Among the many reasons put forward by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and taken up today by the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to justify episcopal consecrations without a pontifical mandate, the argument of the state of necessity of the faithful in the face of the gravity of the ecclesial crisis is at once the weakest and the most forceful. Who has the authority to determine the existence of such a state and to establish its beginning and end? It is evident that this assessment cannot be left to the judgment of the Society of Saint Pius X. If it were, it would follow that the state of necessity ceases when the Society considers it so, in effect granting it a power of judgment over the Holy See incompatible with the hierarchical and visible constitution of the Church. This would create a situation in which a particular subject sets itself up as the ultimate criterion for evaluating the actions of the highest authority.
If the principle of the state of necessity were accepted, any bishop who considered that the Church was undergoing a grave crisis could feel authorized, or even morally obliged, to consecrate other bishops without a pontifical mandate in order to guarantee the continuity of the faith and the sacraments. The consequence would be a proliferation of parallel jurisdictions and itinerant bishops scattered throughout the world, with the inevitable effects of fragmentation, disorder, and confusion for the very faithful they claim to protect.
The existence of an episcopal lineage tracing back to Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 and later expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X, concretely demonstrates how the logic of the state of necessity, once detached from a higher principle of authority capable of defining and regulating it, can generate new divisions.
Archbishop Lefebvre, in his letter to the priests of April 27, 1987, wrote: “ The faithful who are still Catholic find themselves in many places in a spiritually desperate situation. It is to this plea that the Church listens; it is for these situations that she grants jurisdiction by the law of substitution.” The decisive criterion, for him, was not the assertion of a specific right of the Society, but the spiritual need of the faithful. The consecrations of bishops in 1988 were intended as a response to this plea of souls. The final word in this dramatic situation belongs to the one who has the divine mandate to govern the Church, whom the Society of Saint Pius X itself recognizes as the legitimate Vicar of Christ: the current Pope, Leo XIV. A true and definitive solution to the grave problems afflicting the Mystical Body of Christ cannot be found outside the Pope, nor against him.
Müller and the ruin of Europe.
During a recent conference in Rome, he stated that Europe will “suicidally hand itself over to its own ruin” without Christianity. Titled “The Eurogender Dictate: Christian Roots, Religious and Educational Freedom at Risk in the EU,” he analyzed the dangerous consequences of European Union policies, particularly those reinforcing gender ideology. We have it on Infovaticana: “gender ideology treats gender as a social construct rather than a biological reality, challenging the order and will created by God for human beings and the family, and thus confronting Christianity.” “If today in Europe and in the West in general we can speak of human rights and personal freedoms, we must remember that if this is possible, it is because we live in a society, in a free culture that owes this freedom precisely to the religious principles that have shaped our culture for centuries.” Cardinal Müller stressed that Christianity is inseparable from the foundations of Europe and indispensable to its very structure. Citing Benedict XVI’s reflections on reason and faith in his Regensburg Lecture, Cardinal Müller argued that Europe needs to broaden its understanding of reason as something that can discern questions of morality, truth, and human dignity, “instead of reducing human knowledge solely to what can be scientifically verified.”
Aguiar digs in ahead of his impending removal.
We have many more details on the situation in Guillermo Gazanini’s entry on Infovaticana “Should Archbishop Carlos Aguiar’s resignation be accepted?”The resignation of Father Efraín Hernández Díaz as rector of the Basilica of Guadalupe, submitted and accepted on June 7, far from closing an institutional crisis, raises further questions about how one of the most delicate and troubling conflicts of recent years has been handled in the primatial archdiocese of Mexico. A question that is repeated, especially among the archdiocesan presbyterate, in the face of the evidence and the scandal, a central question that has no answer: Why does a rector resign who, barely two weeks earlier, had been publicly vindicated by Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes?
“The most serious thing is that Archbishop Aguiar Retes has not only avoided explaining the conclusions of the investigation. He has publicly maintained a version that seems incompatible with the subsequent facts. If there really was nothing serious against Efraín Hernández, it is impossible to explain why he ended up submitting his resignation just days after being reinstated. And if there were indeed concerning elements, then it is even more serious that the opposite was stated before the chapter.”
Aguiar submitted his resignation more than a year ago due to age limit and remains at the head of the archdiocese only because Pope Leo XIV has not yet accepted the resignation. Has the time come for Pope Leo XIV to accept the resignation submitted by Archbishop Aguiar Retes? Your Holiness: the Basilica of Guadalupe deserves transparency. The chapter deserves answers, and the millions of faithful who love the Virgin of Guadalupe also deserve them; delaying a decision in this case is causing enormous harm, let us hope it is not irreparable, to the faith of Mexicans so devoted to their little Virgin.
The outgoing Aguiar has been asked for a report to present to the Pope on the situation; it is evidently a self-serving confession full of omissions and concealments. As far as we can tell, he intends to present himself as a martyr because he has fought against the corruption left by the previous and much-mourned Cardinal Norberto Rivera, whose memory remains very much alive among the faithful and the priests.
A black month for the Italian bishops.
In general they are cautious; grand, strident acts do not suit the Italian character. There are some who cannot hide where they stand. Today another case: in Verona, the decision of Bishop Domenico Pompili to join the ANPI (National Association of Italian Partisans) continues to generate controversy. The ANPI itself emphatically announced on its social media: “The Bishop of Verona joins the ANPI.” The delegation that visited the diocese for the handover ceremony was led by the national president, Gianfranco Pagliarulo, who a few months ago had declared that he did not want the Israeli flag in the marches of April 25 because, in his opinion, both Israel and the United States were aggressors.
And if red is in fashion in the Diocese of Verona, in the Archdiocese of Florence the rainbow is preferred. Recently, the diocesan organization Caritas announced the launch of Progetto Andrea, a collaboration between the local Church and Arcigay of Florence. The main project is called Casa Andrea, a center open to young LGBTQ+ people. The residence will also offer “personalized support and safe housing for young people in transition between 18 and 35 years old.” All of this will be funded by the 8% tax donation to the Catholic Church. “We are very proud to have inaugurated Casa Andrea and the related services.” The Italian episcopate seems to be looking in a very different direction from that of its former “great leader,” Camillo Ruini, who was discreetly buried in his family tomb in Dinazzano.
Changes in American countries.
Majority-Catholic countries undergoing changes that are not minor; today it is Colombia’s turn. It is being called a “narrow” or “tight” victory, but 250,000 votes determined the success of Abelardo de la Espriella, a new face in politics who managed to mobilize the moderate, Christian, and Catholic electorate in the second round of Colombia’s presidential elections. The “Trumpist right-winger” De la Espriella obtained approximately 13 million votes (12,959,542), becoming the most-voted presidential candidate in Colombian history. More than 26.3 million Colombians cast their vote, out of a total of 41.4 million eligible voters.
Vance’s path to faith.
It is entirely novel to have a publication of this kind signed by a sitting Vice President of the United States. It is now fully available: Vance, Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith. It offers a complete account of Vance’s dysfunctional childhood, the struggles of working-class Americans ravaged by addiction and poverty, and how he understood himself and his sociopolitical vision in the years leading up to his conversion to Catholicism. The way Vance narrated his conversion recalls the concept of the “illative sense” of Saint John Henry Newman, set forth in his Grammar of Assent. The basic idea is that there is no single irrefutable argument that compels us to accept the faith; no possible justification is conclusive on its own. Rather, we accept the faith through a unique combination of plausible arguments and reflections on our own life experiences.
What helped Vance embrace the faith was his deep reading and intellectual curiosity; his appreciation for art, architecture, and the historical continuity of the Church; his conversations with Dominican priests who helped clarify persistent difficulties; and the “small moments” in which “he felt the presence of God… was drawn to the faith in a way that reading books had never achieved.” Vance honestly acknowledges that there is no explanation of evil that we can fully understand. Only God knows why He permits it, a fact that he found strangely comforting.
For Vance, a life without God or family feels empty, perhaps even meaningless. Vance further noted that “the professional life of the elite demands a disconnection from what makes us human.” All his “professional virtues” were impressive, and the praise from his family made him feel fulfilled, but in the end he found them all “unsatisfactory” because they did not satisfy the deeper longings of his heart: a life in which the “big questions” about meaning and purpose were paramount, and where there was ample space for love of his wife and children.
This is where his wife Usha comes in. Her role in the change of mindset that later opened the door to conversion is fundamental. While Vance had an external motivation, Usha had an internal one. His was driven by others’ opinion of his career; hers, by a genuine interest in her work. Although Usha is not baptized, and we certainly pray for her conversion to the Catholic faith, it is evident that Vance saw in her great natural virtue that impelled him to be more virtuous himself. Becoming a father for the first time also prompted Vance to reflect on his faith in a much deeper way and to identify the values he wished to instill in his eldest son: that he focus on cultivating virtue and finding love above all else.
In the midst of his reflections on his life, Vance sets out his views on various political and cultural issues. First, pro-life advocates might be surprised by how little he speaks about abortion; those who hoped he would advocate for a federal ban on abortion or restrictions on the abortion pill will be disappointed. He considers his role in making abortion unthinkable to lie in “building the kind of culture and economy that can truly sustain young families and the life they bring into the world.” The book is already available on “Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith”.
Looking to the great cardinals.
Just as Norberto Rivera remains the cardinal of Mexico, Sandoval of Guadalajara, Rouco of Madrid, and we could go on without limit. What those who have come after these men have sold us is something else that is better not to look at, from Aguiar to Cobo, passing through Tucho.
Ruini, at 94, already confined to a wheelchair and in precarious health, found himself participating in the third conclave of his life as a cardinal, this time no longer as an elector. No one would have blamed him if he had chosen not to participate, but his voice and all the energy he had left he wanted to spend in the General Congregations, convinced that the Church was facing a fundamental transition. “Better to be questioned than to be irrelevant” was his motto, and he still had much to say, especially now that the Church was emerging from the controversial and bewildering pontificate of Pope Francis. We still do not know very well what Leo XIV will be like as Pope; observers agree that his pontificate is still taking shape and his ideas on governance have yet to be revealed.
Cardinal Ruini knew how to face difficult times, and in an era when there was no party, organization, or government promoting Catholic ideas, Ruini understood the urgent need for a culture of Christian orientation that would permeate society and inspire politicians, even from opposing sides, to unite around a shared vision of the common good. John Paul II had developed this conviction in Poland, understanding that the struggle against the Communist Party could not be a frontal ideological battle but had to begin with culture itself. Benedict XVI maintained the line of John Paul II, with a less interventionist approach, but always with reflection focused on the need to restore Christianity to its central place in daily life. Pope Francis, however, reversed the stance: it is the Church that must speak out when necessary, adopting its own language when appropriate. With Ruini, dialogue centered on non-negotiable principles. Pope Francis, who also spoke vehemently on issues such as abortion, preferred instead to dialogue with the world through compromise, negotiating on themes and language, in the need to convey a Christian message.
Leo XIV speaks of principles and asks Christians to apply them. Although his address to the Popular Movements at the beginning of his pontificate seemed written in the time of Pope Francis, just like his first exhortation, Dilexi te, on poverty, Leo XIV has gradually acquired a different tone. The language of Leo XIV is that of truth, even when it is not understood (as he stated in his first address to the Diplomatic Corps) or when one risks being ridiculed (as he explained during the Vigil of Prayer for Peace on April 11, 2026). Some complain that Ruini was too political, but he always remained a priest in love with God, a priest full of faith who always interpreted his life as service, even and especially when he was put to the test. What mattered was not to become irrelevant.
Saint John the Baptist.
From Benedict XVI: “Today, June 24, we celebrate the solemnity of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist. With the exception of the Virgin Mary, the Baptist is the only saint whose birth the liturgy celebrates, and it does so because he is intimately linked to the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God.” “John’s father, Zechariah—husband of Elizabeth, a relative of Mary—was a priest of the worship of the Old Testament. He did not immediately believe the announcement of such an unexpected fatherhood, and therefore remained mute until the day of the child’s circumcision, when he and his wife gave him the name indicated by God, that is, John, which means ‘the Lord gives grace.’ Filled with the Holy Spirit, Zechariah spoke thus of his son’s mission: ‘And you, child, will be called prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, announcing to his people salvation through the forgiveness of their sins’ (Lk 1:76-77). All this was manifested thirty years later, when John began to baptize in the Jordan River, calling the people to prepare, with that act of penance, for the imminent coming of the Messiah, whom God had revealed to him during his stay in the desert of Judea. For this reason he was called the ‘Baptist,’ that is, the ‘Baptizer’ (cf. Mt 3:1-6). When one day Jesus himself, from Nazareth, came to be baptized, John at first refused, but then accepted, and saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus and heard the voice of the heavenly Father proclaiming him his Son (cf. Mt 3:13-17). But the Baptist’s mission was not yet fulfilled: shortly afterward, he was asked to precede Jesus also in a violent death: John was beheaded in King Herod’s prison, and thus gave full witness to the Lamb of God, whom he had previously recognized and publicly pointed out.” “The Virgin Mary helped her elderly relative Elizabeth to bring John’s pregnancy to term. May she help us all to follow Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, whom the Baptist announced with great humility and prophetic zeal.”
“What then will this child be? For the hand of the Lord was with him.”
Happy reading.