilgrimage and the interview with photo, benefited the cause of the unity of the Church that the Pope wants to achieve and the Pope’s own image, or have they harmed it.
Some, as they have manifested, are happy with everything that happened, but others are very upset. Who are some and who are the others? Who are the ones who are happy and who are the ones who are suffering? Those who reject the doctrine of the Church are happy. Those who defend it are disappointed. Is this the path to unity? Is unity possible that is not based on truth? The things I hear and read against Pope Leo are terrible and I refuse to second them, but if I refuse to second them it is because I love him and because I want the unity of the Church. However, I sincerely believe that there are things that should be avoided for the good of all. For the good of the Church, even for his own good, because no one is above good and evil.
Another matter, the Anglicans have appointed for the first time in their history a woman as Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Anglican Communion. The reaction of the association that encompasses 85% of the world’s Anglicans has been immediate and also very harsh. Total rejection and break in communion. In contrast, the Catholic reaction has gone a little bit beyond courtesy and good manners and has welcomed this, in quotes, archbishop, has welcomed her in a warm way. Can there be any doubt left for someone who still has at least a couple of neurons functioning? That is what is going to happen to us Catholics if female diaconate is approved, because that was exactly what happened with the Anglicans, who have ended up having their own popess, not named Joan uh like the one in the legend, but named Sara.
It is the technique of the crack opened in the door that was used with abortion. The important thing is to open it, even if it’s a little. And then the opening will be widened and so from abortion. In case of risk to the life of the mother, it has gone to decapitation abortion, killing the child with a punch when the head emerges from the mother’s womb and then, like that, dismembering it and selling its parts, its organs to make business. As time is superior to space, this is a phrase from Pope Francis, now what seems to need to be done is to consolidate the openings to gradually widen the breach. Now we’re not going to increase things for the moment. Then we’ll see. It doesn’t mean we’re going to increase it. Then we leave it up in the air. For now, no. For now, no, because they are very angry now. For now, no. Let’s consolidate what we’ve done and then we’ll see. We’ve already opened the door a little bit. We’ll see what happens next. And if you protest, you protest about uh the LGBT, if you protest about the award to a declared abortionist, if you protest you become a person who divides and polarizes. Because to not be one, you have to limit yourself to accepting what they say and even, as we say in Spain, you have to applaud it even with your ears. Either you are a flatterer or you become a polarizing separatist and enemy.
If you defend the doctrine of the Church, you are a person who divides. On the other hand, if you want that change or even violate it, you are a wonderful person to whom all kinds of honors are granted. To this terrible situation we have arrived. Who is the separator and who is the separatist? Who is the one who polarizes and the one who divides? I repeat again, I love the Pope, I respect him, I obey him, I want to be by his side and that is why I ask everyone to pray for him. Until next week, God willing.