Julio is advancing, His Holiness is in his villas, the Vatican has entered its summer lethargy and their eminences and excellencies are moving to their discreet places of rest. We will remain here to tell you what may happen on dates that appear dead; they never have been, and even less so in these times. The forces of evil never rest and like to take advantage of the relaxation of these dates to surprise us. We already know that, grounded in faith: “sooner or later, whatever happens comes for good.”
Leo XIV and freedom.
Fabio Nones’ critique of Leo XIV’s address on the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States: “Although it is often understood as the capacity to act according to one’s own will, true freedom is much deeper. It is founded on the human person’s capacity to know the truth and to adhere to what is good, even at a high cost.” Pope Leo rightly defines freedom as the capacity to know the truth and to adhere to what is good. Consequently, before God, who reveals Himself as the Way, the Truth and the Life, human freedom is called to know and adhere to our Lord Jesus Christ with all its strength, even at great cost. Leo continues: “The answers (to the deepest questions about the meaning of life) inevitably determine the direction we seek to give our lives, and the United States has long promoted the religious freedom necessary to responsibly follow the dictates of conscience in this regard, without fear or coercion.”
In the encyclical “Libertas” (20 June 1888), Leo XIII clarified that the criterion for the correct use of freedom is not subjective but objective and is based on divine law: “Once the criterion of truth and good is limited to human reason alone, the correct distinction between good and evil disappears; infamies do not differ from rectitude objectively, but according to the opinion and judgment of individuals.” Leo XIV, however, continues in his address: “This freedom considers sacred the intimate sphere of the person, where convictions are formed and where conscience can guide decisions taken in the depths of the human heart. This same freedom also guarantees the right of every person to practice his religion according to his own beliefs, and the right of individuals, communities and associations to express their faith publicly.”
The problem is not denying free will, but equating the true and objective religion revealed by God with other religions that are the product of human thought, contaminated by original sin. According to St. Thomas, freedom is man’s capacity to choose consciously and voluntarily the means most suited to attaining his ultimate end: eternal salvation. Leo XIII in the encyclical “Libertas”: “The true perfection of all creatures consists in pursuing and attaining their own end; the supreme end toward which human freedom must tend is God. We observe in individuals an attitude profoundly opposed to religious virtue, namely, the so-called freedom of worship. This freedom is based on the principle that everyone is free to profess the religion he desires or to profess none. Yet of all human duties, without doubt the noblest and holiest consists in the obligation to honor God with profound devotion. Therefore, since the profession of one religion is necessary in the State (and on the part of individuals), it is necessary to practice the only one that is true.” “Truth is obligatory,” wrote Romano Amerio in “Stat Veritas” with his extraordinary capacity for synthesis. From the earliest times of the Church, Christians were hated not so much for believing in Jesus Christ as God (the Roman Empire was very tolerant of various religions), but for their claim to proclaim the one true religion for all. For this reason the martyrs shed their blood.
We recall the famous fourth-century dispute between Symmachus and Ambrose of Milan on the relationship between Christians and other religions. Symmachus: “It is right to consider as one and the same thing that which all venerate. We contemplate the same stars. The sky is common to all. The same world surrounds us. What does it matter what doctrine each one follows in the search for truth? So great a mystery cannot be reached by a single path.” St. Ambrose, in the face of Symmachus’s assertion that “so great a God cannot be reached by a single path,” replies: “But what you do not know is that we have learned the one path from the very voice of God, and what you seek by hypotheses, we know with certainty, by the wisdom of God and by His Truth.”
Today we hear the Magisterium pronounce other words, closer to the thought of Symmachus than to that of St. Ambrose. Words that, in essence, relativize the Catholic religion, guardian of the treasure of truth of divine origin, turning it into one among many religious propositions, and seem to say to the world: choose whichever you prefer according to your conscience. Those who, innocently, do not know Christ, but follow the dictates of their conscience by observing the natural law, can be saved through an explicit or even implicit baptism of desire to adhere to the faith; this has always been taught. God, who desires to save all, disposes of many means to make Himself heard in consciences sensitive to His voice. This, however, happens in spite of their religion, not thanks to it.
The virtues that adorn the resigned Cardinal López Romero.
It is a disgrace for any institution, and even more so for the Church, to have characters of this caliber placed upon us, or rather imposed. The discovery of his lamentable behaviors is not an isolated fact but is preceded by a whole bouquet of progressive virtues. We will not repeat it; you have it in the Infovaticana article “From dialogue with Islam to synodality: the trajectory of Cardinal López Romero.” Pope Francis appointed him Archbishop of Rabat on 29 December 2017 and he received episcopal ordination on 10 March 2018 at the hands of Cardinal Juan José Omella. In May 2019 he also assumed the apostolic administration of the Archdiocese of Tangier and, a few months later, on 5 October, Francis created him cardinal. The Archdiocese of Rabat barely gathers some 20,000 Catholics distributed in 18 parishes and Morocco had never had a cardinal. Asked about his political position, he replied with a phrase that was widely circulated: “The extreme left is still too far to the right for me; I am of the Gospel.” López Romero is the first Spanish cardinal in recent history to face a canonical procedure publicly for accusations of improper sexual conduct. Its outcome will be followed with special attention in Morocco and in Rome.
But did Francis choose a “good” cardinal?
There will be some, if only by exception. The López Romero case leads many to ask this question. It is not the first time that an appointment by Pope Francis has become, over time, a source of grave scandals. How many times in recent years have we seen men raised to very high positions whose previous performance already generated serious doubts, or who later spectacularly disappointed expectations of doctrinal fidelity and moral integrity? The evangelical prudence—which should guide the choice of every pastor—often seems to have given way to other criteria: “peripheral” visibility, balance within the curia or, simply, excessive trust in insufficiently vetted figures.
The result is always the same: the Church is humiliated, the faithful are scandalized and the simplest and most faithful souls drift away or become discouraged. The Bride of Christ does not deserve pastors who, instead of caring for the flock, become a cause of scandal and pain. The sad thing about so many episcopal resignations we are witnessing is that no one is responsible for such appointments. The suffering people of God are imposed, “by the grace of God and of the Apostolic See,” a tribe of unworthy pastors. When the scandal can no longer be hidden because it becomes public, and never before, a discreet withdrawal is carried out. Everything remains the same and no one acknowledges having been mistaken or lacking a good eye for choices so serious.
A decree signed by Tucho.
It is not surprising that the decree of excommunication affecting the consecrations of the Fraternity bears the signature of Cardinal Fernández; it is quite a joke that historians will manage to unravel. Afterwards it is no surprise that the one does not arouse much sympathy and the others enjoy growing sympathy. It was 5 March 2023. In his cathedral of La Plata, Archbishop Víctor Manuel Fernández denounced the “classifications” and “labels” developed by the Church. Three years later, as Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, he was the one who promulgated the decree of excommunication directed at the bishops, members and faithful of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X after the episcopal consecrations of 1 July 2026. In that homily: “Therefore, every brother and sister is worth more than anything else on this earth. You know that, for many centuries, the Church took a different course. Without realizing it, it developed an entire philosophy and morality full of classifications, designed to categorize people, to label them: ‘This one is like this, that one is like that; this one may receive Communion, that one may not; this one may be forgiven, that one may not.’ It is terrible that this happened in the Church. Thanks be to God, Pope Francis is helping us to free ourselves from these patterns. Does the rejection of labels apply only to the sexual sphere?”
The Society of St. Pius X defends itself.
And it is clear that it is not willing to lose the spotlight or fall into silence. “This decree, issued after the consecrations of 1 July in Écône, was signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and his two secretaries. Beneath its apparent rigor, does it not contain inconsistencies and errors of a theological and canonical nature? Without pretending an exhaustive analysis, we wish to offer some reflections on this Roman document.” Regarding the schism they affirm that “the Society of St. Pius X and its Superior General have always affirmed that they recognize Leo XIV as their head. They address him as a subject to his superior, as a son to his father. They are willing to obey him whenever the order is in accordance with faith or morals. More deeply, the Society has never intended to constitute a parallel or autonomous Church; it exercises its apostolate as a work of the Catholic Church, at her service and for her propagation. It does not claim its own doctrine, its own liturgy or a mission independent of that of the Church.” They affirm that “adhering to them (the consecrations) does not imply adhering to a schism, but to an act of courage that presents itself as a refusal to obey the Pope, undoubtedly serious but perfectly justified.”
On the excommunication: “to affirm with certainty that neither the consecrating bishops nor the bishops consecrated on 1 July are excommunicated. This applies all the more to the priests and faithful of the FSSPX. It is evident that the four bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 never expressed the slightest retraction regarding their episcopal consecration. It is impossible to find in them any sign of repentance, sorrow or amendment. On the contrary, they repeatedly expressed their gratitude to their consecrating bishop for this act of courage. And yet, on 21 January 2009, Cardinal Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, acting by papal mandate, deemed it opportune to lift the latae sententiae excommunication of the four bishops. Should we interpret this as a sign that the Roman authorities themselves did not believe in the validity of this censure? They continue to affirm that the root of the problem is doctrinal, not disciplinary.
Cardinal Koch and the Lefebvrian schism.
On 2 July 2026, one day after the Lefebvrian Society of St. Pius X carried out in Écône, Switzerland, an act that the Vatican condemned as “schismatic,” Tück sat down with Koch for an interview on the FSSPX and possible ways to heal the schism in the future. The interview lasts approximately 28 minutes and was conducted in German. The original audio is available here.
When the interviewer asked why Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Koch replied verbatim: “I think it is difficult even from a theological perspective, because the formula ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ naturally applies to Catholics convinced that the Catholic Church points the way to eternal salvation. But we already have the fundamental conviction, in Sacred Scripture and also in Tradition, that God desires the salvation of all [cf. 1 Tim 2:4] and that, moreover, He finds other ways for those who have never aligned themselves with the Gospel of Jesus Christ to attain salvation. If the Society [of St. Pius X] now, in essence, condemns to hell everyone who does not belong to the Catholic Church, then I do not know how this fundamental conviction of Sacred Scripture can be justified: that God desires all to be saved. And the danger, of course, is that theological judgment is placed before the supreme judicial will of God, which I consider theologically very problematic.”
The Letter Suprema Haec Sacra of the Holy Office of 1949 sets forth the correct Catholic understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, which was approved by Pope Pius XII in audience on 28 July 1949. It explicitly teaches that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation not only by necessity of precept but also by necessity of means: “Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to teach, there is also this infallible declaration which affirms that there is no salvation outside the Church. This dogma, however, must be understood in the sense attributed to it by the Church herself. In fact, the Savior entrusted the explanation of the things contained in the deposit of faith not to private judgment, but to the teaching of ecclesiastical authority. (…) Therefore no one will be saved who, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, refuses to submit to her or separates himself from obedience to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Christ on earth.
Apparently, Koch thinks that the dogma of the Church of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus can be neutralized on the basis that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). Considering the theological disaster that is the Church of the Second Vatican Council, we must agree with Koch that that church is not necessary for salvation. In fact, belonging to it represents a great danger to eternal salvation.
Everything is very synodal, but German Catholics are not asked which bishops they want; the synodals are already there to decide. The recent promotion of Christian Würtz, currently auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Freiburg im Breisgau, as the new bishop of the Diocese of Eichstätt is still news. At 55 years of age, Würtz succeeds Bishop Gregor Maria Hanke, OSB, a Benedictine, who resigned early at Pentecost 2025 at the age of 70, thus becoming the youngest diocesan bishop in Germany. According to Catholic Culture, the appointment to Eichstätt was considered a true test for the pontificate of Leo XIV, since it is one of the few German dioceses in which the Pope has full freedom to choose the bishop, unlike other dioceses where the cathedral chapter indicates the candidate.
Given the heterodox positions expressed by Bishop Christian Würtz in the recent past, it is easy to imagine that this appointment, desired by Pope Leo XIV, will arouse considerable criticism. On the one hand, priests of the FSSPX are excommunicated, despite their orthodox doctrine; on the other, bishops like Würtz, notoriously heterodox, are promoted. And those who raise these criticisms cannot be blamed. At the very least, it will be difficult to deny that something is not right in this entire situation.
The most notable aspect of Würtz’s profile is his active participation in the controversial German Synodal Way, a reform process that has generated wide debate in the universal Church in recent years. In September 2022, he voted in favor of the document proposing a doctrinal reevaluation of homosexuality, arguing that homosexual orientation is not a personal choice and advocating greater acceptance of homosexual persons in ecclesial life. The approved text stated that, since homosexual orientation is part of the human person created by God, it should not be judged ethically differently from heterosexual orientation, and that sexual acts between persons of the same sex do not in themselves constitute sin nor should they be considered intrinsically evil.
In that same assembly, Würtz also supported the text on “gender diversity,” which urged dioceses to review pastoral and administrative practices to promote the inclusion of transgender and intersex persons. In March 2023, he again voted in favor of the introduction of blessing celebrations for same-sex couples and divorced and remarried couples, one of the most controversial initiatives of the entire Synodal Process. Würtz also supported the synodal resolutions concerning the ordination of women, which directly invoked Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the 1994 apostolic letter in which St. John Paul II reserved priestly ordination exclusively for men. On the three points—the blessing of same-sex couples, the reevaluation of homosexuality and the ordination of women—his predecessor, Hanke, had voted against, evidencing a clear divergence of vision between the two prelates.
Shortly after his episcopal ordination in 2019, he met with some members of the Maria 2.0 movement, founded in Germany to advocate ecclesial reforms, including women’s access to the priesthood, and handed them a personal letter and a ball of red thread as a symbol of dialogue. More recently, in May 2025, as rector of the seminary in Freiburg, he received symbolic requests for admission from nine theology students protesting the restriction of the ministerial priesthood exclusively to men. While he reiterated that he could not admit them according to current legislation, Würtz described the initiative as “a good demonstration of the commitment and seriousness with which these women approach their vocation and their path in the Church,” and later met with the students in a conversation that both parties described as respectful and constructive. Würtz will be bishop of a historic diocese, suffragan of the Archdiocese of Bamberg, which today has 334,517 Catholics distributed in 253 parishes.
In Italy there are also headless bishops.
The bulletin of the diocese of Modena-Nonantola published an extensive address by Archbishop Erio Castellucci on the participation of women in the liturgy, delivered during a conference organized by the feminist group Centro Italiano Femminile in Carpi. The news was later taken up by the Italian blog Messainlatino on 30 June. “We would need to identify a role for women that could take the form of a co-presidency of the assembly.” “Women could especially take charge of the first part, the Liturgy of the Word, proclaiming the Passover of the Lord, as Mary Magdalene did to the apostles. And men could assume the presidency of the second part, which includes the consecration.” The proposal appears in a section of the text entitled “The Prophecy of Co-Presidency.” Castellucci added that such an arrangement would avoid what he describes as “the theological questions relating to the male representation of Christ in the act of bread and wine.” In other words, since the Church has reiterated its “no” to the female diaconate, its defenders are now opting to circumvent the “deadlock” through alternative liturgical proposals.
In a section of his document entitled “Beyond the Deadlock” he defends that the opinions of consultative councils be “binding” after what he describes as a process of “maturation of consensus” and establishing teams of lay faithful who would share responsibility for leadership and decision-making.
In March 2024, the diocesan church-museum hosted the exhibition “Gratia Plena” by artist Andrea Saltini. Several of the works depicted Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Mary Magdalene performing acts qualified as extremely “blasphemous,” which provoked protests from groups of Catholic faithful, who organized email campaigns directed at diocesan authorities and filed criminal complaints for contempt of religion. Castellucci refused to close the exhibition and publicly defended its continuation. Castellucci was also one of the most active Italian bishops in supporting and promoting initiatives related to the LGBT community during the so-called “Pride Month” in June 2026. It is not strange that, given the winds coming from the Vatican, it is thought that the bishop is on campaign and could soon be appointed Archbishop of Milan after the resignation of Archbishop Mario Delpini.
“Religion between equalities and inequalities.”
This was the central theme of the ninth edition of the “European Academy of Religion,” held in early July in Rome at the Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali (LUISS), with the participation of more than 1,300 academics from around the world. It was a true event whose objective was to take stock of academic research that, directly or indirectly, addresses the religious sphere. “Chiese in diretta” offers a behind-the-scenes look at this mega interdisciplinary conference, which reflects the vitality and diversity of research in this field.
The Sistine Chapel in Brazil.
The Sistine Chapel Choir, the official voice of the main liturgical celebrations of the Vatican, will visit the Sanctuary of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro on Saturday, 11 July, as part of its first tour of Latin America. The visit is part of a fifteen-day tour of Brazil, with free concerts in several cities until 14 July. Founded in the sixth century, the Sistine Chapel is directed by Brazilian Monsignor Marcos Pavan, the first non-Italian director to lead the choir in its more than six centuries of history. The ensemble is composed of 23 adult singers and 29 children, accompanied by the organist and staff. The repertoire performed in Brazil includes some of the most important works of the Western sacred musical tradition, from Gregorian chant to Renaissance polyphony. The tour also celebrates the bicentenary of diplomatic relations between Brazil and the Holy See.
Benedict XVI and Summorum Pontificum.
Pope Benedict XVI eased restrictions on the celebration of the traditional Mass with his motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum.” According to his former private secretary, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, Pope Benedict XVI (2005-2013) was not satisfied with the motu proprio “Traditionis custodes” of his successor. “When I read ‘Traditionis custodes’ to him, I perceived that he felt pain in his heart. That was my impression,” Gänswein declared in an interview with the Italian newspaper “Il Giornale”: “Now I believe it is the right time to lift these prohibitions and overcome the damage caused by this text.”
The objective of Benedict XVI was “to re-establish full equality within the Church in rite and peace in the liturgy.” Gänswein was “very pleased” with the resurgence of the “Ancient Mass” and its fruits. “It has had an especially positive reception among young people, which is evidenced mainly in the year-on-year increase in the number of participants in the Paris to Chartres pilgrimage.” “These young people feel inspired by the beauty of the liturgy; they are not opposed at all to the Second Vatican Council.” “It is not true that whoever possesses a traditional liturgical sensibility and participates in Tridentine Masses is opposed to the Council; whoever affirms this is simply guided by ideology.”
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his life?
Good reading.