Leo XIV in his homily: “His commitment as a diplomat, and even more as a Pastor of the Church, led this brother of ours to work for many years, with patience and self-denial, to bring together in harmony the peoples entrusted to him by obedience, even facing the obstacles and challenges that a papal representative is called to face for the good of all.” The Pope recalled that Cardinal Tscherrig “served the Lord generously” “throughout his life, more than half of which he dedicated to the service of the Apostolic See in various Pontifical Representations and in the Secretariat of State.” “He contributed, with work that was often discreet but no less diligent and demanding, proper to the ministry he exercised, to the growth of that Kingdom in which the sea of chaos no longer exists and, in its place, the new Jerusalem shines, built on the foundation of the apostles, illuminated by the light of the Lamb and enriched by the merits of the saints.” “Our world urgently needs messengers who help it regain trust, and the good witness of those whom God has chosen as his ministers can support us in responding to this call,” the Pope concluded.
On Leo XIV’s visit to Sapienza.
Among those present, applauding, was Giorgio Parisi: Nobel Prize winner in Physics and emblem of a certain ideology that has long persisted in Italian university classrooms; a world, as we know, largely governed by favoritism, cliques, and nepotism. Parisi, in 2008, was one of the signatories of the letter addressed to the rector of La Sapienza University requesting that Joseph Ratzinger not be received at the inauguration of the academic year. In an interview where revisiting the 2008 letter in which he advised the rector of Sapienza University not to receive Benedict XVI, he explains today that the difference with the current Leo XIV lies entirely in the context: “Just as the President of the Republic is not invited to inaugurate a Holy Year, neither is a Pope invited to inaugurate an academic year.”
An elegant and effective remark that does not withstand serious analysis. The problem would not have been inviting Benedict XVI personally, but inviting him specifically for the inauguration of the academic year. The professor of theology in Bonn, Münster, Tübingen, and Regensburg, vice-rector in Regensburg and one of the most important European intellectual figures of the 20th century, with a vast bibliography, was not worthy. He was treated as if he were simply a religious authority foreign to the university world is a mystification.
In the famous speech, Ratzinger begins with a classic question: what is the university? He answers, through Socrates and the dialogue with Euthyphro, that its origin lies in the human desire to know the truth: the same desire that challenged Christians in the early centuries, embracing Socratic restlessness rather than rejecting it. From there, he reinterprets the structure of the four medieval faculties (medicine, law, philosophy, and theology) as a synthesis of the relationship between theory and practice, between knowledge and the good.
And how is the legitimacy of a democratic order founded? And here he cites Habermas, recognizing his correctness in arguing that democratic processes cannot be reduced to a struggle for arithmetic majorities, but must be characterized as a “truth-sensitive process of argumentation.” We will not know what idea of the university these professors have in mind, those who, faced with a text of this caliber, had the intellectual perspicacity to sign a letter to avoid hearing it. It seems that Benedict XVI was dangerous; Leo XIV seems controlled.
The synodal document Scandalous? Yes. Surprising? Actually no.
Phil Lawler in Catholic Culture. Homosexual orientation is a “gift from God.” The “gay anthem,” the pop song “Dancing Queen,” performed by an invited group during the Pope’s weekly public audience. What happened in Rome last week is the same as what has been happening for years: the current Vatican administration has discreetly expressed its support for the homosexual agenda, and no one has stopped them.
The “Dancing Queen” episode, which is the least serious and easiest to explain. Someone—probably a low-ranking official in the Vatican bureaucracy—authorized the band to play that song last Wednesday. Was it a deliberate nod to the gay lobby? Maybe yes, maybe no. Study Group No. 9 had been tasked with evaluating “controversial” issues, but chose to call them “emerging” issues, explaining that Vatican II had initiated a “paradigm shift” in the understanding of Church doctrine. The report included testimonies from Catholics calling for changes in Church doctrine, particularly that of an American who identified as a happy couple in a same-sex “marriage” and proclaimed: “My sexuality is not a perversion, a disorder, or a cross; it is a gift from God.”
The study group’s report is precisely that: a report, lacking magisterial authority, and the most provocative material appeared in the appendices. The document cannot be interpreted as a change in Church doctrine, but it would be naive to pretend that the publication of this Vatican document will have no impact on the public perception of Church doctrine.
Who was responsible for this report? Journalist Edward Pentin, in an article published in the National Catholic Register, points out that several members of Study Group No. 9 had already questioned the Church’s teachings on controversial (or “emerging”) moral issues. Cardinal Gerhard Müller accused the authors of the report of “not openly denying revealed truths, but setting them aside and, alongside them, building their own space for a comfortable and worldly Christianity.” Unfortunately, the use of Vatican employment relationships to promote dissent from Church teachings, particularly on the issue of homosexuality, has become a recurring practice in synods. The McCarrick scandal—and the Vatican’s outright refusal to allow a thorough investigation into the rise of the disgraced prelate—has highlighted the influence of the “lavender mafia” in Rome. This influence is equally evident in the persistent attempts to highlight homosexual rights on the eve of every meeting of the Synod of Bishops. It is clear that there are several clerics, comfortably installed in the Vatican bureaucracy, who are working from within to modify the Church’s teachings and pastoral practices. “This destructive subversion, sponsored by the Vatican, must end now.”
Synodal manipulations.
If anything characterizes some synodal fathers, it is their audacity and lack of shame. Another fact that confirms this, in case there were any doubts, is that Sister Josée Ngalula, a Congolese theologian and the only African representative on Synod Study Group 9, has revealed that she did not contribute to the part of the group’s final report that falsely suggested that homosexual relationships might not be sinful. Sister Josée, the first African woman to serve on the International Theological Commission, stated that she did not participate in drafting the sections of the report on homosexual persons because it is not a pastoral issue of importance in her community. She did contribute to the sections of the text on active nonviolence. “I leave it to those for whom this is an ‘important’ issue to discuss it among themselves.” Sister Josée’s lack of participation in the Synod report’s text on homosexuality is noteworthy because she has a history of denouncing LGBT ideology.
Cardinal Willem Eijk dismantles the rainbow synodal document.
Cardinal Willem Eijk is the Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands. A physician by profession, he has been a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life since 2004. He is the author of the book “The Bond of Love: Catholic Teaching on Marriage and Sexual Ethics,” published in 2025 by Emmaus Academic. Undoubtedly an expert and very clear: “The report recently published by Synod Study Group 9 represents a worrying departure from the consistent moral teaching of the Catholic Church. While the authors claim to lack ‘the experience or, above all, the necessary ecclesiastical authorization’ to address specific moral issues definitively, the methodology and framework of the report systematically undermine the Church’s ability to proclaim and apply its moral doctrine. This is not merely a technical deficiency, but a fundamental contradiction of Catholic teaching that demands a forceful response.”
The most immediate concern lies in the report’s treatment of same-sex relationships. The document presents testimonies from people with homosexual attraction without providing the Church’s moral framework for understanding these experiences. The report states that a witness “testifies to the discovery that sin, at its root, does not consist in the couple’s relationship (same-sex), but in the lack of faith in a God who desires our fulfillment.” The authors of the report reproduce this claim without correction or clarification.
This witness’s reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil; this is established Catholic doctrine. A believing Christian who engages in such acts certainly falters in faith, insofar as he does not trust in the grace of God that enables him to avoid sin. But this does not mean that sin lies primarily in the lack of faith and not in the act itself, as the witness suggests. The authors’ omission in failing to clarify this point creates a dangerous ambiguity.
A second testimony is even more problematic. This witness initially sought help from Courage International, the Catholic apostolate that teaches people with same-sex attraction to live according to the Church’s doctrine on chastity. The report presents Courage in a negative light, suggesting that it “separates faith from sexuality” and falsely claiming that it offers conversion therapy. The witness ultimately finds refuge in Christian communities and with priests who welcome “people rejected for belonging to the LGBT community.” The clear implication is that this second witness, who lives in a homosexual relationship, does so with the support and approval of these priests and communities. By giving greater prominence to these testimonies without any doctrinal commentary, the report effectively normalizes homosexual relationships within the ecclesiastical context. This represents a clear attempt to weaken the proclamation of Catholic moral teaching.
The underlying problem lies in the methodological framework of the report. The authors subordinate everything to the description of a “synodal process” centered on people’s practices and experiences. They explicitly reject what they call “proclaiming in an abstract way and applying deductively principles established in an immutable and rigid manner.” Instead, they advocate maintaining a “fruitful tension between what is established in the doctrine and pastoral practice of the Church and the practices of everyday life.” This language sounds pastoral and Christ-centered, but it conceals a radical departure from Catholic moral theology. The authors invoke Jesus’ statement that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” to suggest that moral norms cannot be absolute, but must allow exceptions based on individual circumstances and experiences. This constitutes a fundamental misinterpretation of Scripture.
The report generates deliberate ambiguity precisely on this point. The authors write that “the universal truth of the human person, in its historical expression, cannot be determined once and for all, but is found in the concrete forms of different cultures, in constant dialogue.” They suggest that achieving moral knowledge requires a long synodal process of intercultural listening and diverse experiences. This is simply false. The intentions with which God created the human person in the context of marriage and sexuality are universal truths, established once and for all, which human beings can know spontaneously through the natural moral law, and which are found in Sacred Scripture.
Pope John Paul II forcefully rejected this approach in Veritatis Splendor: “On this basis, an attempt is made to legitimize so-called ‘pastoral’ solutions contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium and to justify a ‘creative’ hermeneutic according to which the moral conscience is in no way bound, in all cases, by a particular negative precept.” The faithful can be assured that several cardinals and bishops will make their objections known to the Roman Magisterium. The Church’s teaching is not obscure or subject to revision through synodal processes. It is the truth that sets us free.
Zuppi between Moscow and Kiev.
The prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine, which took place in recent hours according to various international journalistic reconstructions, is part of a long series of humanitarian operations in which religious mediators and informal diplomats have participated, including Cardinal Zuppi.
It is not an official function as a political negotiator, but a discreet diplomatic activity that the Vatican has developed in recent years: promoting indirect contacts, facilitating humanitarian exchanges, and keeping open channels of communication on sensitive issues such as prisoners of war and detained civilians. Zuppi’s work is part of a network of contacts that also includes embassies, NGOs, and local religious representatives. Zuppi does not appear as an official negotiator, but as a facilitator of discreet contacts. His activity is part of the Vatican’s traditional parallel diplomacy, a method based on informal channels and multi-level relationships. The Vatican always avoids claiming direct results. Negotiations are kept in strict confidentiality and are rarely confirmed in advance. Ukrainian sources have positively assessed the outcome of the releases.
Exhibition on angels.
Mass for “peace and social development in Cuba.”
The Cuban communists look very pious; we fear they are anticipating complicated situations and it seems they remember Saint Barbara when it thunders, and it is thundering and not clearing up. Special Mass for “peace and social development in Cuba” at the church of San Ignatius of Loyola, presided over by Cardinal Michael Czerny, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Integral Human Development. This Mass is sponsored by the Cuban Embassy to the Holy See; greater things we shall see. The Cuban crisis was one of the topics discussed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his visit to the Vatican; the Cubans know this, perhaps they do not know everything that is known in the Vatican, and what they think they know. If we already see the communists in a pious phase, it is enough to think that something serious is affecting them.
Cardinal Vesco in Turin.
This man must be very bored, and it is strange to find him in his see: “I do not want to be called father: my most beautiful title is brother.” He is at the Turin International Book Fair to speak about the meaning of fraternity in the Church and contemporary society: “Fraternity is brave people.” For Vesco, the Church is called to cultivate relationships less marked by the patriarchal model and more based on reciprocity. “I also need someone to take care of me,” he explained, emphasizing that Christian authority is born not from power but from relationships. The Archbishop of Algiers described synodality as “a Church increasingly made up of brothers and sisters,” capable of bearing witness to the Gospel even in fragility and mutual listening. “When one is with Christians, one should truly feel like a brother or sister.” The debate also touched on the value of interreligious dialogue, practiced daily by the Church in Algeria. Vesco recalled the Document on Human Fraternity, signed in Abu Dhabi by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, as a concrete sign of the possibility of “doing good together” between Christians and Muslims. “Questioning whether Muslims can fully experience democracy is playing into the hands of extremists.”
The Ambrosian Monastery.
It seems to have very little of a monastery and only the Catholic origin of the many funds it will cost. Commissioned by the Archdiocese of Milan, it is futuristic in form and timeless in content, a faith designed for atheists. The Archdiocese of Milan has decided to build a monastery in the Minde neighborhood, near the old Expo grounds. It will be called the Ambrosian Monastery, but forget contemplative and transcendent atmospheres. The project resembles a shopping center with a ski jump on the roof. The future monastery, which will house a permanent community, possibly religious, will occupy 2,700 square meters, of which 1,100 will be dedicated to open spaces. A triangular church is planned that will also serve cultural purposes, a multi-purpose church.
It is not clear whether the project will be financed entirely by the Archdiocese. It is a space for everyone where the God, Catholic, will also be Muslim, Jewish, and a fictional character for atheists. This is how the Archdiocese explains the project: the goal is to create “a space for spirituality, debate, and reflection, to foster dialogue between religions, cultures, and knowledge in the 21st century.” There will be a Library of Religions, a Cloister of Religions, and a Garden of Religions. In this garden, in line with the most current ecological trend, each monotheistic religion will be represented by a plant, all very thought out by botanical theologians and ecological designers.
The Archbishop of Milan, Mario Delpini, in an exit, well explains the meaning where “knowledge, research, talent, business, entertainment, nature, and life converge, Italy and the world. In the heart of the city of innovation, the question arises about the meaning of all this, the reason for the commitment and investment.” With Catholic money, once again, we offer a place on a silver platter to atheists and representatives of other religions to catechize poor Catholics according to their beliefs. A place with the attempt to build a universal religion—desired only by people like Soros and some Catholics, certainly not by Jews and Muslims—where differences are eliminated and everyone is grouped under the word “God,” a word now supposedly stripped of all identity and conceived to be vague and all-encompassing, attractive to all tastes.
The crime of mail-order abortion.
The decision of the Supreme Court majority was the subject of dissent by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The latter supported the reasoning of Louisiana, “the mailing of mifepristone for abortive use constitutes a crime. The Comstock Act prohibits the use of the mail to send any medication intended to induce abortion.” Thomas pointed out that this violation of the law, through the mailing of mifepristone, causes nearly a thousand abortions per month in Louisiana, circumventing the state’s pro-life laws. The same justice, in strong terms, highlighted the absurdity of accepting the appeal of the manufacturers of mifepristone: “The appellants have no right to the suspension of an adverse injunction based on lost profits derived from their criminal activity.
Other states, such as Louisiana, have outlawed abortion except in limited circumstances. […] But Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by some healthcare providers, private organizations, and states that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement. Louisiana, like other Republican-governed states with laws more attentive to the right to life of the unborn, therefore sees its sovereignty undermined.
The 100 days of Hicks.
In an exclusive interview with The Good Newsroom, Archbishop Ronald A. Hicks describes his first 100 days of pastoral ministry in the Archdiocese of New York and shares the experiences that have marked the beginning of this new stage. During the conversation, he speaks about his experience as archbishop so far, including the people he has met and the archdiocesan institutions he has visited. Archbishop Hicks also reflects on the next 100 days and the future.
And also in New York, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination and the 25th anniversary of his episcopal ordination, Cardinal Timothy Dolan asked his successor, Archbishop Ronald Hicks, to deliver the homily. The pews of St. Patrick’s Cathedral were filled with bishops, priests, religious, and thousands of laity to commemorate this occasion.
Barron interviews a married homosexual.
Bishop Robert Barron received on his podcast, published on Thursday, Dave Rubin, a “married” homosexual and father through surrogacy. He did not question or address at all Rubin’s homosexuality, his supposed “marriage,” or his parenthood with his partner during a one-hour conversation. The fact that the bishop did not substantially address Rubin’s beliefs and lifestyle during a public debate is significant, since, according to Catholic Church doctrine, they constitute obstacles to his salvation. Both indicated that they plan to have a follow-up conversation with “many more topics to discuss,” but did not specify a date. Barron was harshly criticized for giving Rubin a voice, given his radically anti-Catholic and anti-Christian lifestyle, which includes buying children from surrogate mothers. Some commentators asked whether Barron had denounced Rubin’s grave sins. “Did you rebuke him for his sodomy and trafficking of minors?”
There is a schism near in the Fraternity.
A church or an NGO?
Today we have an example, one more, that comes to us from the diocese of Genoa; surely our readers know many more cases. The charitable work of the diocese has been reduced to mere ideology; it is not that nothing is being done, but what is done is for ideology. Caritas, Sant’Egidio, listening centers, and other denominations have increasingly lost sight of the reason why we help our neighbor, which is Jesus, and why we believe in his words. The world of Caritas and volunteering is becoming increasingly bureaucratic. Accessing a shelter or a soup kitchen involves entering a labyrinth of interviews, expectations, and evasions. It is simply being sent from one place to another, often without getting to the heart of the matter. It is a world in the hands of workers with a very marked ideology. Rainbow and Palestinian flags wave in their offices and premises, and in the last municipal elections, many (paid) Caritas workers were candidates for the Democratic Party and the Greens, on the left. It is a highly politicized world, so if you are not on their list of friends, you will not receive help. Many activities are entrusted to dubious cooperatives, often with insensitive staff, which feels more like an NGO environment than the community of Christ’s disciples. The root of this deep crisis lies in the loss of identity. Many in the Church no longer know who they are. They live on borrowed slogans and symbols: feminism, inclusion, aggregation, rainbow flags, the gender gap, a listening church, a church that goes out to meet others. There is always one small detail missing: Our Lord Jesus Christ.
“…ask and you will receive, that your joy may be complete.”
Happy reading.