VATICAN CITY, Oct. 11, 2026 — Cardinal Gerhard Müller has vigorously defended the Marian title “Co-Redemptrix,” arguing that it is not a devotional excess, but a truth rooted in Divine Revelation.

In an address delivered at the International Marian Conference “De Maria numquam satis” [about Mary one can never say enough], held at the Patristic Institute Augustinianum Oct. 7-8, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said: “When … Mary is called ‘Co-Redemptrix’ in Catholic piety and theology, this is neither a misleading attribution nor an enthusiastic exaggeration, but a truth objectively contained in Revelation.”

The German Cardinal continued: “This title must not be suppressed in silence on account of its rejection by Protestants, who, on the basis of their doctrine on justification, understand redemption as excluding man’s free cooperation and thus diminish its scope. Rather,” he said, “it calls for an explanation within the overall context of the divine-human work of redemption accomplished by Christ, the Son of God, and Mary.”

Cardinal Müller was not always a staunch advocate of the title “Co-Redemptrix.” In comments to this journalist after the conference, he explained:

“In former times I held that it was not opportune to make this title a dogma, as it needs to be thoroughly and properly explained. But after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Mater Populi Fidelis, saying the use of the title must be avoided — but without defining its true meaning and explaining its proper interpretation — I studied the question and I came to these reflections.”

The Cardinal’s central thesis rests on the premise that God “does not exclude us from the work of redemption but includes us.” Man’s cooperation with God, he said, “constitutes the highest dignity that God can communicate to man.”

Drawing on St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q. 23, a. 8 ad 2), Müller noted that the Angelic Doctor “distinguishes the level on which God, by his nature, acts alone from the manner in which, on the plane of creation, He confers upon man the grace of cooperation, so that men too may be co-causes of the redemption and justification of sinners, serving as secondary causes and as intermediaries of the first cause.” The creature’s cooperation in God’s plan of salvation, he said, is “the summit of our human dignity.”

For this reason, he argued, Mariology is “the culmination of Catholic anthropology and the criterion of Catholic orthodoxy.” The Cardinal stressed that Mary’s free cooperation in the work of redemption is not a formality: “Had she withheld her Fiat,” he said, “we would all have remained lost forever.”

Müller’s defense of the Marian title — together with that of Cardinal Raymond Burke in his opening address at the conference — marks the first time that two prelates of such rank have publicly defended it at a high-profile meeting since the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued Mater Populi Fidelis nearly one year ago.

Published on Nov. 4, 2025, the doctrinal Note, which sparked significant debate, stated in n. 22 that “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation,” as it “risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith.”

Three weeks after its publication, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery, clarified that the assertion that “it is always inappropriate” to use the title “isn’t meant to judge” past affirmations by saints, doctors, and popes, but means that “from now on” it will not be used “either in the liturgy, that is, in liturgical texts, or in the official documents of the Holy See.”

He further emphasized that the restriction applies solely to the Church’s official language, and that the faithful who understand the proper meaning of the title are not being asked to abandon it in private devotion or informed discussion.

Organizers of the Oct. 7–8 Marian conference said Cardinal Fernández had been invited but was unable to attend, sending his “warmest and most heartfelt good wishes” to the gathering.

Cardinal Claudio Gugerotti, prefect of the Dicastery for the Eastern Churches, also sent his “best wishes for the full success of the conference, that it may be a fruitful occasion for study, deeper reflection, and renewed contemplation of the mystery of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and that reflection on her unique mission in the mystery of Christ and the Church may inspire in the participants an ever deeper love of her who, as Mother of the Incarnate Word and Mother of the Church, always leads us to her Son.”

Cardinal George Koovakad, prefect of the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue, was represented at the event by an official of his dicastery.

Below is an official English translation of Cardinal Müller’s address, titled “The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Cooperation in Redemption,” published with his kind permission.

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Cooperation in Redemption

Gerhard Cardinal Müller, Rome

1. The Fundamental Difference between the Catholic and Protestant Concept of Divine Grace and Human Cooperation

One of the greatest theologians of the nineteenth century and a leading figure of the Catholic Tübingen School was Johann Adam Möhler (1796–1838). In his principal work, the Symbolik (1832), he traced the numerous doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants back to Christian anthropology. Reference is made to the doctrine of the natural and supernatural image of God; to original sin, which either totally corrupts man’s nature or only wounds it; and to the justification of the sinner through the grace of Christ, the Redeemer (Symbolik, Introduction, §18). The unity of Western Christendom was shattered over the question of the subjective justification of the sinner and its relation to the objective work of redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ. The great question is this: did Adam’s sin not cause, besides the loss of supernatural grace for the whole human race, the total corruption of human nature, created in the image and likeness of God?

To the first part of the question, Catholics and Protestants answer in agreement: yes. In Adam we lost the supernatural grace that made us inwardly like God in spirit and will, and we can regain it only in the grace of Christ, the one Savior of the world. To the second part of the question, Protestants answer, according to their confessional texts, that nothing good and pleasing to God has remained in human nature. In his totally corrupted nature, the sinner would be unable even to observe the commandments of the natural moral law (Rom 2:15), or to recognize the existence of God, at least by reason, to thank him and to love him (Rom 1:20). Because of Adam’s sin, our will would be wholly evil and would hate God. And according to Protestant doctrine, not even redeeming grace is able to restore, heal, and elevate the natural image of God in the creature, even if, based on the divine-human unity of Christ, a nuptial union between nature and grace is realized in man. According to the Protestants’ claims, I am justified in faith solely by trusting in Christ. Christ does not, so to speak, pull me out of the lions’ den, where sin, the devil, and death threaten me with mortal danger; rather, He simply drives away, one by one, the lions that attack me. As long as I live on earth, I am in constant struggle against my nature, which is opposed to God, and I obtain certainty only by trusting constantly, in the act of faith, in Christ alone, that he may keep me far from sin, the devil, and death (simul iustus et peccator).

The Catholic, by contrast, believes that the grace of redemption and justification not only brings about supernatural divinization but also restores man’s nature, with its spiritual and moral faculties, to their original goodness, thereby making it possible to love of God above all things and one’s neighbor as oneself. The inclination to sin, which is opposed to God and to the good — that is, concupiscence — is no longer in itself a sin, but only the residual weakness of a nature that has been fully and completely healed. One who is justified does not sin at all, especially when doing good (DH 1481). One who is baptized sins only, as the Catholic faith affirms, when he freely consents to temptation. Indeed, temptation is in no way a sin in the man who has been justified and regenerated in Christ. The propensity to sin has been left to us so that we may fight against it with the help of grace, and so that, through prayer, fasting, spiritual exercises, and works of charity, we may grow in love of God and neighbor, build up the Kingdom of God, and thus, by reason of our merits in doing good, in accordance with God’s universal salvific will, be rewarded with eternal life.

And it is precisely here that the truth of the Catholic faith is decided, and its distinctive character is revealed — a truth and a character that we must recognize, defend, and proclaim. Between God and man there exists no relationship of rivalry. Irenaeus of Lyons already affirmed this against the Gnostics of his own time and of all times: God neither gains nor loses anything when he makes personal creatures share in His infinite Being, His Spirit, and His inexhaustible goodness. God’s grace does not become greater the less we think of man. His Majesty does not crush us into the dust. On the contrary: the Son, who is consubstantial with the Father, assumes our lowliness and becomes like us men even unto death on the cross, in order to exalt us in His own person to the glory of God the Father. His perfection is manifested in the fact that he creates us without us and redeems us from original sin and from personal sins by pure grace.

2. The Catholic Concept of Collaboration with Grace

God does not exclude us from the work of redemption but includes us, allowing us to participate and collaborate in the work of redemption and in the perfecting of humanity in the communion of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Man’s cooperation with God therefore constitutes the highest dignity that God can communicate to man, since nature, created and blessed by God, is fulfilled in the spiritual acts of the knowledge of God and is perfected in moral action in free causality. Thomas Aquinas synthesizes this concept. He distinguishes the level on which God, by His nature, acts alone from the manner in which, on the plane of creation, He confers upon man the grace of cooperation, so that men too may be co-causes of the redemption and justification of sinners, serving as secondary causes and as intermediaries of the first cause. Citing 1 Cor 3:9, “We are God’s fellow workers,” the Angelic doctor affirms: “This is not due to any deficiency in divine power, but because He makes use of intermediate causes, so that the beauty of order may be preserved in things, and so that He may also communicate to creatures the dignity of causality — Neque hoc est propter defectum divinae virtutis: sed quia utitur causis mediis, ut ordinis pulchritudo servetur in rebus, et ut etiam creaturis dignitatem causalitatis communicet” (S.th. I, q. 23, a. 8, ad 2).

We must understand that the creature’s cooperation in God’s plan of salvation is the summit of our human dignity. And it is here that the fundamental difference between the Catholic faith and Protestantism lies.

3. Mariology as the Criterion of Catholic Orthodoxy

For this very reason, Mariology is the culmination of Catholic anthropology and the criterion of Catholic orthodoxy, since the entire work of redemption depends on the fact that God has communicated to Mary the dignitas causalitatis in the accomplishment of his universal salvific will. The act of the Incarnation is the exclusive work of God, for the eternal Son of the Father has assumed human nature from Mary and makes it subsist in his divine person. Indeed, the human nature of the Mother of the God-Man is not a philosophical abstraction, nor a mere organ of a purely biological generation, nor even a passive instrument, but the spiritual nature of a free person. And for this reason, her Fiat is not merely the obedient execution of a superior’s command, as is the case in the military sphere. Rather, God reveals the greatness of His grace in a love that does not overpower but brings about salvation, subordinating itself to the free consent, the consensus, of the creature. God made the accomplishment of His salvific will in the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection of His Son conditional upon the free consent of a single woman, entrusting to her, in her virginal and maternal heart, the salvation of all humanity. Had she withheld her Fiat, we would all have remained lost forever. But God did not gamble; rather, he chose Mary from eternity so that she might become the Mother of His Son. And for this reason, from the very first instant of her conception, she was also preserved from original sin in view of the redemption of the world through her Son. For this reason, her free yes was not an arbitrary choice between two equivalent possibilities, but the fulfillment of her most pure love, which unites her in a spousal covenant with the Holy Spirit, as His bride.

At the angel’s announcement that she would become the mother of the Son of God, who would be conceived in her womb, carried within it, and born from it, she responded in the strength of prevenient grace and of her freedom from Adam’s guilt: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38). Mary declares her readiness, in the freedom wrought by grace, to place herself at the service of God’s universal salvific will and thus to collaborate in its historical realization, even to the cross and the resurrection of Christ. And the same Holy Spirit who brought about the Incarnation of the Word in her body and in her will, and who, in His eschatological outpouring upon the disciples of Jesus, makes Mary the Virgin who receives every grace and the Mother of believers. For this reason, Mary is, in a unique way, intrinsically and essentially bound to the saving work of Christ. Through her preservation from original sin in view of the merits of the Mediator between God and men, who from her womb and from her free yesassumed our human nature, Mary represents in her person, and in an archetypal way for all redeemed humanity, the new unity of grace and nature. And grace does not remain alien to nature but divinizes it and shows us the goodness and the glory of the New Man in Christ. Christ, in His human nature born of Mary — which, however, is hypostatically united to His divinity and therefore makes Mary the Mother of God — is the Redeemer and Mediator between God and men. And for this reason, in this sense, Mary too, through her constitutive collaboration in the Incarnation, is indissolubly and intimately bound to the work of redemption. If Mary, with her Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum, collaborated in a constitutive way in the Incarnation, this also includes — on behalf of all humanity — her collaboration in redemption through the cross of her Son, beside whom she stood, and where her soul was pierced by a sword. For the body that hung upon the cross, and through which Christ offered himself to the Father for the salvation of the world, is the same body that was born of her for the salvation of the world.

4. The Eve–Mary Typology

Messianic salvation begins with Christ and with Mary’s faith and readiness to allow the incarnation of God to take place in her womb. This spontaneously prompts one to contrast, in line with the Pauline Adam–Christ typology, Eve’s disobedience (= voluntary lack of faith) with Mary’s obedience and faith (Lk 1:38; Gen 3; Rom 5:19). Eve, by her disobedience and lack of faith, became the cause of death, whereas Mary became the cause of life. Mary is, in a true sense, the “mother of the living” (Gen 3:20), for just as death came through both sexes, so life had to come through Christ, the man, and through Mary, the woman. Mary stands at the beginning of the history of the faith of the new humanity, that is, of the Church of the new covenant, reborn in faith. By her faith she is, as a virgin, the type of the Church that receives salvation from God and, at the same time, the typological epitome of the essence of the Church, which, by her preaching and saving ministry, continually gives birth, by virtue of faith and baptism, to new members of the body of Christ that is the Church. From the standpoint of a doctrine of redemption worked out in the light of the Incarnation, Mary appears as the companion and helper of Christ (socia Christi) and is consequently, toward the Church and men, the one who intercedes for them and helps them (adiuvatrix).

Mary’s cooperation does not, however, refer to the fact that she supports the work of Christ, the progenitor of the new humanity. Rather, she takes her place with the Church that receives salvation, and cooperates, by the grace she has been given and by her own example, so that the Church and her individual members may let themselves be united, in faith and in love, to Christ their Head, in accord with the relationship that subsists between bridegroom and bride, in which the personal relationship of Christ with the Church and of the Church with Christ is expressed (cf. Eph 5:23).

The theological category of Eve’s disobedience, typically contrasted with Mary’s obedience and faith, already attested to by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, finds a convincing expression in Irenaeus of Lyons:

“That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled — was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death” (Adv. haer., Book V, Ch. 19)

It therefore remains true that “Mary, by her obedience, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” By virtue of the historical fact of her obedience to the word of God, who assumed flesh from her for the salvation of all mankind, Mary is also the model and criterion of the man perfectly united to God. She is the one full of grace, the believer par excellence, and therefore the one who is fully redeemed.

5. The Development of Mariological Dogma

Here one also sees that the two fundamental terms “grace–faith,” correlated with each other like two focal points, are the principle of the history of Mariological dogmas. The affirmations of faith concerning Mary that would subsequently and gradually crystallize in the Church’s consciousness of faith do not, therefore, betray merely an isolated interest in the person of Mary. Rather, in the course of the history of faith, the features of the Christian image of man have become visible in the mirror of the fundamental Mariological affirmations. When, therefore, Mary is called “Co-Redemptrix” in Catholic piety and theology, this is neither a misleading attribution nor an enthusiastic exaggeration, but a truth objectively contained in Revelation. This title must not be suppressed in silence on account of its rejection by Protestants, who, on the basis of their doctrine on justification, understand redemption as excluding man’s free cooperation and thus diminish its scope. Rather, it calls for an explanation within the overall context of the divine-human work of redemption accomplished by Christ, the Son of God, and Mary.

Christological titles are also applied to us by analogy. Christ is the consubstantial Son of God, but we also are, by the grace of adoption, sons of God. This designation as sons in no way calls into question the uniqueness of Christ’s divine sonship in the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation but expresses precisely its universal effect. Thomas Aquinas cites another example: the soteriological title of Christ as the one mediator between God and men (1 Tim 2:5) belongs to him in a unique way. Yet priests too (bishops and presbyters) can be called mediators between God and men, since they are servants of the High Priest and Mediator of the new covenant and, as representatives of Christ, administer to men the saving sacraments. They do not, however, exercise the ministry of priest and mediator in a “primary and perfect” manner, but only in a “ministerial and preparatory” way (S.th. III, q. 26, a. 1). And every baptized person is called and bound to collaborate, in the spirit of Mary, so that all men may become sharers in the redemption of Christ.

Anyone familiar with the rules of Catholic theology, therefore, cannot find any reason for scandal in the analogical use of Christological and soteriological titles. Likewise, ecumenical dialogue is not a matter of a false irenicism that would compromise the purity of Catholic doctrine, but of a deeper understanding of the original meaning and its correct conceptual and linguistic formulation. Even with regard to the hierarchy of truths, of which the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism speaks, what is at issue is not a mechanical subdivision between more important and less important doctrines, but rather their analogy in relation to the foundation of the Christian faith: namely, God’s will that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth through the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Son of Mary, she who, through the Incarnation and her Fiat, became the Mother of God.

The principle numquam satis de Maria has nothing to do with a Mariological maximalism that would have to be balanced, diplomatically and pedagogically, by a Mariological minimalism. The principle affirms nothing other than the fundamental truth of the Catholic faith against Gnosticism. According to the Catholic faith, man becomes greater in thought and action the more he allows himself to be sustained by grace and led to the heights of God. In Mary, Mother of the Son of God, of Christ’s Church, and of all believers, we recognize, in a typological and exemplary way, what holds true for all: gloria Dei est vivens homo, vita autem hominis visio Dei (Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv. haer. IV, 20, 7).

6. The Revealed Truth in the Title “Mary Co-Redemptrix”

Nor does the objection hold that the title appeared only from the late Middle Ages onward. For the fact that a truth of faith is contained in Revelation must not be confused with its conceptual formulation. From the very beginning, Christianity has believed in the Incarnation of the Son of God, whereas it was only much later that the Magisterium expressed this mystery in the formula of the unity of the divine and human nature in the person of the Son of God, the hypostatic union. Likewise, Mary’s perpetual virginity and divine motherhood, both clearly attested to in the Bible, have their absolute beginning in God’s election, their foundation in her conception without the stain of original sin, and their fulfilment in the assumption of her body and soul into heaven.

Just as all the mysteries of the Christian faith are intimately interconnected within the analogia fidei (analogy of faith) and mutually interpret one another, so too the dogmatic doctrine concerning Mary is not a subjective collection of disparate elements, but an account of her origin within the one mystery of God’s self-communication in Christ, His Son, as the truth and life of every man who, together with the Mother of believers, says: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord.”

In his Expositio in Salutationem Angelicam (Commentary on the Hail Mary), the Angelic Doctor asks why Mary is blessed among women, and replies: “Mary brought forth the Source of blessing and opened the gate of heaven. It is surely fitting that her name is Mary, which is translated ‘Star of the Sea’, for just as sailors are directed to port by the star of the sea, so Christians are guided to glory by Mary.”

Translation by Diane Montagna

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

VATICAN CITY, 11 October 2026 — Pope Leo XIV today announced that he will undergo a medical procedure “in the coming days” to remove a “nodule confined to the lung” that was recently detected by doctors during a routine examination.

At the end of his Sunday Angelus address in St. Peter’s Square, the Holy Father said:

“Dear friends, recently, during some medical examinations, doctors found a nodule confined to my lung. It was detected at a very early stage and is well localized. The doctors believe it is advisable to intervene, and so, following their advice, I have decided to undergo surgery to have it removed. The procedure has already been scheduled for the coming days. I thank you for your spiritual closeness and entrust myself to your prayers.”

ROME, 7 October 2026 — A major international Marian conference opened today in Rome, featuring Cardinal Raymond Burke, papal theologian Dominican Father Wojciech Giertych, and Cardinal George Pell’s former secretary, patristic scholar Father Joseph Hamilton.

Titled “De Maria numquam satis — Of Mary, one can never say enough,” the two-day symposium, being held at the Augustinianum, is offering theological and historical contributions on the Blessed Virgin Mary in dogma and worship.

Cardinal Burke opened the conference this morning with an address titled: “Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Reign of Christ the King: The Mission of Co-Redemptrix and of Co-Redeemers.”

Its aim, he said, is to show “how the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe at Tepeyac Hill in 1531 is a most beautiful and eloquent manifestation and expression of the truth of her singular, indeed unique, participation in the saving work of her Divine Son, of the truth of the doctrine of her title, Co-Redemptrix, when properly understood.”

“At the same time,” he said, “I hope that it has reminded us all of our call to be, with the Virgin of Guadalupe, participants in the work of the Redemptive Incarnation.”

Cardinal Burke’s opening address is reproduced in full below.

“Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Reign of Christ the King:

The Mission of Co-Redemptrix and of Co-Redeemers”

Introduction

It is a source of deepest joy for me to offer the Opening Address of this important international conference on the Blessed Virgin Mary in Dogma and Worship; Theological and Historical Contributions. With you, I am deeply grateful to those who have organized the Conference and those who have made it possible. To begin the conference, I offer a reflection on the theme: Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Reign of Christ the King: The Mission of Co-Redemptrix and of Co-Redeemers.

At the very beginning of her first apparition to Saint Juan Diego, Our Lady of Guadalupe identified herself with these words:

Know, know for sure my dearest and youngest son, that I am truly the ever perfect Holy Virgin Mary, who has the honor to be the Mother of the one true God for whom we all live, the Creator of people, the Lord of all around us and of what is close to us, the Lord of Heaven, the Lord of Earth.^[1]

Her apparitions to Saint Juan Diego from December 9^th to 12^th of 1531, can be described as the manifestation of Christ, her Divine Son, as the King of Heaven and of Earth Who restores the right order and peace with which and for which God has created the world and, above all, man, male and female.

In her miraculously made and preserved image, Our Lady of Guadalupe is the “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head a crown of twelve stars,”^[2] whom Saint John Apostle and Evangelist saw in his vision of Our Lord’s definitive victory over sin and death. Our Lady of Guadalupe is pregnant with the “male child”^[3]Who indeed is King of Heaven and Earth, Who conquers Satan and his cohorts, so that, notwithstanding their fierce and vicious rebellion, will never prevail over the Church, over the souls of those who are alive in Christ.^[4] The vocation and the mission of every Christian is therefore, in the words of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Ephesians, “to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth.”^[5] Our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son Incarnate, is alone the Redeemer, but God the Father, in sending His only-begotten Son in human flesh to redeem the world has desired the cooperation of man in the redemptive work, beginning with the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, participated in an altogether unique way in the Mystery of Faith, the Mystery of the Redemptive Incarnation, and is rightly called Co-Redemptrix. So, too, to the degree that we unite our hearts, one with her Immaculate Heart, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, we participate in the saving mission of Christ. We can rightly be called co-redeemers. In the words of Saint John Apostle and Evangelist, we are called to be in Christ “fellow workers in the truth.”^[6] Our Lord Himself makes clear the intimacy of our relationship with Him, when He declares: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”^[7] In addressing this International Conference on the Blessed Virgin Mary in Dogma and Worship, I want to present the unique share in the mission of Christ the King, the mission of the Redemptive Incarnation, which belongs to the Virgin Mother of God as Co-Redemptrix and our share in the same mission as co-redeemers.

The apparitions of the Virgin Mother of God at Tepeyac Hill in present-day Mexico City help us, in a particular way, to understand her mission and our corresponding mission. In fact, Our Lady’s children of Mexico, guadalupanos and guadalupanas, have always understood their mission in the world as service of Christ the King under the maternal care of His Mother whom He gave to us as our Mother as He was dying on the cross for our eternal salvation.^[8] Blessed Miguel Pro wrote two short prayers on the wall of the prison in which he was held before he was martyred on November 23, 1927, by a firing squad during the bloody persecution of the Church in Mexico: “¡Viva Cristo Rey! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!” (Long live Christ the King! Long live the Virgen of Guadalupe!).^[9] So, too, Saint José Sanchez del Río, as he was cruelly tortured and killed, also by firing squad on February 10, 1928, repeatedly exclaimed: “¡Viva Cristo Rey! ¡Viva Santa Maria di Guadalupe!” (Long live Christ the King! Long live Holy Mary of Guadalupe!).^[10] Even as the Virgin Mother of God took the wine stewards at the Wedding Feast of Cana to her Divine Son for the remedy of their great woe, instructing them: “Do whatever he tells you,”^[11], so she accompanied these heroes of the faith to give their lives in doing God’s will. So, too, she draws our hearts to her Immaculate Heart leading us to give our hearts totally to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, even to the shedding of our blood with Him for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

The Doctrine of the Co-Redemption

The Virgin Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s work of the Redemption has two aspects which, over time, theologians have illustrated by distinguishing objective Redemption from subjective Redemption. Monsignor Arthur B. Calkins who has written extensively and profoundly on the title, Co-Redemptrix, explains the distinction:

Traditionally, theologians have distinguished between Mary’s unique collaboration in the redemption as it was taking place in actu primo from the application of the graces of the redemption to individual persons which takes place in actu secundo. Redemption in actu primo or “objective redemption” or the ascending phase of redemption may be defined as the acquisition of universal salvation by means of the sacrifice willed by God to reconcile the world to himself. Redemption in actu secundo or “subjective redemption” or the descending phase of redemption or the mediation of grace may be defined as the application of the fruits of the redemption to particular individuals by means of the mediation willed by God. It has been consistently held that Our Lady participates in both of these phases of the work of redemption while all other Christians can participate in the application of the graces of redemption to specific persons and situations. Hence we can all be coredeemers in actu secundo.^[12]

Holiness of life, in fact, is participation in the saving work of Christ Who alone is our salvation.

Saint Paul declares the truth of our participation in the redemptive work of Christ in the Letter to the Colossians. Writing about his own sufferings, he understands that they are to be united to the Passion and Death of Christ:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.^[13]

It is not that anything is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for our eternal salvation but that His life in us, the life of grace, must come to maturity in us, especially through the union of our sufferings with His Passion and Death.

For the past several decades there has been an ongoing discussion in the Church about Our Lady’s active collaboration in the work of the Redemption. The question is: In what sense is the Blessed Virgin Mary the New Eve, the helpmate of Jesus, the New Adam (cf. Rm 5, 12-21; 1 Cor 15, 22. 45). For over five hundred years the term Co-Redemptrix has been used to express the concept that Mary, while not being equal to Jesus, but a creature totally dependent upon Him, secondary and subordinate to Him, nonetheless united herself with Him and joined in offering Him to the Father for our salvation on Calvary. The fittingness of the title sustained a contentious discussion in the drafting of chapter eight of Lumen Gentium, which contains the Second Vatican Council’s fundamental teaching on Our Lady.^[14] Ultimately the Council clearly taught Mary’s active collaboration in the work of the Redemption in numbers 56-58 and 60-62 of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, but did not use the word Co-Redemptrix out of fear that it would be misunderstood by non-Catholics.

Our Lady’s mediation of grace flows from her role as Co-Redemptrix. The word, Mediatrix, was used once in number 62 of Lumen Gentium with the appropriate insistence that “it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.”^[15] She is Mediatrix with her Divine Son, the Mediator, as had been taught in very clear language by nineteenth- and twentieth-century Popes as well as by the post-conciliar Popes.

Part of the difficulty is the meaning which the word, Co-Redemptrix, may have when translated into certain modern languages. The English word, Co-Redemptrix, can signify a joint actor, but it also may mean someone who cooperates in a work which is principally and essentially of another. Monsignor Arthur Burton Calkins addresses the possible confusion about the sense of Co-Redemptrix, indicating clearly that “[i]n the Latin language from which the term, Coredemptrix comes, however, the meaning is always that Mary’s cooperation or collaboration in the redemption is secondary, subordinate, dependent on that of Christ – and yet for all that – something that God ‘freely wished to accept … as constituting an unneeded, but yet wonderfully pleasing part of that one great price’ paid by His Son for the world’s redemption.”^[16]

In his General Audience Address of October 25, 1995, Pope Saint John Paul II described how historically the Church expressed ever more clearly the truth about the participation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in Christ’s work of the Redemption:

1. Saying that “the Virgin Mary … is acknowledged and honoured as being truly the Mother of God and of the Redeemer” (Lumen Gentium, n. 53), the Council draws attention to the link between Mary’s motherhood and Redemption.

After becoming aware of the maternal role of Mary, who was venerated in the teaching and worship of the first centuries as the virginal Mother of Jesus Christ and therefore as the Mother of God, in the Middle Ages the Church’s piety and theological reflection brought to light her cooperation in the Saviour’s work.

This delay is explained by the fact that the efforts of the Church Fathers and of the early Ecumenical Councils, focused as they were on Christ’s identity, necessarily left other aspects of dogma aside. Only gradually could the revealed truth be unfolded in all its richness. Down the centuries, Mariology would always take its direction from Christology. The divine motherhood of Mary was itself proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus primarily to affirm the oneness of Christ’s person. Similarly, there was a deeper understanding of Mary’s presence in salvation history.

2. At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, already pointed out Mary’s contribution to the work of salvation. He understood the value of Mary’s consent at the time of the Annunciation, recognizing in the Virgin of Nazareth’s obedience to and faith in the angel’s message the prefect antithesis of Eve’s disobedience and disbelief, with a beneficial effect on humanity’s destiny. In fact, just as Eve caused death, so Mary, with her “yes,” became “a cause of salvation” for herself and for all mankind (cf. Adv. Haer. III, 22, 4; SC211, 441). But this affirmation was not developed in a consistent and systematic way by the other Fathers of the Church.

Instead, this doctrine was systematically worked out for the first time at the end of the 10^th century in the Life of Mary by a Byzantine monk, John the Geometer. Here Mary is united to Christ in the whole work of Redemption, sharing, according to God’s plan, in the Cross and suffering for our salvation. She remained united to the Son “in every deed, attitude and wish” (cf. Life of Mary, Bol. 196, f. 123 v.).

3. In the West St. Bernard, who died in 1153, turns to Mary and comments on the presentation of Jesus in the temple: “Offer your Son, sacrosanct Virgin, and present the fruit of your womb to the Lord. For our reconciliation with all, offer the heavenly victim pleasing to God” (Serm. 3 in Purif., 2: PL 183, 370).

A disciple and friend of St. Bernard, Arnold of Chartres, shed light particularly on Mary’s offering in the sacrifice of Calvary. He distinguished in the Cross “two altars: one in Mary’s heart, the other in Christ’s body. Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul.” Mary sacrificed herself spiritually in deep communion with Christ, and implored the world’s salvation: “What the mother asks, the Son approves and the Father grants” (cf. De septem verbis Domini in cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694). From this age on other authors explain the doctrine of Mary’s special cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice.^[17]

As Pope Saint John Paul II illustrates, the use of the term, Co-Redemptrix, adds nothing new to the Church’s teaching but rather develops uniformly the expression of what the Church has always taught.

We see the phenomenon in the solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception by Blessed Pope Pius IX with the Bull Ineffabilis Deus. The saintly pontiff, in defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, made clear that he was not presenting any new teaching but rather defining what the Church has always believed.^[18]

What Blessed Pope Pius IX wrote expresses an essential aspect of the living presence of Christ Our Lord with us in the Church.

Recent years have seen a strong movement in favor of recognizing Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate with a solemn papal definition. A commission was convened very briefly at the Mariological-Marian Congresses held in Częstochowa, Poland in August of 1996 to offer the Holy See advice on this matter. One of its counsels was that further study was needed.^[19] Such study continues to be undertaken by a number of competent theologians.

Our Lady’s role as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces pertains to her nature as our spiritual mother to whom we consecrate ourselves so as to belong ever more completely to Jesus. Two of the greatest modern teachers of Marian consecration, Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort (1673-1716) and Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe (1894-1941), base their teaching on consecration to Mary explicitly on Mary’s mediation of the graces of the Redemption to us. Living in union with Mary is a great key to growing in our knowledge and love of Jesus. She never draws us to herself for her own sake, but always in order to lead us ever more closely to Jesus. Thus, Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort prayed: Totus tuus ego sum et omnia mea tua sunt. Accipio te in mea omnia. Præbe mihi cor tuum, Maria [“I belong entirely to you, and all that I have is yours; I take you for my all. O Mary, give me your heart”].^[20] His prayer was the inspiration of the motto of Pope Saint John Paul II’s papal coat-of-arms.

Mary Co-Redemptrix in the Holy Scriptures

The truth of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s unique share in the work of Redemption is foretold in the first promise of salvation made by the Lord at the time of the sin of our First Parents. Speaking to the serpent who had successfully tempted Eve, Our Lord declared: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”^[21] The Protoevangelium, the First Gospel, as it is fittingly called, makes clear that the work of salvation is to involve a woman whose offspring will crush the head of the serpent, of Satan and his cohorts. In other words, a woman will cooperate with the work of salvation in a singular, indeed unique, way.

Our Lord renewed the promise of salvation through the words of the Prophet Isaiah to King Achaz: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”^[22] Commenting on the texts of the Protoevangelium and of the Prophet Isaiah, the Second Vatican Council declared:

The sacred writings of the Old and the New Testaments, as well as venerable tradition, show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the plan of salvation in an ever clearer light and call our attention to it. The books of the Old Testament describe the history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared. The earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of a woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. Considered in this light, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin (cf. Gen. 3:15). Likewise she is the virgin who shall conceive and bear a son, whose name shall be called Emmanuel (cf. Is. 7:14; Mic. 5:2-3; Mt. 1:22-23). She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion and the new plan of salvation is established, when the Son of God has taken human nature from her, that he might in the mysteries of his flesh free man from sin.^[23]

The freeing of man from sin is accomplished by God the Son Incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. The Virgin Mary cooperates in an altogether singular, indeed unique, manner in the work of the Redemption, according to the plan of God. We find the full expression of the identity of the Virgin Mary in the work of the Redemptive Incarnation. Father Ignace de la Potterie illustrates the mediation of the Virgin Mother of God in the work of the Redemption by studying the Prologue of the Gospel according to Saint John and the account of the Annunciation in the Gospel according to Saint Luke.^[24]

The Heart of Mary was, according to God’s eternal plan, conceived without the stain of original sin so that her womb could be the fitting tabernacle in which God the Son would come to dwell and from which He would be born into the family of Mary and Joseph, her true spouse and the virginal father of Jesus. Her Immaculate Heart remains forever disposed to bring men, with maternal love, to the Heart of her Divine Son with the instruction she first gave at the Wedding Feast of Cana: “Do whatever he tells you.”^[25]

In his Letter to the Galatians, Saint Paul expresses the truth of Mary’s unique cooperation in the Mystery of the Redemptive Incarnation in its relationship to our own call to be “co-workers [with Christ] in the truth”^[26]:

But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir.^[27]

It is through the mediation of the Virgin Mary, her co-redemptive mission in the Redemptive Incarnation of her Son that we are heirs to eternal life, that we are called to the high dignity of following Christ on the way of the Cross.^[28]

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Co-Redemptrix

The apparitions and message of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Tepeyac Hill in present-day Mexico City from December 9^th to 12^th in 1531 are a powerful expression of her singular, indeed unique, participation in the Redemptive Incarnation, in actu primo, that is in the work by which God the Son Incarnate has accomplished our salvation by His Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, and in actu secundo, that is in the realization of His saving work in the souls of many, of every time and place, who come to life in Him through Baptism and live in Him in the Church, His Mystical Body. One can say, in fact, that all the apparitions of the Virgin Mother of God are a manifestation of her unique relationship with God the Son, her Divine Son, by which she became Co-Redemptrix and an expression of her mission of Co-Redemptrix in every time and place until the end of the age. Every Marian apparition is the work of Christ, assisted, as He was from the moment of His virginal conception, by His Mother.

Mary declares her identity as Co-Redemptrix in actu primo from the first moment of her apparitions to Saint Juan Diego. On December 9, 1531, Saint Juan Diego was on his way to Tlatelolco to receive catechetical instruction from the Franciscan Friars, when at Tepeyac Hill he experienced something otherworldly, in fact, heavenly, from the sounds of the birds to the appearance of Our Lady in a glorious manner among the stones and plants transformed to appear as precious jewels. The account of the apparition in the Nican Mopohua, which Juan Diego’s good and learned friend Antonio Valeriano composed on the basis of the direct account of Juan Diego, indicates that Juan Diego recognized Our Lady as the Mother of God. Our Lady addresses Juan Diego in a most affectionate maternal way, asking him where he was going, and he responds: “My Lady, my Queen, my Little Girl, I am going as far as your little house in Mexico Tlatelolco, to follow the things of God that are to us given, that are taught to us by our priests, those who are the images of the Lord, Our Lord.”^[29]

Our Lady then declared: “Know, know for sure my dearest and youngest son, that I am truly the ever perfect Holy Virgin Mary, who has the honor to be the Mother of the one true God for whom we all live, the Creator of people, the Lord of all around us and of what is close to us, the Lord of Heaven, the Lord of Earth.”^[30] These words express in a wonderful way the mystery of Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity and Divine Maternity by which she shares, in an altogether singular, indeed unique, way, in the redemptive work of her Divine Son. Our Lady identifies herself as both ever virgin and as the Mother of God the Son. She declares her participation in the work of the Redemption in actu primo. In other words, she makes clear that our relationship with God the Father Who has redeemed us by the Incarnation of God the Son places us in a filial relationship with her, the Mother of God the Son Incarnate. We are adopted sons and daughters of God in His only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore share with Him His Mother, even as He declared to Saint John Apostle and Evangelist as He was dying on the cross.^[31]

Saint John Apostle and Evangelist represented the Apostles and the entire flock whom Christ had confided to the pastoral charity of the Apostles, to His pastoral charity. Our relationship with Our Lady has its origin in the very act of our Redemption by Christ’s death on the Cross.

Our Lady, after identifying herself as Co-Redemptrix in actu primo to Saint Juan Diego then expresses her mission as Co-Redemptrix in actu secundo. She makes clear the reason of her apparition:

I want very much that they build my sacred little house here, in which I will show Him, I will exalt Him upon making Him manifest, I will give Him to all people in all my personal love, Him that is my compassionate gaze, Him that is my help, Him that is my salvation.

Because truly I am honored to be your compassionate mother, yours and that of all the people that live together in this land, and also of all the other various lineages of men; those who love me, those who cry to me, those who seek me, those who trust in me. Because there [at my sacred house] truly will I hear their cry, their sadness, in order to remedy, to cure all their various troubles, their miseries, their pains.

And to bring about what my compassionate and merciful gaze would achieve, go to the palace of the Bishop of Mexico, and tell him how I have sent you, so that you may reveal to him how I very much want him to build me a house here, to erect my temple on the plain; tell him everything, all you have seen and marveled at, and what you have heard. And because of it I will enrich you, I will glorify you; and because of it you will deserve very much how I will reward your fatigue, your service in going to petition the matter for which I am sending you. Now, my dearest son, you have heard my breath, my word; go, do what you are responsible for doing.^[32]

The words of Our Lady manifest her unique and irreplaceable service in the work of our salvation, according to God’s plan.

In actu secundo, the Blessed Virgin Mary continues to be the privileged instrument of divine grace in the Church, even as she was the first tabernacle in which God the Son came to dwell, when He united our human nature to His divine nature in her womb by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. At Tepeyac Hill, she appeared to Saint Juan Diego to manifest God’s love and mercy toward all men, to manifest the inviolable dignity of human life created in God’s image and likeness and saved from sin and death by the Redemptive Incarnation of God the Son. In words to Saint Juan Diego, when he feared his uncle Juan Bernardino’s death and was postponing his appointment with Our Lady, in order to bring a priest to hear his uncle’s confession before he died, Our Lady expresses her abiding presence with us in the Church as the Virgin Mother of God who is also the Mother of Divine Grace, our Mother, drawing us ever more intimately into communion with her Divine Son. She declared to Saint Juan Diego:

Listen, put it into your heart, my youngest son, that what frightened you, what afflicted you is nothing; do not let it disturb your face, your heart; do not fear this sickness or any other sickness, nor any sharp or hurtful thing. Am I not here, I who have the honor to be your mother? Are you not in my shadow and under my protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more?

Let nothing else worry you, disturb you; don’t grieve over your uncle’s illness, because he will not die of it for now, you may be certain that he is already healed.^[33]

Our Lady’s words are not figures of speech. Rather, they reflect her continuing mission in the Church, a singular mission in which she has asked Saint Juan Diego to share.

The miraculous imprint of her image on the tilma or mantle of Saint Juan Diego is a most wonderful sign of her participation in the work of the Redemption, accomplished by her Divine Son. In confirming her mission to the Bishop by the sign of the miraculous flowering of roses in the middle of winter on a stony hill on which only weeds and thorn bushes were growing, God gave a further confirmation which He has not given in any other apparition of Our Lady. Let us listen again to the account of the presentation of the sign of the roses to Bishop Juan de Zumárraga by Saint Juan Diego:

And then [Juan Diego] opened his white tilma, in the hollow of which were the flowers. And all the different flowers, like those from Castille, fell to the floor. Then and there his tilma became the sign, there suddenly appeared the Beloved Image of the Perfect Virgin Saint Mary, Mother of God, in the form and figure in which it is now, where it is preserved in her beloved little house in Tepeyac, which is called Guadalupe. And as soon as the Governing Bishop and all those who were there saw it, they knelt, they were full of awe, they stood to see it, they were moved, their hearts were troubled, their hearts as well as their minds were raised. And the Governing bishop, in tears, with sadness, begged Her, he asked Her forgiveness for not having carried out Her venerable will, Her venerable breath, Her venerable word.

And the Bishop got up, and untied Juan Diego’s garment, his tilma, from his neck where it was tied, on which appeared the venerable sign of the Heavenly Queen. And then he took it and placed it in his private chapel. And Juan Diego still stayed for the day in the Bishop’s house who still kept him there. And on the next day he [the Bishop] said to him: “Come, let’s go so you can show me where it is that the venerable will of the Queen of Heaven wants Her chapel built.” Immediately the order was given to make it, to build it.^[34]

In a very brief time, the chapel was built, and Bishop Juan de Zumárraga enshrined the sacred tilma in it. The Nican Mopohua concludes with these words:

And after some time, the Reverend Bishop moved the beloved Image of the Heavenly Maiden to the main church. He [the Bishop] took if from his palace, from his chapel where it had been, so that everyone could see and admire Her precious Image. And absolutely everyone, the entire city, without exception, trembled when they went to behold, to admire Her precious Image. They came to acknowledge it as something divine. They came to offer Her their prayers. They marveled at the miraculous way it had appeared since absolutely no one on Earth had painted Her beloved Image.^[35]

The abiding presence of the Mother of God, the Mother of Divine Grace, with those who came on pilgrimage to the holy place in which the sacred tilma was enshrined was and continues to be indescribably efficacious. The Virgin of Guadalupe brought so many souls to life in Christ through Baptism and led so many of the baptized to abandon their sinful ways and to follow the Way of Christ Who alone is our salvation.

Mary Co-Redemptrix always teaches us, draws us, to share in the work of the Redemptive Incarnation in actu secundo, according to our vocation in life and our God-given talents. As Co-Redemptrix, she is the first among the disciples of her Divine Son, she shares in His saving work both in actu primo et in actu secundo, but she teaches all who are adopted sons and daughters of God in His only-begotten Son through Baptism that they, too, must do all within their power to serve Christ, to be His “fellow workers in the truth.”^[36] When Saint Juan Diego doubted his capacity to serve as Our Lady’s messenger, suggesting that she choose someone more noble, more able, Our Lady responded:

Listen my youngest son, know for sure that I have no lack of servants, of messengers, to whom I can give the task of carrying my breath, my word, so that they carry out my will; but it is necessary that you, personally, go and plead, that by your intercession, my wish, my will, become a reality. And I beg you, my youngest son, and I strictly order you, to go again tomorrow to see the Bishop. And in my name, make him know, make him hear my wish, my will, so that he will bring into being, he will build, my sacred house that I ask of him. And carefully tell him again how I, personally, the ever Virgin Holy Mary, I, who am the Mother of God, sent you as my messenger.^[37]

Whenever we come on pilgrimage to the holy place of Our Lady of Guadalupe, she confirms us in our mission as her messengers, as heralds and instruments of God’s saving love and mercy. She unites our hearts more fully to her Immaculate Heart so that they rest ever more securely and fully in the Sacred Heart of Jesus where they are purified of sin and inflamed with divine love. She speaks to us as she spoke to Saint Juan Diego:

Am I not here, I who have the honor to be your mother? Are you not in my shadow and under my protection? Am I not the source of your joy? Are you not in the hollow of my mantle, in the crossing of my arms? Do you need anything more?^[38]

Especially in the most troubled and troubling time in which we live in the Church, we need to visit Our Heavenly Mother and be confirmed in our fidelity to her Divine Son, so that we remain with Him in the Church, tending whatever portion of His Kingdom, be it little or great, with all our heart, with a heart united to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and thus belonging totally to His Sacred Heart.

It is my hope that this brief presentation has shown you how the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe at Tepeyac Hill in 1531 is a most beautiful and eloquent manifestation and expression of the truth of her singular, indeed unique, participation in the saving work of her Divine Son, of the truth of the doctrine of her title, Co-Redemptrix, when properly understood. At the same time, I hope that it has reminded us all of our call to be, with the Virgin of Guadalupe, participants in the work of the Redemptive Incarnation. May we, with Saint Paul, be able to say to our brothers and sisters in the Church: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.”^[39]

Conclusion

While the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council did not make a dogmatic definition, it certainly taught the truth of the Co-Redemption, as I have indicated, in some way. In that regard, we should take care, lest the hesitation about the misunderstanding of the term, Co-Redemptrix, lead to a weakening of the teaching of the Co-Redemption as it applies uniquely to the Blessed Virgin Mary and generally to all the baptized. It is my hope that my presentation has made clear the importance of the teaching of the Co-Redemption to our daily living in Christ.

I close with a reflection of Father Jean Galot, S.J., taken from an article which he wrote on the controversies and doctrinal questions connected with the title of Co-Redemptrix:

Some have accused the Marian privileges of digging a furrow between the Mother of Jesus and us; in reality, those privileges are destined, in the divine plan, to draw Mary nearer to humanity in view of the unfolding of a more abundant grace. While with a unique character and to a level not to be equalled, Mary’s cooperation in the redemption invites us to acknowledge more ardently our mission and our responsibility in a world that needs salvation. If Mary cannot be called Co-redemptrix, neither could Christians be considered as coredeemers. The condition of the whole Church in her coredeeming mission sheds light on Mary, the first model of every redemption.^[40]

Thank you for your kind attention. May God bless you, and may Our Lady of Guadalupe keep you always in her maternal care.

— Raymond Leo Cardinal BURKE

^[1] “Sábelo, ten por cierto, hijo mío, el más pequeño, que yo soy en verdad la perfecta siempre Virgen Santa María, que tengo el honor de ser Madre del verdaderísimo Dios por quien se vive, el Creador de las personas, el Dueño de la cercanía y de la inmediación, el Dueño del cielo, el Dueño de la tierra.” Carl A. Anderson y Eduardo Chávez, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. Madre de la civilización del amor (México DF: Random House Mondadori, 2010), p. 214, n. 26. English translation: Carl Anderson and Eduardo Chávez, Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love (New York: Doubleday, 2009), p. 173, no. 26.

^[2] Rev 12, 1.

^[3] Rev 12, 5.

^[4] Cf. Mt 16, 18.

^[5] Eph 1, 10.

^[6] 3 Jn 8.

^[7] Lk 9, 23. Cf. Mt 16, 24; Mark 8, 34.

^[8] Cf. Jn 19, 26-27.

^[9] Cf. Antonio Dragón, Vida íntima del Padre Pro, tr. Rafael Martínez del Campo, 6^a ed. (México, D.F.: Obra Nacional de la Buena Prensa, A.C., 1993), p. 234.

^[10] Cf. Fidel González Fernández, José Sánchez del Río, Il giovane martire che diede la vita per la fede, ED. Federica Picchi Roncali (Firenze: Dominus Production Edizioni, 2016), pp. 129-133.

^[11] Jn 2, 5.

^[12] Calkins, p. 45.

^[13] Col 1, 24-26.

^[15] “ … ut dignitati et efficacitati Christi unius Mediatoris nihil deroget, nihil superaddat.” Sacrosanctum Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum II, “Constitutio Dogmatica de Ecclesia Lumen Gentium,” Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 (1965) 63, n. 62. [LG]. English translation: Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, “Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, ‘On the Church,’ 21 November 1964,” Austin Flannery, ed., Vatican Council II, Vol. 1, Rev. Ed. (Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Company, 2004), p. 419, no. 62. [LGEng].

^[16] Arthur Burton Calkins, “The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium,” Mary Co-Redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today(Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 2002), p. 30. [Calkins].

^[17] “1. Dicendo che “Maria Vergine è riconosciuta e onorata come vera Madre di Dio, Madre del Redentore” [Lumen Gentium, 53], il Concilio attira l’attenzione sul legame esistente tra la maternità di Maria e la redenzione.

Dopo aver preso coscienza del ruolo materno di Maria, venerata nella dottrina e nel culto dei primi secoli quale Madre verginale di Gesù Cristo e quindi Madre di Dio, nel Medioevo la pietà e la riflessione teologica della Chiesa approfondiscono la sua collaborazione all’opera del Salvatore.

Questo ritardo si spiega con il fatto che lo sforzo dei Padri della Chiesa e dei primi Concili ecumenici, incentrato com’era sul mistero dell’identità di Cristo, lasciò necessariamente nell’ombra altri aspetti del dogma. Sarà solo progressivamente che la verità rivelata potrà essere esplicitata in tutta la sua ricchezza. Nel corso dei secoli la Mariologia si orienterà sempre in funzione della Cristologia. La stessa divina maternità di Maria viene proclamata nel Concilio di Efeso soprattutto per affermare l’unità personale di Cristo. Analogamente avviene per l’approfondimento della presenza di Maria nella storia della salvezza.

2. Alla fine del secondo secolo sant’Ireneo, discepolo di Policarpo, pone già in evidenza il contributo di Maria all’opera della salvezza. Egli ha compreso il valore del consenso di Maria al momento dell’Annunciazione, riconoscendo nell’obbedienza e nella fede della Vergine di Nazaret al messaggio dell’angelo l’antitesi perfetta della disobbedienza e dell’incredulità di Eva, con effetto benefico sul destino dell’umanità. Infatti, come Eva ha causato la morte, così Maria, col suo “sì”, è divenuta “causa di salvezza” per se stessa e per tutti gli uomini [Cfr. S. Irenaei Adversus Haereses, 3. 22, 4]. Ma si tratta di un’affermazione non sviluppata in modo organico e abituale dagli altri Padri della Chiesa.

Tale dottrina, invece, viene sistematicamente elaborata per la prima volta, alla fine del decimo secolo, nella “Vita di Maria” di un monaco bizantino, Giovanni il Geometra. Maria è qui unita a Cristo in tutta l’opera redentrice partecipando, secondo il piano divino, alla Croce e soffrendo per la nostra salvezza. Ella è rimasta unita al Figlio “in ogni azione, atteggiamento e volontà” [Giovanni il Geometra, Vita di Maria, Bol. 196, f. 122 v.]. L’associazione di Maria all’opera salvifica di Gesù avviene mediante il suo amore di Madre, un amore animato dalla grazia, che le conferisce una forza superiore: la più esente da passione si mostra la più compassionevole [Cfr. ibid. f. 123 v.].

3. In Occidente san Bernardo, morto nel 1153, rivolgendosi a Maria, così commenta la presentazione di Gesù al tempio: “Offri tuo Figlio, sacrosanta Vergine, e presenta al Signore il frutto del tuo seno. Per la nostra riconciliazione con tutti offri l’ostia santa, gradita a Dio” (S. Bernardi Sermo 3 in Purif., 2: PL 183, 370].

Un discepolo ed amico di san Bernardo, Arnaldo di Chartres, mette in luce in particolare l’offerta di Maria nel sacrificio del Calvario. Egli distingue nella Croce “due altari: uno nel cuore di Maria, l’altro nel corpo di Cristo. Il Cristo immolava la sua carne, Maria la sua anima”. Maria s’immola spiritualmente in profonda comunione con Cristo e supplica per la salvezza del mondo: “Quello che la madre chiede il Figlio lo approva, il Padre lo dona” [Arnaldi Carnutensis De Septem Verbis Domini in Cruce, 3: PL 189, 1694].

Da questa epoca in poi altri autori espongono la dottrina della speciale cooperazione di Maria al sacrificio redentore.” Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, XVIII, 2 [luglio-dicembre 1995] (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998), pp. 93 4-935. English translation: “Mary was united to Jesus on the Cross: Down the centuries the Church’s tradition has appreciated ever more profoundly Mary’s very close sharing in her Son’s redemptive mission,” L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English, 1 November 1995, 11.

^[18] Cf. Petrus Hünermann and Helmut Hoping for the Latin text, and Robert Fastiggi and Anne Englund Nash for the English text, ed., Henrici Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 43^rd ed. / Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Faith and Morals (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), p. 574, no. 2802.

^[19] Cf. L’Osservatore Romano, 4 giugno 1997, 10-11. English translation: L’Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English, 4 June 1997, 12.

^[20] Cf. Karol Wojtyła. Giovanni Paolo II, Dono e mistero. Diario di un Sacerdote (Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011), p. 44. English translation: Pope John Paul II, Gift and Mystery: On the Fiftieth Anniversary of My Priestly Ordination (New York: Doubleday, 1996), pp. 29-30. Cf. also Arthur Burton Calkins, Totus Tuus: Pope John Paul II’s Program of Marian Consecration and Entrustment, 2^nd ed. (New Bedford, MA: Academy of the Immaculate, 2017), p. 308.

^[21] Gen 3, 15.

^[22] Is 7, 14.

^[23] “Sacrae Litterae Veteris Novique Testamenti et veneranda Traditio munus Matris Salvatoris in salutis oeconomia modo magis magisque dilucido ostendunt et veluti conspiciendum proponunt. Libri quidem Veteris Testamenti historiam salutis, qua Christi in mundum adventus lento gradu praeparatur, describunt. Quae primaeva documenta, qualiter in Ecclesia leguntur et sub luce ulterioris et plenae revelationis intelliguntur, clarius pedetentim in lucem proferunt figuram mulieris, Matris Redemptoris. Ipsa, sub hac luce, iam prophetice adumbratur in promissione, lapsis in peccatum primis parentibus data, de victoria super serpentem (cfr. Gen. 3,15). Similiter haec est Virgo quae concipiet et pariet Filium, cuius nomen vocabitur Emmanuel (cfr. Is. 7,14; cfr. Michaea 5, 2-3. - Matth. 1, 22-23). Ipsa praecellit inter humiles ac pauperes Domini, qui salutem cum fiducia ab Eo sperant et accipiunt. Cum Ipsa tandem praecelsa Filia Sion, post diuturnam exspectationem promissionis, complentur tempora et nova instauratur Oeconomia, quando Filius Dei humanam naturam ex ea assumpsit, ut mysteriis carnis suae hominem a peccato liberaret.” LG 59-60, n. 55. English translation: LGEng, p. 415, no. 55.

^[24] Cf. Ignace de la Potterie, “The Mediation of the Mother of Jesus at the Incarnation: An Exegetical Study,” tr. Salwa Hamati, Mary Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate, Theological Foundations: Towards a Papal Definition?, ed. Mark I. Miravalle (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1995), pp. 173-190. [Potterie].

^[25] Jn 2, 5.

^[26] 3 Jn 8.

^[27] Gal 4, 4-7.

^[28] Cf. Lk 9, 23.

^[29] “Señora mía, Reina mía, Muchachita mía, allá llegaré, a tu venerable casa en México Tlatelolco, a seguir las cosas de Dios que nos dan, que nos enseñan, quienes son las imágenes del Señor, Señor Nuestro, nuestros sacerdotes.” “Apéndice A, El Nican Mopohua,” Carl A. Anderson y Eduardo Chávez, Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. Madre de la civilización del amor, tr. Gerardo Hernández Clark (México DF: Random House Mondadori, 2010), p. 214, n. 24. [NM]. English translation: Carl A. Anderson and Eduardo Chávez, Our Lady of Guadalupe: Mother of the Civilization of Love (New York: Doubleday, 2009), p. 173, no. 24. [NMEng].

^[30] “Sábelo, ten por cierto, hijo mío, el más pequeño, que yo soy en verdad la perfecta siempre Virgen Santa María, que tengo el honor de ser Madre del verdaderísimo Dios por quien se vive, el Creador de las personas, el Dueno de la cercania y de la inmediación, el Dueño del cielo, el Dueño de la tierra.” NM, p. 214, n. 26. English translation: NMEng, p. 173, no. 26.

^[31] Cf. Jn 19, 25-27.

^[32] “Mucho quiero, mucho deseo, que aquí me levanten mi casita sagrada, en donde lo mostraré, lo ensalzaré al ponerlo de manifiesto, lo entregaré a las gentes en todo mi amor personal, a Él que es mi mirada compasiva, a Él que es mi auxilio, a Él que es mi salvación.

Porque, en verdad, yo me honro en ser tu madre compasiva, tuya y de todos los hombres que vivís juntos en esta tierra, y también de todas las demás variadas estirpes de hombres, los que me amen; los que me llamen, los que me busquen, los que confíen en mí. Porque ahí, en verdad, escucharé su llanto, su tristeza, para remediar, para curar todas sus diferentes penas, sus miserias, sus dolores.

Y para realizar lo que pretende mi compasiva mirada misericordiosa, anda al palacio del obispo de México, y le dirás cómo yo te envío, para que le descubras cómo mucho deseo que aquí me provea de una casa, me erija en el llano mi templo; todo le contarás, cuanto has visto y admirado, y lo que has oído.

Y ten por seguro que mucho lo agradeceré y lo pagaré, que por ello, en verdad, te enriqueceré, te glorificaré; y mucho de allí merecerás con que yo retribuya tu cansancio, tu servicio con que vas a solicitar el asunto al que te envío. Ya escuchaste, hijo mío el menor, mi aliento mi palabra; anda, haz lo que esté de tu parte.” NM, p. 214, nn. 26-37. English translation: NMEng, pp. 173-174, nos. 26-37.

^[33] “Escucha, ponlo en tu corazón, Hijo mío el menor, que no es nada lo que te espantó, lo que te afligió; que no se perturbe tu rostro, tu corazón; no temas esta enfermedad ni ninguna otra enfermedad, ni cosa punzante y aflictiva. ¿No estoy yo aquí, que tengo el honor de ser tu madre? ¿No estás bajo mi sombra y resguardo? ¿No soy yo la fuente de tu alegría? ¿No estas en el hueco de mi manto, en el cruce de mis brazos? ¿Acaso tienes necesidad de alguna otra cosa?

Que ninguna otra cosa te aflija, que no te inquiete; que no te acongoje la enfermedad de tu tío, porque de ella no morirá por ahora, ten por cierto que ya sanó.” NM, p. 220, nn. 118-120. English translation: NMEng, p. 179, nos. 118-120.

^[34] “Y luego extendió su blanca tilma, en cuyo hueco estaban las flores. Y al caer al suelo todas las variadas flores como las de Castilla, luego allí en su tilma se convirtió en señal, se apareció de repente la Amada Imagen de la Perfecta Virgen Santa María, Madre de Dios, en la forma y figura en que ahora está, en donde ahora es conservada en su amada casita, en su sagrada casita en el Tepeyácac, que se llama Guadalupe. Y en cuanto la contempló el Obispo Gobernante y también todos los que allí estaban, se arrodillaron, mucho la admiraron, se pusieron de pie para verla, se conmovieron, se afligió su corazón, como que se elevó su corazón, su pensamiento. Y el Obispo Gobernante con lagrimas, con tristeza, le suplicó, le pidió perdón por no haber realizado su venerable voluntad, su venerable aliento, su venerable palabra.

Y el Obispo se levantó, desaó del cuello de donde estaba atada, la vestidura, la tilma de Juan Diego, en la que se apareció, en donde se convirtió en venerable señal la Reina Celestial. Y luego la llevó allá, la fue a colocar en su oratorio. Y todavía allí pasó un dia entero Juan Diego en la casa del Obispo, quien hizo que se quedara allí. Y al día siguiente, le dijo: ‘Anda, vamos a que muestres dónde es la venerable voluntad de la Reina del Cielo que le levante su templo’. De inmediato se dio orden de hacerlo, levantarlo.” NM, pp. 223-224, nn. 181-193. English translation: NMEng, p. 182, nos. 181-193.

^[35] “Y después de que el Señor Obispo la tuvo algún tiempo, trasladó a la Iglesia Mayor la preciosa reverenciada Imagen de la amada Niña Celestial. La vino a sacar de su palacio, de su oratorio en donde estaba, para que todos la vieran, se admiraran de su preciosa Imagen. Y absolutamente todos, toda la ciudad, sin faltar nadie, se estremecieron cuando fueron a contemplar, a admirar su preciosa Imagen. Venían a conocerla como algo divino. Venían a presentarle sus plegarias. Mucho se admiraban en qué milagrosa manera se había aparecido puesto que absolutamente ningún hombre de la tierra pintó su amada Imagen.” NM, p. 225, nn. 212-218. English translation: NMEng, p. 183, nos. 212-218.

^[36] 3 Jn 8.

^[37] “Escucha, tú, el más pequeño de mis hijos, ten por cierto que no son escasos mis servidores, mis mensajeros, a quien encargue que lleven mi aliento, mi palabra, para que efectúen mi voluntad; pero es necesario que tú, personalmente, vayas, ruegues, que por tu intercesión se realice, se lleve a efecto mi querer, mi voluntad. Y mucho te ruego, hijo mío el menor, y con rigor te mando, que otra vez vayas mañana a ver al obispo. Y de mi parte hazle

saber, hazle oír mi querer, mi voluntad, para que realice, edifique mi casa sagrada que le pido. Y bien, de nuevo dile de qué modo yo, personalmente, la siempre Virgen Santa María, yo, que soy la Madre de Dios, te envío a ti como mi mensajero.” NM, p. 216, nn. 58-62. English translation: NMEng, pp. 175-176, nos. 58-62.

^[38] “¿No estoy yo aquí, que tengo el honor de ser tu madre? ¿No estás bajo mi sombra y resguardo? ¿No soy yo la fuente de tu alegría? ¿No estas en el hueco de mi manto, en el cruce de mis brazos? ¿Acaso tienes necesidad de alguna otra cosa?” NM, p. 220, n. 119. English translation: NMEng, p. 179, no. 119.

^[39] Col 1, 24.

^[40] “Alcuni hanno accusato i privilegi mariani di scavare un solco tra la Madre di Gesù e noi; in realtà, quei privilegi sono destinati, nel piano divino, ad avvicinare Maria all’umanità in vista dello sviluppo di una grazia più abbondante. Pur con un carattere unico e un livello ineguagliabile, la cooperazione di Maria alla redenzione ci invita a prendere più vivamente coscienza della nostra missione e della nostra responsabilità in un mondo che ha bisogno di salvezza. Se Maria non potesse venire chiamata corredentrice, neppure i cristiani potrebbero essere considerati come corredentori. La condizione di tutta la Chiesa nella sua missione corredentrice s’illumina con la condizione di Maria, primo modello di ogni redenzione.” Jean Galot, “Maria Corredentrice. Controversie e problemi dottrinali,” La Civiltà Cattolica, Anno 145 (1994), n., 3459/3460, p. 216. English translation: Jean Galot, “Mary Co-redemptrix: Controversies and Doctrinal Questions,” Mary Co-redemptrix: Doctrinal Issues Today(Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing Company, 2002), p. 11.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

ROME, 21 September 2026 — New evidence suggests that Cardinal Anders Arborelius is not complying with key provisions of a Vatican decree that declared “invalid” his 2024 suspension of Father Tobias Unnerstål, a Swedish priest once considered by many as most likely to succeed the Cardinal as Bishop of Stockholm.

A letter signed by the Cardinal also undercuts the Chancery’s stated reason for not publicly informing clergy and faithful that Fr. Unnerstål’s suspension was ruled invalid, and that he may administer certain sacraments.

As previously reported, this case began when Fr. Unnerstål was interrogated by the Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, OP, in April 2021 over a single complaint — not sexual in nature — filed by Joseph Rizk, then a seminarian who is now a priest of the diocese. Fr. Unnerstål was never shown the complaint. A former parish assistant, Birgitta Gelotte, later wrote that she had spent years shaping Rizk’s view of the relationship, and that she also felt she had to stop a project Fr. Unnerstål was establishing. He was removed without warning as parish priest of Christ the King Church in January 2022 and suspended by Cardinal Arborelius in November 2024.

Fr. Unnerstål contested the suspension, both in a Swedish civil court — where the diocese conceded his claims rather than contest them at trial — and before the Vatican’s Dicastery for Clergy, to which he formally lodged a recourse in September 2025. The Dicastery’s review concluded on May 5, 2026, with a decree declaring that the 2024 suspension had been imposed without correct procedure and was therefore “invalid.”

That decree, however, did not fully restore Fr. Unnerstål to priestly ministry. It imposed separate restrictions for three years, based on undisclosed “documentation at hand” — including concerns raised by Cardinal Arborelius, a member of the Dicastery, about the priest’s “behavior with men.” To date, neither the Dicastery nor the diocese has provided Fr. Unnerstål with this documentation. The new restrictions thus rest on material Fr. Unnerstål has never seen and therefore cannot challenge — a fact that strikes sources familiar with the Dicastery for Clergy as the most fundamental violation of the equitable process the Church’s own law requires.

On the basis of the undisclosed “documentation at hand,” the Dicastery restricted Fr. Unnerstål to offering Mass publicly only when concelebrating with his local Ordinary, i.e. the Cardinal, and revoked his faculties to hear confessions and preach. It specifically permitted him, however, to continue to administer the sacraments of baptism, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick.

The May 5 decree also required that the diocese provide for Fr. Unnerstål’s livelihood from the date it had ceased paying him — July 3, 2025 — and specified that the damages awarded by the Swedish civil court, equivalent to 32 months’ salary, did not satisfy that obligation.

This journalist has obtained a letter, dated Aug. 30, 2026, and signed by Cardinal Arborelius regarding the diocese’s implementation of the decree.

The Cardinal’s Letter

Dated Aug. 30, the letter came in reply to one Fr. Unnerstål had sent on Aug. 3 thanking the Cardinal for a May 30 meeting at which the two had discussed the Dicastery’s decree. In his letter, Fr. Unnerstål also informed the Cardinal that he had filed a recourse to the Apostolic Signatura against the restrictions that the Dicastery had imposed on him.

Noting that nearly three months had passed since the decree was issued, and that no action had taken place with regard to the measures Rome required of the diocese, Fr. Unnerstål asked that his salary be paid retroactively from July 2025, and that the notice about his suspended status be removed from the diocesan website, with a corresponding notice in the diocesan bulletin. If the Cardinal still considered it necessary to issue a public notice about the measures the Dicastery had taken in place of his own, Fr. Unnerstål asked that it state the suspension had been declared invalid; that he remained a priest of the Diocese of Stockholm with the right to housing and basic livelihood; that he was authorized to baptize, officiate at weddings, and administer the anointing of the sick; that he could give blessings and bless people, places and things; that he could be present at other priests’ Masses, i.e. sit in choir; and that he had appealed the three-year restrictions imposed on him by the Dicastery.

On Aug. 30, Cardinal Arborelius replied:

Dear confrere!

Thank you for your letter of the 3rd of August, I regret that it has taken so long before I was able to answer. In addition, I cannot yet answer all the questions, since we both must await the reply from the Apostolic Signatura on your appeal on the restrictions that the Dicastery has imposed on you.

But I would like to communicate what we can already now establish:

• that you remain a priest in the Diocese of Stockholm and until further notice can keep your residence in […]

• that the diocese is responsible for your livelihood, first by having paid out three annual salaries and thereafter in dialogue between you and the Vicar General

• that you can give blessings and bless individual people, places and things

• that you still have the possibility to undergo rehabilitation if you so wish

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Vicar General.

With my intercession and blessing
+Anders Cardinal Arborelius ocd

ORIGINAL LETTER IN SWEDISH

Measuring the Cardinal’s Letter Against the Dicastery’s Decree

The Cardinal’s letter confirms that Fr. Unnerstål remains a priest of the Diocese of Stockholm, but the confirmations are selective.

Introducing his four points as “what we can already now establish,” the Cardinal affirms that Fr. Unnerstål can give blessings but says nothing of the sacraments the decree specifically permits him to administer — baptism, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick — or of his permission to concelebrate Mass publicly with the Cardinal. The implication is that the Cardinal does not regard these as settled. He says he cannot yet answer every question because both men must await the Apostolic Signatura’s reply, but by his own description the appeal concerns “the restrictions,” and an appeal against restrictions is no reason to withhold recognition of what the decree already permits.

On his residence: the May 5 decree established Fr. Unnerstål’s right to housing. The Cardinal’s letter states that he can keep his residence “until further notice.”

On provision for his livelihood: the decree, which by its own terms took effect May 5, required the diocese to resume financial support from the day it ceased paying Fr. Unnerstål’s salary — July 3, 2025. According to the decree, the Cardinal maintained that the civil court case resulted in the cleric receiving the equivalent of 32 month’s salary in damages, but the Dicastery specified that this does not satisfy the obligation to provide for his livelihood from July 2025.

The Cardinal’s letter acknowledges that the diocese is responsible for Fr. Unnerstål’s livelihood, “first by having paid out three annual salaries” — the equivalent of 36 months, four more than the figure mentioned in the decree. (Fr. Unnerstål made clear in his Aug. 3, 2026 letter to the Cardinal that he had not received any retroactive payment; therefore, it is unclear whether the reference to “three annual salaries” (36 months) is a typo or an oversight.) The Cardinal’s letter cites no salary payment — apart from the court ordered damages payment — made since the decree; it says further support will be worked out “in dialogue” with the Vicar General. As of Aug. 30, nearly four months after the decree, the letter’s conditioning of further support upon a future “dialogue” indicates that the diocese had not yet complied with this provision.

On his public standing: the decree declared the 2024 suspension invalid. The Cardinal’s letter does not acknowledge the Dicastery’s finding and is silent on Fr. Unnerstål’s request that the diocese remove the notice about his suspended status from its website and publish a corresponding notice in the diocesan bulletin.

Finally, the letter says Fr. Unnerstål “still” has the possibility of undergoing rehabilitation, if he so wishes. The word “rehabilitation” does not appear in the Dicastery’s May 5 decree, but the idea is not new: the Cardinal’s November 2024 suspension decree, which the Dicastery has since ruled invalid, cited a “Rehabilitation Plan” drawn up in January 2023 that had, in his words, “not been able to be completed as I wished.” The letter does not say what such rehabilitation would address, and neither the Dicastery nor the diocese has supplied Fr. Unnerstål with the “documentation” that, according to the decree, formed the basis of the new restrictions.

Contradicting the Chancery

The Cardinal wrote to Fr. Unnerstål at exactly the same time his own Chancery was under active questioning about the very case his letter addressed.

The questions, part of an exchange with this journalist that took place Aug. 27–Sept. 2, were sent to diocesan communications officer Kristina Hellner. They were copied to two officials with direct knowledge of the case: the Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, OP, who interrogated Fr. Unnerstål in 2021 and took part in subsequent meetings on his status, and the Episcopal Vicar for Judicial Affairs, Msgr. Jorge de Salas, who confirmed the substance of the Dicastery’s decree to this journalist by phone in June.

On Aug. 29, Hellner told this journalist that the diocese does not consider it “appropriate” to inform the clergy and faithful that Fr. Unnerstål is not suspended and that he may administer certain sacraments, because “we do not know which parts of the decree are or are not the subject of the appeal.” However, one day later, the Cardinal acknowledged in his letter to Fr. Unnerstål that “the restrictions” imposed on him by the Dicastery were the subject of the appeal.

Pressed on whether it is also the diocese’s position that it is not obliged, or that it is not “appropriate,”to act on the May 5 decree regarding financial support until the canonical process has concluded, Hellner replied on Aug. 30 — the date of the Cardinal’s letter: “our policy is not to comment on financial support to individual priests, including when such matters are addressed in decrees.” Fr. Lung and Msgr. de Salas were copied on her reply.

Hellner’s final email in the exchange came on Sept. 2., when she confirmed that the diocese itself “has not filed an appeal or recourse against the decree, either to the Apostolic Signatura or to the Dicastery for the Clergy.” She added: “We respect the decree of the Dicastery for the Clergy. We have, however, not seen the appeal submitted by the priest to the Apostolic Signatura and therefore do not know which parts of the decree are the subject of the appeal.”

By then, the Cardinal’s own letter naming “the restrictions” as the subject of the appeal was dated three days earlier.

The Role of the Vicar General

The Cardinal’s letter closes by directing Fr. Unnerstål elsewhere for anything further. “If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the Vicar General,” the Cardinal writes — the same Vicar General with whom, the Cardinal also writes, any further financial support is to be discussed.

The Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, was also copied on Hellner’s emails.

Fr. Lung has been a central figure at nearly every stage of this case. In April 2021 he summoned Fr. Unnerstål to Stockholm and, meeting with him one-on-one, with the Cardinal absent, read him the charges without ever showing him the complaint. It was also Fr. Lung who, according to an account Birgitta Gelotte gave to Maxim Jaruta, reportedly telephoned her later in 2021 to warn her that Fr. Unnerstål had learned of her letter — after telling Fr. Unnerstål himself, on reading it, that something would need to be done to correct her. In January 2022, Fr. Lung conveyed the details of Fr. Unnerstål’s reassignment to him without mentioning that his removal from Christ the King Church would take effect that same day. And it was Fr. Lung who publicly announced the 2024 suspension.

As reported in June, Swedish Catholics calling for an apostolic visitation of the Diocese of Stockholm describe a “power vacuum” at the top of its administration, created, they say, by Cardinal Arborelius’s own lack of leadership, and filled by an “axis of power” within the Chancery. Fr. Lung has been named as a key part of that axis — an identification several independent diocesan sources have since confirmed to this journalist.

The Vicar General is also among those who some diocesan sources expect would likely be on the list of candidates to succeed Cardinal Arborelius, or at least temporarily govern the diocese, once the Cardinal retires, perhaps as early as the end of this month.

More than four months after Rome ruled his suspension invalid, Fr. Unnerstål has been directed by Cardinal Arborelius to speak to the man who announced the suspension — the same Vicar General copied on the diocese’s statement that it would be “inappropriate” to make public that his suspension was invalid or that he may administer certain sacraments.

FOR MORE BACKGROUND ON THIS STORY, READ:

• Something Is Rotten in the Church in Sweden

• The Rot Goes Deeper: Diocese of Stockholm Withholds Vatican Ruling that Priest’s Suspension Was Invalid

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

ROME, 4 September 2026 — What happens when a ruling from Rome reaches a diocesan chancery declaring that its suspension of a priest was “invalid,” and chancery officials choose not to tell its clergy and faithful what Rome has decided?

In Sweden’s only Catholic diocese, officials have acknowledged in writing that they do not intend to announce that the Vatican’s Dicastery for Clergy found the 2024 suspension of Father Tobias Unnerstål, a Gothenburg parish priest, “invalid” — until a further, potentially lengthy canonical process has been resolved. Nor does the diocese intend, until then, to inform its clergy and faithful that the priest, according to the Vatican’s decree, may administer certain sacraments and publicly celebrate Mass with the local Ordinary, Cardinal Anders Arborelius.

New evidence has emerged showing that, to date, the diocese has also failed to comply with the decree’s requirement that it provide for the priest’s livelihood.

A June 2026 investigative report titled “Something Is Rotten in the Church in Sweden” first detailed his case. He was interrogated by the Vicar General, Fr. Pascal-René Lung, in April 2021 over a single complaint — not sexual in nature — filed by Joseph Rizk, then a seminarian who is now a priest of the diocese. Fr. Unnerstål was never shown the complaint. A former parish assistant later wrote that she had spent years shaping Rizk’s view of the relationship and that she also felt she had to stop a project Fr. Unnerstål was establishing. He was removed without warning as parish priest of Christ the King Church in January 2022 and suspended by Cardinal Arborelius in November 2024.

Although the diocese did not name Fr. Unnerstål in its Nov. 11 suspension announcement — issued by the Vicar General — or in subsequent postings, the announcement referred to an unnamed priest who had, since 2022, been “relieved of his ordinary pastoral duties” — the same language the diocese had used on Oct. 19, 2022, when it announced that “Fr. Tobias Unnerstål was relieved of his ordinary pastoral duties in the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm on Oct. 1, 2022.”

In a decree dated May 5, 2026, the Vatican’s Dicastery for Clergy found the suspension procedurally defective and ruled it “invalid.” The decree nevertheless imposed restrictions on Fr. Unnerstål’s ministry for three years, citing undisclosed “documentation at hand,” including concerns raised by Cardinal Arborelius about the priest’s “behavior with men.” To date, that documentation has not been disclosed to Fr. Unnerstål. The restrictions thus rest on material he has never seen and therefore cannot meaningfully challenge — the same fundamental procedural problem that has marked his case from the outset.

The decree specified, however, that he may publicly celebrate Mass when concelebrating with the Cardinal; administer sacraments that do not require the faculties from the local Ordinary, including baptism, marriage, and the anointing of the sick; and ordered the diocese to provide financially for his livelihood.

Nearly four months after the Dicastery’s ruling, the diocese has communicated none of this to its clergy and faithful. Its website would lead them to the opposite conclusion.

A written exchange with the diocese makes clear that this silence is not an oversight. It is deliberate.

The Email Exchange

On Thursday, Aug. 27, this journalist sent five written questions to Kristina Hellner, communications officer for the Diocese of Stockholm, copying Msgr. Jorge de Salas, Episcopal Vicar for Juridical Affairs, and Fr. Lung, the Vicar General. Both officials have played roles in Fr. Unnerstål’s case. As reported in June, Fr. Lung has been a central figure from the outset: he interrogated Fr. Unnerstål about the allegations in 2021, in the Cardinal’s absence, without showing him the complaint, participated in key meetings with the Cardinal concerning his status, and issued the announcement of his suspension. The June reporting also established that Msgr. de Salas had already confirmed by phone the substance of the Dicastery’s ruling. Fr. Unnerstål was “not suspended, strictly,” Msgr. de Salas said, “but he’s not in good standing.”Given their roles in the case and the canonical issues involved, both officials would ordinarily be among those consulted on the diocese’s response.

The first two questions were narrow: Why had the diocese not informed its clergy and faithful that the Dicastery had ruled the suspension invalid? And why had it not informed them that Fr. Unnerstål may administer certain sacraments?

Hellner replied by the requested deadline. The diocese, she said, had “waited until the decree had become final and legally effective.” She confirmed that Fr. Unnerstål had filed a recourse with the Apostolic Signatura, adding that the diocese “believe[s] it’s appropriate to respect the canonical process and allow the competent ecclesiastical authorities to complete their consideration of the matter.” Once that process concluded, she said, “we will communicate the outcome accordingly.” A source close to the Apostolic Signatura confirmed that the process could take up to two years.

Pressed on whether the diocese considered the Dicastery’s decree to have legal force in the meantime, Hellner clarified: “We didn’t want to publish the decree before we were certain that there would not be an appeal (= final and legally effective).”

This journalist replied that the question was not why the diocese had failed to publish the decree, but why it had failed to communicate two specific facts: that Fr. Unnerstål’s suspension had been ruled invalid and that he may administer certain sacraments. It was pointed out that neither of these points was under appeal.

The decree itself, moreover, states that it took effect on the date of its issuance — May 5, 2026. “Does the Cardinal not have a responsibility to communicate this information to the clergy and faithful, both for their sake and in justice to the priest in question?” this journalist asked. To withhold it, this journalist continued, was effectively to continue treating Fr. Unnerstål as a suspended priest.

Which Parts?

Hellner responded: “Our position is that we considered it more appropriate to wait until the appeal period had expired before communicating the decree or any selected part of it.” Because the diocese had “not seen the appeal submitted to the Apostolic Signatura,” she added, it did “not know which parts of the decree are or are not the subject of the appeal.” It therefore did “not consider it appropriate to make separate statements regarding individual aspects of the decree while the canonical process is ongoing.”

Hellner subsequently confirmed that the diocese itself had filed no appeal or recourse against the decree, “either to the Apostolic Signatura or to the Dicastery for the Clergy.” Fr. Unnerstål is therefore the only party to have filed recourse against the decree.

This journalist also asked about the Dicastery’s order that the diocese provide Fr. Unnerstål with an adequate livelihood, at a level equivalent to that of a retired priest, and noted that, to date, he appeared to have received nothing. Hellner declined to address the substance of the question: “Our policy is not to comment on financial support to individual priests.”

Problems with the Diocese’s Position

The diocese’s position raises a significant question. Recourse to the Apostolic Signatura, the Catholic Church’s highest court, exists to challenge decisions or provisions a party considers unfavorable. It would be a striking proposition to suggest that Fr. Unnerstål is contesting the findings that his suspension was invalid, that he may administer certain sacraments, or that the diocese must provide for his livelihood. The diocese’s professed uncertainty about “which parts” of the decree Fr. Unnerstål is contesting therefore rests on the possibility that he is challenging the very provisions that favor him.

Moreover, new evidence calls the diocese’s professed uncertainty into question. According to a Sept. 3 letter from Fr. Unnerstål to friends and benefactors, obtained by this journalist, he met with Cardinal Arborelius about the decree at the end of May. The Cardinal, he writes, told him he would pray for guidance and get back to him — but never did. On July 31, Fr. Unnerstål informed the Cardinal directly via email that he had filed recourse with the Apostolic Signatura and took the opportunity to “draw his attention” to the diocese’s non-compliance: no financial support had been provided, and the diocese had communicated neither that his suspension had been ruled invalid nor that he might administer certain sacraments — baptism, marriage, and the anointing of the sick — and concelebrate Mass publicly with the Cardinal.

Fr. Unnerstål writes:

“When no response or reaction came from the Cardinal, I was compelled to bring the matter to the attention of the Holy See. This was done by means of a ‘Non-Compliance with Decree Prot. N. 2026 0530,’ which was sent on 26 August by email, with a copy to the Cardinal and the Nuncio. I later also sent the original to Rome. The [Dicastery for] Clergy has confirmed that they received it on 28 August.”

In the email, he also notes that he has not heard anything from the diocese since July 2025.

The July 31 email was then sent as a letter by post on Aug. 3.

The Cardinal had therefore been informed by the priest himself of “which parts” were and were not part of the appeal — a month before this journalist’s Aug. 27-Sept. 2 email exchange with Hellner, and two days before Rome formally logged his complaint of non-compliance.

“A Matter of Justice”

On Sept. 1, this journalist put the exchange with the diocese to Fr. Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer and priest of the Archdiocese of New York. Asked whether, in his view, the diocese is obliged to communicate to its clergy and faithful that Fr. Unnerstål’s suspension is ruled invalid, and that he may administer certain sacraments, Fr. Murray noted that “while the diocese did not identify Fr. Tobias Unnerstål as the priest who was suspended when it publicized the suspension, it became common public knowledge” that he was in fact that priest.

Citing Canon 220 of the Code of Canon Law, which states: “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy,” Fr. Murray argued that since Fr. Unnerstål is widely known to have incurred suspension, “it is a matter of justice” for the Diocese of Stockholm to make known that he is no longer under suspension, “thus ensuring that his good reputation is not harmed from this point on by any further even indirect wrongful identification of him by the diocese as a suspended priest.”

Asked whether the diocese is also obliged, from the date the decree took effect, to provide financially for Fr. Unnerstål’s adequate livelihood, Fr. Murray said plainly: “I would argue that the obligation to provide financially for Fr. Unnerstål is retroactive to the date of his suspension, if he was in fact not financially supported from that date onward.”

The Great Silence

In the initial email to the diocese, this journalist included a direct link to the report, “Something Is Rotten in the Church in Sweden,” and asked whether the diocese wished to comment on its contents. Across the full exchange, the diocese did not contest the report: it did not deny a single claim, correct a single detail, or offer any competing account.

The final question concerned a matter raised in that report, namely the conduct and standing of Fr. Pär-Anders Feltenheim, the priest Cardinal Arborelius appointed to succeed Fr. Unnerstål at Christ the King in 2022. As reported in June, complaints about Fr. Feltenheim’s conduct toward young people had accumulated over the course of his career, from his years as a political activist before ordination through successive parish assignments and his assignment to the Stockholm Cathedral. A formal investigation in 2013–14, led by Msgr. Jorge de Salas, resulted in his transfer to Stockholm Cathedral and an express prohibition on working with children and young people. Despite that prohibition, he subsequently became responsible for the Cathedral’s altar-server group, which included boys in their early teens.

In the same telephone conversation in which Msgr. de Salas confirmed to this journalist the substance of the Dicastery’s ruling on Fr. Unnerstål, saying he was “not suspended, strictly” but remained subject to restrictions, he also described Fr. Feltenheim as “a priest in good standing.”

Following that telephone conversation, sources within the diocese told this journalist that Fr. Feltenheim had been removed from his duties as parish priest of Christ the King over internet activity the diocese judged not criminal, but incompatible with his continuing in parish ministry. This was reported in the June 26 article.

Asked about Fr. Feltenheim’s status again in August, Hellner answered simply that she had “no further information other than that he is in good standing.”

A Pattern, Not an Isolated Case

As reported in June, the Stockholm Chancery’s handling of the cases of these two priests, as well as others, has led Swedish Catholics to call on Rome to investigate what they describe as corruption at the heart of the diocese. They describe a “power vacuum” opened by a lack of leadership that has allowed an “axis of power” to emerge in the Chancery — one, they allege, that has moved against those it perceives as disloyal or threatening while protecting those whom it favors.

Those calls come as Cardinal Anders Arborelius, 76, approaches retirement and the diocese awaits the appointment of his successor, which some sources expect as early as the end of this month. Much will depend on who succeeds him. The two-part report Swedish Catholics published online this year identified Fr. Lung, the vicar general, as part of the “axis of power” its authors described — an identification others have since confirmed to this journalist privately. He could be appointed permanent successor or serve as apostolic administrator until a new bishop is named. Sources argue that either arrangement could perpetuate the pattern.

A third article will examine two further cases within the diocese, and the climate of fear this pattern of governance has left in its wake, particularly among the clergy.

What happens when a decision from Rome reaches a diocesan chancery and rules that its suspension of a priest was “invalid,” and chancery officials choose not to tell their clergy and faithful what Rome has decided? In the Diocese of Stockholm, nearly four months later, the clergy and faithful have yet to be told. Whether that changes — and when — remains to be seen.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

VATICAN CITY, 27 August 2026 — Cardinal Robert Sarah says the aversion to Latin and Gregorian chant among some in the Church will die out with the generation that created it.

In a new interview with Italian journalist Nico Spuntoni, published today in Il Giornale, the former prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments argues that opposition to traditional liturgy is confined to “self-referential cultural circles” rooted more in psychology than substance. Once the ’68 generation passes from influence, he predicts, so too will the “baseless, one-sided positions” that have diminished the cultural stature of Latin Catholicism — a shift he sees coming for the Traditional Latin Mass and for tradition more broadly.

The Cardinal also delivers a sharp verdict on Pope Francis’ 2021 restrictions on the old rite. He calls Traditionis Custodesneither wise nor respectful toward Benedict XVI, who he says bore the decision with the meekness of a lamb even as it was imposed while he was still living. Access to ritual forms “recognized and in use for centuries,” Cardinal Sarah insists, can never be legitimately restricted by decree. And he condemns hostility toward traditional-minded Catholics outright, calling it “shortsighted,” “purely ideological,” and ultimately “harmful, and destructive to the Church.”

Here is an English translation of the full interview, published with the kind permission of the author.

“But the Old Mass is the one that helps priests celebrate better.”

by Nico Spuntoni

Speaking out against excessive liturgical abuses is one of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s signature themes; he formerly served as prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Cardinal returns to the subject in his latest book, The Canticle of the Lamb: Sacred Music and Heavenly Liturgy, co-written with Peter Carter and published by Cantagalli.

Your Eminence, do you believe there is an aversion to Latin and Gregorian chant in certain parts of the Church?

It strikes me as an aversion confined to a few self-referential cultural circles — more a matter of psychology than of substance — and I think it’s simply a generational issue: once the ’68 generation has passed, these baseless, one-sided positions, which diminish the very cultural stature of Latin Catholicism, will pass with it.

Benedict XVI was convinced that the extraordinary form — the so-called Latin Mass — could positively influence celebrations in the ordinary form that lacked a sense of the sacred. Was he right?

Among the effects of liberalizing the extraordinary form was a positive influence — I would even call it a correction — on possible abuses in the celebration of the ordinary form. Such abuses are extremely serious acts, but they must never be conflated with the ordinary form itself. Many priests testify that discovering the extraordinary form helped them celebrate better. I believe Benedict XVI’s intention also reflected a deeply humble and democratic instinct: to ensure the widest possible access to it, so that over the decades the people of God could choose for themselves which form better embodied their lived faith. But all of that was cut off by Traditionis Custodes, while the Pope Emeritus was still living.

How do you judge that?

It didn’t strike me as a wise or respectful decision. But Benedict, meek as a lamb, allowed himself to be humbled, and in silence and prayer offered his suffering to God, the better to share in Christ’s own suffering for his Church and to purify it.

What do you make of calls to repeal the restrictions?

Access to ritual forms recognized and in use for centuries can never be artificially restricted by decree. If a rite ceased to serve the faith, it would die out on its own; but if it preserves and nurtures the faith, may we never limit it — because in doing so we would be restricting the preservation and spread of the faith itself.

What would you say to the many faithful drawn to the old liturgy who may have to drive miles just to attend a Mass?

I can only admire this profound expression of love for God. The phenomenon is spreading. If the hierarchy proves capable of truly reading the signs of the present age — rather than those of ’68, arriving late once again — then room can open for a fraternal and peaceful dialogue.

As a Church, we cannot wage war on those who devoutly attend Mass simply because they prefer one form over another. That is a shortsighted, purely ideological stance — not pastoral, not Christian. It is harmful, and destructive to the Church.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

VATICAN CITY, 26 August 2026 — In recent months a number of prominent attempts have been made to double down on the party line that the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council conforms to the Council’s own desires and is beyond criticism, and that the older liturgical rites have little, if any, place in the life of the Church.

One only need recall three recent examples: Cardinal Arthur Roche’s July 29 interview with The Tablet; the subsequent article in the secular Spanish daily La Razón claiming that Cardinal Roche’s discredited report on the liturgy — distributed to Cardinals at Pope Leo XIV’s first extraordinary consistory — conveys the mind of the Pope on the traditional Roman rite; and Andrea Grillo’s recent assertion that “the old rite has no longer existed since the approval of the Novus Ordo.”

The latest appeared today at the Pope’s general audience, in his final catechesis on the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Dom Alcuin Reid, an internationally recognized liturgical scholar — whose doctoral work on liturgical reform was published as The Organic Development of the Liturgy, with a preface by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger — offers some analysis and commentary.

Liturgy Wars—The Latest Volley: A Papal “Thus”

Dom Alcuin Reid

Popes are busy men and rightly have drafters assisting them in preparing discourses. When speaking on particular subjects these drafts often originate in the relevant dicastery or department of the Roman Curia, and it is almost certain that the General Audience addresses of recent months on the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, originated in the Dicastery for Divine Worship. There is nothing exceptional about that and, for the most part, the General Audience addresses have been a reasonable liturgical catechesis making good points at times.

Today’s General Audience address, however, was not about the liturgy itself. Rather, it waded into the political minefield of what has become known in recent decades as “the liturgy wars”, the central issue of which is whether the liturgical reform following the Council was in fact faithful to the mandate given by the Council (and organic development of the liturgy as article 23 of the Constitution required). If it was not, the rites promulgated subsequently could be legitimately questioned and even be set aside in favour of the unreformed rites or be subjected to a “reform of the reform” that seeks to be faithful to the Council’s actual directives.

Once delivered, a draft becomes a Papal text, and to have the Pope express an opinion in a discourse (let us be clear, a General Audience address is not of itself a binding, infallible teaching) is certainly a coup of some importance. And in his general audience today the Holy Father — intentionally or not — has certainly rallied the troops of those on the Vatican II fundamentalist side of the war (who cling to the reformed rites more rigidly than any so-called ‘traditionalist’ ever known).

He did so in the simple line: “the liturgical reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council is thus firmly rooted in the living tradition of the Church.” His “thus” implies a deduction and a decision that the demands of Sacrosanctum Concilium n. 23 that “there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing” were respected. And if they were, there would be no problem — there would be no grounds for talk about a “reform of the reform” or of a need to continue to celebrate the unreformed rites.

The problem is, however, that whoever in the Dicastery of Divine Worship most probably put these words in the mouth of the Holy Father has had him utter the greatest liturgical non-sequitur of the past sixty or so years. So too, whilst the “thus” is clearly believed by the drafter, it does not follow from the evidence produced in the text. An undergraduate in any reputable faculty would have such work returned to him as unsatisfactory.

There are many instances of inadequate drafting here: the Council called for a renewal of the Sacred Liturgy (“instauratio”) not for it to be “streamlined” — an a posteriori term which clearly indicates what in fact the partisans of the newer rites wish to believe. The Magisterium did not positively intervene in the history of the liturgy to adapt its forms to the needs of different eras; it extended local developments to the universal Church or added them to the Roman use by way of example, which was often then imitated elsewhere. As the likes of Cardinal Ratzinger observed, what happened following the most recent ecumenical Council had never been seen in the history of the Church until then. No centralized liturgical dicastery (the Sacred Congregation for Rites) existed until the latter part of the sixteenth century. Even then, it had no mandate to overhaul the liturgy periodically. Local Churches and religious orders maintained their own traditional rites. A radical reform of the liturgical rites was not in fact necessary in order to make the liturgy more accessible after the Second Vatican Council — a reality that the full, conscious, actual and extraordinarily fruitful participation in the unreformed rites today makes perfectly clear. One could note much more, but there are perhaps three more important issues to underline.

The first issue is the unfortunate yet enthusiastic citation of Cardinal Montini’s 1962 letter in which the future Paul VI asserts that the liturgy is “on the one hand…a vehicle for divine teaching; on the other…a voice in dialogue with God.” The problem is that whilst the liturgy is indeed formative, it is not primarily didactic or catechetical. It is cultic activity, i.e., it is worship and forms us as Christians by drawing us into the divine at work in and through its sacred rites. So too, the liturgy is not dialoguing with God in any modern sense of “dialogue” whereby we sit down as equal partners to work out some solution. The liturgy is the privileged place where we listen to God’s Word attentively and receptively and participate in the fruits of Christ’s saving action and respond appropriately through the conversion of our lives and by faithfully living out our vocation and Christian mission. To be fair, later on the text does cite Paul VI’s address at the closing of the Second Session of the Council in which he rightly describes the liturgy as “the primary source of that divine exchange in which the life of God is communicated to us”. Paul VI’s drafters were clearly better. So too is Sacrosanctum Concilium’s own theology of the liturgy (see especially articles 7-8).

The second is this rather pedestrian exegesis of article 48^[1]:

“Through the Church’s ritual actions, whilst the memorial of the work of salvation is celebrated, the opportunity is provided to experience a true relationship with God, coming into contact with the salvific event. Since the gestures, the words of the sacred liturgy are critical to realizing this experience, the participation of the faithful cannot be passive.”

None of this is false, but it is anaemic — and the Holy Father deserves better for his discourse.

For the Sacred Liturgy is not an “opportunity” (amongst others) to experience a true relationship with God. It is, as the Council teaches, the “summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time, it is the font from which all her power flows.” (Constitution, art. 10) That is, it enjoys a primacy, an objectivity in the Christian life to which other “opportunities” are subordinate.

In this context “the gestures and words” are not merely “critical to realising this experience,” they are the very vehicles of this privileged divine encounter itself — hence the terms “sacred liturgy” and “sacred rites.” The complex of actions and words that constitute a liturgical rite thereby take on a sacrality, they themselves become sacramentals. Incense, Latin, Gregorian chant and praying Eastward are not of the same status as the use of bread and wine and the Lord’s own words at Mass, clearly, but the Church has rightly employed them in her tradition not simply appropriate as elements of the liturgical rites, but as more than apposite ones that have become privileged by their use in the Church’s tradition. This is precisely why the Second Vatican Council did not call for their abolition or replacement, but instead underlined their privileged place in the Western rite whilst calling for widespread liturgical formation of clergy and laity to facilitate full, actual and conscious participation in the rites of which they are important pillars so as further to nourish and sustain Christian life and mission.

Here we touch on the third issue: the distinction between divine, immutable elements, and seemingly merely human elements, in the liturgy. This distinction leads to a downplaying of the latter which, it is said, “admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require.” To a certain extent, this is true, and the liturgy has developed (organically) in history. But at another level this distinction is pernicious in that it permits a reduction of anything not “immutable” to the level of almost changeable at whim. This is not what the Council intended at all but, as Cardinal Ratzinger observed, it can become:

“the wrong path up which we might be led by a Neoscholastic sacramental theology that is disconnected from the living form of the Liturgy. On that basis, people might reduce the ‘substance’ to the matter and form of the sacrament and say: Bread and wine are the matter of the sacrament; the words of institution are its form. Only these two things are really necessary; everything else is changeable … As long as the material gifts are there, and the words of institution are spoken, then everything else is freely disposable.”

The drafter can perhaps be forgiven for this error: the subtleties involved are quite advanced, but they are nevertheless real, and ignorance of them does risk reducing the liturgical rites to matters of passing preference (as the various abuse of the modern rites demonstrate so clearly). The Council called for an instauratio (renewal) of the rites in continuity, not a substantial rupture with the received liturgical tradition that edited and remade them according to the preferences of those involved whilst preserving only what was necessary for sacramental validity.

Recent decades have seen a considerable body of scholarship examine all these issues — amongst them of course the future Pope Benedict XVI himself. Pope Leo is not himself a liturgical scholar — and there is no reason he should be. However, the Holy Father should be served and supported by those who can furnish him with less embarrassing and, shall we say, more “inclusive” texts.

Unfortunately, today’s General Audience text will be read more as the scoring of a political point by some and will be experienced as a disappointing blow by others. I am sure that the Holy Father intends or wills neither. His Holiness’ constant calls for unity and inclusivity whilst respecting legitimate diversity stand above such politicking. So too does sound scholarship and actual liturgical history.

Let us continue to pray for the Holy Father, particularly that in respect of the Sacred Liturgy, he shall indeed promote a policy of inclusivity and mutual respect, eschewing the ploys of those who would use his words to advance their cause. Pope Benedict offered some sound advice in respect of the liturgy wars: “Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.” His policies led to liturgical peace. Pope Leo may do well to revisit them.

^[1] 48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

ROME, 24 August 2026 — Auxiliary Bishop Rob Mutsaerts of ’s-Hertogenbosch has joined a growing number of prelates criticizing the ongoing Synod on Synodality.

In an open letter published on his blog on August 13, the Dutch bishop asks: “What has all of this actually produced?” Not how many meetings were held, or how many reports filed, but whether Christ has been proclaimed more clearly, whether Catholic identity has deepened, and whether more people have come to conversion.

The process, he rightly notes, is far from over. The implementation phase runs on towards a further Ecclesial Assembly in Rome in October 2028, and what was billed as a time-limited synod shows every sign of becoming permanent. Indeed, in its guidance on who should take part in the next round of diocesan assemblies, the Synod Secretariat has stated that “it is essential that participants be willing to sustain the process also beyond 2028” — a striking admission that continuation, not conclusion, is now the working assumption.

Bishop Mutsaerts is not alone in his critique. As veteran Vatican journalist Edward Pentin has noted, Cardinals Raymond Burke, Walter Brandmüller, Robert Sarah, Gerhard Müller, Joseph Zen Ze-Kiun and Juan Sandoval Íñiguez have all voiced similar concerns, as did the late Cardinal George Pell, and bishops including Joseph Strickland, Athanasius Schneider and Marian Eleganti.

Although the open letter appeared over a week ago (while I was away for the Octave of the Assumption), it is too significant not to publish. Here below is a full English translation.

Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV

Holy Father,

With respect for the office entrusted to you as successor of Saint Peter, and in communion with the Church that Christ built upon the apostles, I turn to you with this open letter. I do not do so lightly. What moves me to speak these words publicly is a concern that ultimately transcends every other ecclesial consideration: the salvation of souls. Salus animarum suprema lex — the salvation of souls is the supreme law. My question is a simple and serious one: does the synodal process actually help souls draw closer to Christ and to eternal salvation? For me, that is the decisive question.

Holy Father, I fully realize that the Petrine office carries a responsibility of which someone standing outside that office can have only an inkling. Precisely for that reason, I write these words not out of a lack of respect for the papal office, but out of love for that very office. For Christ gave Peter not only the task of uniting the brethren, but also of strengthening them in the faith: “And you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” In the end, the world has little use for a Church that merely repeats what the world itself already thinks. It needs a Church that points it toward Christ, with love but without fear.

My concern regarding the Synod on Synodality must be read in that light. Above all, I ask myself what all of this means for the simple believer, who does not expect a permanent process from his Church, but clarity about the way to God.

This letter is therefore not an accusation against persons. Nor do I wish to deny the good intentions of the many who have committed themselves sincerely to the synodal process. Good intentions deserve recognition. But good intentions do not release us from the duty to examine the fruits. Christ himself gave us a simple criterion for this: “By their fruits you shall know them.” I therefore believe that after years of synodal consultations, gatherings, reports, and documents, the time has come to ask openly about those fruits. Not out of cynicism, but out of love for the Church. Not out of nostalgia for an idealized past, but out of concern for her future. And not to wage a battle of Church politics, but because behind all the discussions lies a reality that is infinitely more important: the eternal salvation of the souls that Christ has entrusted to his Church. It is from that concern, Holy Father, that I lay the following reflection before you.

The Synod on Synodality

Anyone who judges the Synod on Synodality solely by its own stated objectives can easily write a positive story. People listened. People spoke. Thousands were consulted. Bishops, priests, religious, and laypeople came together. There was talk of communion, participation, and mission. A new ecclesial vocabulary even emerged: synodality, listening, discernment, participation, conversation in the Spirit, setting processes in motion.

But the same history can also be viewed from an entirely different perspective. Let me pose the uncomfortable question: What has all of this actually produced? Not: how many meetings were organized? Not: how many reports were written? Not: how many people took part? But rather: has the faith grown stronger? Has Christ been proclaimed more clearly? Has Catholic identity deepened? Have more people come to conversion? Is Sunday Mass better attended? Are there more priestly vocations? Has catechesis become more powerful? Has greater reverence for the Eucharist arisen? Has the Church’s moral teaching become clearer? Has missionary courage increased?

When one asks such questions, it is impossible to regard the Synod as a success. And there is something else to add. The synodal undertaking has not really concluded. The official implementation phase continues and, through diocesan, national, and continental gatherings, is ultimately meant to culminate in an ecclesial assembly in Rome in October 2028. In May 2026 the Vatican published a further extensive itinerary for this purpose. That makes the criticism all the more relevant. What once began as a synod running from 2021 to 2024 threatens to become a permanent form of governance.

A Synod about a Synod

The first curious aspect lies already in the name: Synod on Synodality. Traditionally, a synod was convened because the Church needed to discuss something — evangelization, marriage and family, the priesthood, the Eucharist, Scripture, a heresy, a pastoral crisis, or some concrete problem. In the synod on synodality, the process itself is made the subject. One could compare it to a meeting that convenes endlessly to discuss how meetings should be held from now on.

The Church has known councils and synods since antiquity. The apostles gathered in Jerusalem. Bishops deliberated with one another. Popes consulted bishops. The great ecumenical councils are unthinkable without joint ecclesial deliberation. But that is something different from synodality as a permanent ecclesial paradigm. The classical synod was a means. In contemporary synodal discourse, synodality itself threatens to become an end. And it is precisely there that, from a traditional Catholic perspective, the problem begins.

The Church Is Not a Conversation but a Received Reality

The Church does not begin with our dialogue. She begins with Christ. That sounds self-evident, but it has far-reaching consequences. Christ did not found a discussion group. He called apostles. He gave them authority. He sent them out to proclaim, to baptize, and to teach: “Go therefore and make all nations my disciples.” The direction here is fundamental. Faith does not arise because the Church first takes an inventory of what people believe and then distills a shared conviction out of all those experiences. Faith is received.

For this, Paul constantly uses words such as receive, hand on, preserve. The Church does not possess Revelation because she invented it, but because she received it. This means that Christianity cannot, in essence, be democratic — not because democracy as a form of government is bad, but because truth does not arise from a majority of votes. If tomorrow 90 percent of Catholics no longer believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Christ would not thereby be any less really present. If 80 percent were to reject a particular moral teaching, that teaching would not automatically become untrue as a result. Truth is not produced by consensus. That constitutes the first major point of tension surrounding the synodal project.

Listening: To Whom?

A keyword throughout the whole process was listening (as if we had never done that). In itself there is nothing to object to in this. A bishop must listen. A priest must listen. Christians must listen to one another. A shepherd who never listens to his flock is not a good shepherd. But the question immediately follows: to whom should the Church listen above all? The traditional answer is: to Christ, to Scripture, to apostolic Tradition, to the saints, to the witness of twenty centuries of Christianity, to the Magisterium. And, of course, also to the faithful.

In certain synodal texts, however, the order seems easily reversed. One begins with the experiences, desires, frustrations, and expectations of contemporary people, and then asks how the Church should respond to them. That seems pastorally appealing, but it contains a danger. For what happens when the desires of modern man collide with the Gospel? Then it is not the Gospel that must change; it is man who must change. In Christianity, that is called conversion. And it is precisely that word that is remarkably rare in many modern ecclesial discussions.

The Great Absentee: Conversion

Here lies the deepest weakness of the whole project. The Church does not exist primarily to confirm people in what they already are. She exists to bring them to Christ. The first words of Jesus’s public preaching are not: “Tell me first how you feel about the Church’s current structures.” But rather: “Repent, and believe in the Good News.” That is considerably less bureaucratic. And considerably more radical.

The Church of the martyrs did not change the Roman world by organizing listening sessions on how Romans might experience the Christian community as more inclusive. She proclaimed Christ. Peter proclaimed Christ. Paul proclaimed Christ. Francis proclaimed Christ. Dominic proclaimed Christ. Francis Xavier proclaimed Christ. John Vianney proclaimed Christ. Mother Teresa proclaimed Christ. John Paul II proclaimed Christ. They undoubtedly listened to people. But listening was never the end point. The end point was conversion to Christ.

The Elephant in the Synodal Meeting Room

There is, moreover, a curious discrepancy between the problems extensively discussed within the synodal process and the actual crisis in which the Western Church in particular finds itself. The fundamental problems of the Church in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany especially, but also in large parts of Western Europe, are not hard to recognize. Churches are emptying. Parishes are being merged. Monasteries are disappearing. Religious orders are aging. Knowledge of the Catholic faith is declining. Confession has virtually disappeared for many Catholics. The number of priestly vocations remains low in many places. Many of the baptized scarcely believe any longer in essential truths of the faith. Among large groups of Catholics, sacramental life has been seriously weakened. Against that background, one would expect a worldwide ecclesial operation to ask, above all, one question: How can we win the world back for Christ?

Yet much of the attention goes to structures, participation, decision-making processes, responsibility for women, inclusivity, relationships of authority, and the way ecclesial bodies function. These can be legitimate topics. But a burning house has different priorities than matters of housekeeping.

An Ecclesial Parkinson’s Law

Institutions that lose sight of their original purpose often start talking ever more intensively about their own organization. Businesses then speak endlessly about processes. Universities about governance. Governments about participation models. And ecclesial organizations about structures. The less evangelization, the more committees on evangelization. The fewer vocations, the more documents on vocations. The fewer people come to church, the longer the meetings about being church become. That sounds cynical, but a serious thought lies behind it: bureaucracy can create the illusion of activity while reality shows the opposite. One steers without a compass.

The Expectations That Cannot Be Fulfilled

The synodal process has raised expectations. This happened above all because, during the various consultation phases, topics were admitted that touch on matters about which the Church already possesses clear teaching. The female diaconate. The priesthood. Sexual morality. Same-sex relationships. The relationship between laity and clergy. Ecclesial authority. Decentralization. The position of women. When such subjects are “discussed” for years on end, the impression inevitably arises that they can, in the end, also be changed. Otherwise, after all, one would not go on discussing them endlessly.

A pastoral paradox arises here. People are asked to voice their expectations. It then turns out that some expectations cannot be fulfilled without endangering continuity with Catholic teaching. What happens then? Disappointment all around. The Church has thus herself raised expectations that she ultimately cannot honor. That is not a pastoral gain. It is a recipe for frustration.

The Protestantization of the Catholic Understanding of the Church

From a traditionalist perspective, a historical irony is also visible here. A number of elements of modern synodal culture show similarities with developments that have been observable in Protestant churches for decades already. More emphasis on participation. More say in governance. More consultative structures. More weight given to local communities. More emphasis on individual experience. More discussion of changing social views. Less self-evidence of hierarchical authority. In itself, none of this need be entirely wrong. But the historical question is unavoidable: has this model led to a spectacular Christian revival in the Protestant world? In large parts of Western Europe, the answer is clearly: no. Why, then, would the Catholic Church adopt precisely the governance and pastoral patterns of ecclesial communities that have often undergone the same secularization even earlier and more severely? A patient rarely recovers by taking the medicine of the patient in the next bed, who is doing even worse.

The Forgotten Alternative: Striving for Holiness

The great Catholic reforms have almost never begun with structures. They began with saints. After periods of corruption came reformers. Benedict, Bernard, Francis, Dominic, Catherine of Siena, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Ávila, Charles Borromeo, Francis de Sales, John Bosco, Thérèse of Lisieux, Maximilian Kolbe, John Paul II. Their program was surprisingly simple: become holy.

For a saint has a missionary power that no policy document can match. A parish with a holy pastor has more future than a diocese with twenty working groups on synodality and expensively paid managers. A monastery with ten fervent religious evangelizes more than a hundred pages of ecclesial jargon. A priest who visibly believes that he stands before God at the altar can bring more people to faith than a conference on participatory liturgy.

Here, perhaps, lies the alternative that the Synod has insufficiently emphasized: not less listening, but more holiness. Not less participation, but more conversion. Not less dialogue, but more proclamation.

The Liturgy as Litmus Test

From a traditional perspective, it is moreover striking that the crisis of the liturgy stood relatively little at the center. For if one truly wants to know how a Church is faring, one must look at her worship. Lex orandi, lex credendi. Faith expresses itself in the way one prays.

When Catholics scarcely understand any longer that the Mass sacramentally makes present the sacrifice of Christ, when the sense of the sacred weakens, when silence disappears, when confessionals stand empty and eucharistic adoration becomes marginal, then the Church does not have a governance problem. She has a faith problem. A new participation structure cannot solve that. Neither can a new meeting. A rediscovery of God, perhaps, can.

The Paradox of Participation

The synodal project emphasizes participation. But here a curious paradox appears. The people who take intensive part in ecclesial consultation processes are not necessarily representative of the whole Church. The quiet Catholic who attends Mass every morning, prays the rosary, and gives catechesis to his grandchildren does not typically write a synodal report. The young Catholic who travels three hours to attend a traditional liturgy is not typically sitting on the diocesan working group. The mother of six children who tries to raise her family Catholic may have little time for listening sessions. A contemplative sister does not fill out a survey. Yet their faith can be more deeply rooted than that of professional ecclesial meeting-goers. Whoever listens only to those who come to the microphone can easily forget that the People of God is larger than the circle around the meeting table.

Synodality or Collegiality?

Perhaps some of the confusion would disappear if we spoke more precisely again. The Catholic tradition has a clear concept: collegiality. The bishops, together with and under Peter, form the college of bishops. Besides this there are presbyteral councils, pastoral councils, synods, chapters, religious communities, and countless other forms of deliberation. Why did this require an entirely new, all-encompassing category: synodality?

Precisely because the concept is so broad — no definition of it can really be devised — everyone can understand something different by it. For one person it means listening. For another, decentralization. For a third, democratization. For a fourth, pastoral renewal. For a fifth, reform of ministry. For a sixth, a different sexual morality. A concept that can mean anything ultimately means nothing. That is why the question of proportionality is justified. How much more energy must be invested in this? How many meetings? How many synodal teams? How many reports? How many evaluations of evaluations?

And above all: what would happen if the same amount of time, money, intellectual energy, and episcopal attention were invested in catechesis, seminaries, Catholic education, liturgy, confession, eucharistic adoration, marriage ministry, and direct evangelization? That, it seems to me, is a rhetorical question.

The Deepest Problem: Ecclesiology

Ultimately, then, the discussion is not really about meetings. It is about the question: What is the Church? Is she primarily a community that jointly seeks what she must become? Or is she primarily a divine reality that has received what she must be? The Catholic answer can only be the second. The Church must continually undergo conversion, but she is built on the apostles. She preserves a faith that she did not invent herself. That is why every form of synodality must ultimately be bounded by something that is not open to synodal discussion: the truth that Christ has revealed.

The World Is Not Waiting for a Synodal Church

And here, perhaps, lies the greatest tragedy. The modern world finds itself in an extraordinary spiritual crisis. People are searching for meaning. Young people are searching for identity. Loneliness is increasing. Families are falling apart. Technology is penetrating ever more deeply into human existence. Pornography distorts sexuality. Materialism does not satisfy. For many, climate change becomes a surrogate religion. People are afraid of death but scarcely know any longer what they are living for. And in the midst of that world, the Church possesses something extraordinary. She possesses the Gospel. The sacraments. The Eucharist. Confession. Two thousand years of wisdom. Scripture. The Church Fathers. Thomas Aquinas. Augustine. The mystics. The saints. An unrivaled tradition of art, music, philosophy, morality, and spirituality. And above all: Jesus Christ.

The world is not waiting for yet another organization that listens to it. There are enough of those already. The world is waiting for someone to tell it what it was created for.

From Emmaus to Jerusalem

Perhaps the Gospel account of the disciples on the road to Emmaus ultimately offers the best model for authentic Catholic synodality. Christ walks together with the disciples. He does indeed listen. He asks what is troubling them. He lets them speak. Their disappointment is given room. Up to this point, any synodal handbook could enthusiastically agree. But then the decisive moment happens. Christ does not confirm their interpretation. He corrects it. He opens the Scriptures for them. He teaches them how to understand the events. And in the end they recognize Him in the breaking of the bread. That is Catholic synodality in its purest form. And afterward the disciples do not remain endlessly gathered in Emmaus to evaluate their walking experience. They get up. They return to Jerusalem. They go out to proclaim. The synodal process has gotten stuck in Emmaus, and the question is whether it can still get away from there. We are so busy discussing how the Church should journey together that we sometimes forget where she is journeying to.

The Catholic Church has, in the end, no need of a permanent synod about herself. She needs saints. Bishops who teach. Priests who pray. Religious who live radically for God. Parents who hand on the faith. Young people who discover that truth is more than an opinion. Liturgy in which God truly stands at the center. Confessionals in which sinners find forgiveness. Seminaries in which men are formed who are willing to give their lives to Christ. Catholics who do not constantly ask how the Church must adapt herself to the world, but who have the courage to invite the world to let itself be transformed by Christ.

For in the end, Christ did not send his Church out into the world with the words: Go and organize synodal processes everywhere. He said: Go out to the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to all creation. That is how the Church began. And every time she was truly renewed, she began there again.

Holy Father,

Allow me to close this letter with the same thought with which I began it: the salvation of souls. I hope and pray that under your pontificate it may once again become visible, with great clarity, that the Church is not called to discuss herself endlessly, but to proclaim Christ; not to reflect the spirit of the age, but to lead the world toward eternal life.

It is precisely from the successor of Peter that the faithful may expect that, amid the confusion of our time, he strengthens the brethren in the faith. That he reminds us that the truth the Church proclaims is not a possession we may dispose of as we please, but a precious treasure that we have received and must hand on unimpaired. That he gives courage to priests who faithfully fulfill their vocation, to religious who have dedicated their lives to God, to parents who, against the current, try to raise their children Catholic, and to young people who, precisely in a time of relativism, long for truth, holiness, beauty, and the radical adventure of a life with Christ.

My prayer to you, therefore, is a simple one: give us clarity. When the world speaks uncertainly, let Peter speak clearly. When the Church grows weary from internal discussions, point us back to Christ. When we lose ourselves in processes and structures, remind us of our mission. When we become afraid to proclaim the Gospel in its fullness because it might offend modern man, remind us of the words of Peter himself: “Lord, to whom shall we go? Your words are words of eternal life.”

Holy Father, I write all of this in sincere respect for your office and with love for the Church. My criticism of the synodal process does not arise from a desire to sow division, but from the fear that we are losing precious time while so many people no longer know Christ. The harvest is great. The laborers are few. The churches of the West are emptying, while at the same time new generations seem once again to be searching for truth and transcendence. Precisely now we do not need a hesitant Church, but a missionary Church that knows what her treasure is and is not afraid to show that treasure to the world.

I therefore pray that your pontificate may be marked by a renewed concentration on what ultimately forms the heart of every true ecclesial reform: Christ, conversion, holiness, the Eucharist, evangelization, and the salvation of souls. For once all the synods have ended, all the documents have been written, all the commissions have been dissolved, and our own names have been forgotten, only the question that truly matters will remain: did we bring the people entrusted to our care closer to Jesus Christ?

May Saint Peter intercede for you. May Our Lady, Mater Ecclesiae, keep you under her protection. And may the Lord grant you the wisdom, courage, and fatherly resolve to lead his Church in truth and love.

With sentiments of sincere respect, united in prayer,

In Christ,

+Rob Mutsaerts

Auxiliary Bishop, Diocese of ’s-Hertogenbosch

ROME, 17 August 2026 — Bishop Athanasius Schneider has issued his first public statement since Rome declared six SSPX bishops to have incurred automatic excommunication over the Society’s episcopal consecrations at Écône on July 1, against the will of Pope Leo XIV.

His Excellency has been an outspoken voice in the debate over the consecrations, and his reaction to their aftermath has been awaited with particular interest. In the months beforehand, he repeatedly implored Pope Leo XIV to grant the SSPX an apostolic mandate rather than let the act proceed without his approval — most notably in a February 24 “Fraternal Appeal,” which called on the Pope to act as a “bridge-builder” and warned against “a truly unnecessary and painful further division within the Church.”

In a new statement titled “The Dilemma Between Preserving the Unambiguous Integrity of the Catholic Faith and Being Canonically Recognized by the Pope” (full text below), Bishop Schneider argues that the SSPX faced a “tragic” and rarely seen choice: hold fast to Catholic doctrine as it has always been taught or secure the Holy See’s formal recognition.

He frames the present situation as an instance of a dilemma faced once before in Church history, by St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the fourth century. When Pope Liberius, under imperial pressure, entered into communion with Arian bishops and demanded Athanasius do the same, Athanasius refused — and was excommunicated by the Pope himself, accused of “troubling the peace of the Church.”

The auxiliary of Astana, Kazakhstan, renders no definitive judgment on the Vatican’s actions. Rather, he sets out to explain, through this historical example, the reasoning behind the SSPX’s decision. In comments to this journalist, His Excellency said: “I want to offer elements for a deeper reflection on the Church’s present situation as well as historical examples that will foster greater understanding of the dilemma in which the Society of St Pius X believes it finds itself.”

In his statement, Bishop Schneider also argues that the SSPX, far from threatening the unity of the Church, renders it “a great service” — one of “historical value” — through its insistence on doctrinal and liturgical clarity.

That service, he suggests, could carry consequences for the whole Church, should Rome choose to recognize it: “If the Holy See were to take this stance of the SSPX seriously — and, moreover, acknowledge the objective ambiguities in certain statements of the Second Vatican Council and in the rite of the New Mass — it would mark the beginning of the end for the modernist project within the Church, which in fact began more than a hundred years ago.”

Here below is Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s statement.

The Dilemma Between Preserving the Unambiguous Integrity of the Catholic Faith

and Being Canonically Recognized by the Pope

by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

It is helpful to recall a case in history where a great saint was faced with the following dilemma: the choice between preserving the unambiguous integrity of the Catholic Faith and being canonically recognized by the Pope. That saint was the fourth-century Church Father, St. Athanasius of Alexandria. In 357, Pope Liberius, after signing an ambiguous formula of faith (omitting the crucial doctrinal term “consubstantial”), commanded St. Athanasius to enter into communion with Arian and semi-Arian bishops — bishops with whom the Pope himself, under pressure from the Emperor, had unfortunately entered into communion. St. Athanasius refused to obey the Pope, whereupon the Pope, according to the witness of St. Hilary of Poitiers and other historical sources, excommunicated him, accusing him of troubling the peace of the Church. Despite being excommunicated by the Pope, St. Athanasius continued to govern his diocese in Alexandria and even showed understanding for the regrettable conduct of Pope Liberius. However, Pope St. Damasus, the successor of Pope Liberius, thanked St. Athanasius and consulted him on the affairs of the oriental bishops. Pope Liberius was the first pope not to be canonized, whereas Athanasius was not only canonized but declared a Doctor of the Church.

Today St. Athanasius would be considered a schismatic according to the definition of “schism” in the current Code of Canon Law, since he refused to be in communion with members of the Church (heretic and semi-heretic bishops) who were canonically recognized and thus subject to the Pope.

The episcopal consecrations carried out in Écône by the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) on July 1, 2026, are also an instance of this rare dilemma: of having to choose between preserving the unambiguous integrity of the Catholic Faith as it was taught by the Magisterium throughout the ages, or being canonically recognized by the Pope. This dilemma is evident in the conditions attached to the Pope’s canonical recognition of the SSPX: it must accept certain newly introduced doctrinal ambiguities (as reflected in some non-definitive teachings of the pastoral Second Vatican Council and in certain affirmations and acts of the post-conciliar Magisterium), and accept not only the validity but also the correctness (legitimacy) of the rite of the New Mass — despite its doctrinal and ritual vagueness, which marks a clear rupture with the traditional Roman Rite.

In treating of this complex matter, it is essential to maintain a sober perspective, clarify terminology, and keep before us the Church’s true and ultimate goal and great tradition; for that tradition reaches back far beyond recent centuries or decades. In doing so, one must also consider analogous situations from the major crises in the Church’s history.

There are two unhealthy developments within the Church over the past centuries that have led to a narrowed view of reality: the tendency to treat the legal aspect as quasi-absolute, i.e., legalism; and the tendency to absolutize the person of the Pope and obedience to him, i.e., papalism. Legalism, i.e., the rigid adherence to the letter of the law, and papalism, i.e., the undifferentiated and almost absolute obedience to the Pope, have come to be prioritized over the necessity for unambiguity in faith and liturgy. Yet during every great doctrinal crisis in the Church’s history, the iron rule was to avoid any kind of doctrinal ambiguity, as with Pope Honorius I, whose doctrinally ambiguous letters, issued as part of his ordinary Magisterium, were firmly condemned by later Popes and by three Ecumenical Councils, despite attempts by his second successor, Pope John IV, at a kind of hermeneutic of continuity.

In our own day, it is widely claimed within the Church that no conflict of conscience can arise between obeying the Pope and preserving the unambiguous purity of the faith. This ultimately means that obedience to the Pope is valued so highly that it is considered better to accept ambiguities in matters of faith and liturgical rites than to act against a Pope’s command — even though that command is only human and may be flawed. Furthermore, a narrow understanding of communion, whether with the Pope or with the Church, has likewise emerged. Obedience to the Pope is viewed as indistinguishable from communion with the Church. This risks elevating obedience to the Pope to the same level as obedience to God’s divine revelation.

One must also distinguish between positive law — i.e. disciplinary laws enacted by human Church authority — and Divine Law, i.e. the truths of faith revealed by God. No one may contradict Divine Law and remain a Catholic. In truly extraordinary and rare circumstances, however, a Catholic may be required in conscience to act contrary to positive law, precisely in order to remain uncompromisingly faithful to Divine Law.

The very concepts of “schism” and “submission” have not yet been fully clarified in their concrete, practical application. The Code of Canon Law (Canon 751) defines schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” In fact, a very narrow understanding of “schism” and “submission” has emerged in recent Church history, in which material disobedience to the Pope — regardless of intention — is virtually equated with formal schism.

One must also bear in mind the state of formal schism, which signifies the rejection, in principle, of papal authority through the establishment of a separate hierarchy — as was the case with the Greek Orthodox Church in 1054, and later with the numerous and various sedevacantist groups down to our own day. However, one cannot speak of a state of formal schism as long as the supernatural faith in the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility persists, along with the desire to live in concrete submission to papal authority — even if, due to an extraordinary crisis in the Church, this cannot for the time being be fully realized. Such an extraordinary crisis in the Church can involve a temporary obfuscation or suspension of the chief duty of the papal ministry, namely, to defend and proclaim, unambiguously, the integrity of the Catholic faith and liturgy.

The same applies to the concept of being “in communion” with the Pope. For a very long period, episcopal ordinations were carried out without the direct involvement of the Pope, and particular churches and individual bishops expressed their communion with him in various ways. Only later in the Church’s history did popes require every episcopal ordination to take place with a papal mandate. Yet even after that development, canon law did not regard illicit episcopal ordinations — that is, those performed against the will of the Pope — as offenses against the unity of the Church, as inherently schismatic acts, or as intrinsically evil. Even today, the current Code of Canon Law lists illicit episcopal ordinations among offenses concerning the celebration of the sacraments or classifies them as acts of usurpation of office.

In fact, the norm requiring a papal mandate for episcopal consecrations is a matter of positive law, not Divine Law. Otherwise, this norm would have been observed throughout the entire history of the Church, always, everywhere, and by all, without exception. Of course, a papal mandate for episcopal consecrations is ordinarily necessary, and was wisely established to better ensure the hierarchical submission of the episcopate to the Pope.

The extraordinary nature of the current crisis in the Church is revealed, in the present case, by the fact that a community whose essential characteristic is the desire to be faithful to the Pope — and the Society of St. Pius X regards itself as such — faces a tragic choice: either obey the Pope, and thereby be forced to accept uncertain and unclear aspects of doctrine and liturgy, or disobey the Pope in a matter of grave importance, such as the consecration of bishops, with the sole intention of preserving the means to pass on the faith and the liturgy in their full integrity — as a service to souls, and thus to the entire Church, including the papacy itself.

One must also not overlook the full extent of the Church’s current crisis but rather view it honestly, tracing it back to its very roots. These roots lie in certain vague and ambiguous doctrinal statements of the Second Vatican Council that, over the past sixty years, have sown confusion, such as doctrinal relativism stemming from the teaching and practice of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, which have contributed to undermining the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and His Church as the only way to salvation. Furthermore, some doctrinal and ritual flaws of the liturgical reform with its Protestantizing tendencies have obscured the central sacrificial nature of the Mass and its Christocentric focus.

St. John Henry Newman made the following remarkable and timely observation: “Bishops, when not teaching formally [ex cathedra], may err, as we find did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian [Arian] formula at Sirmium, and the mass of bishops at Ariminum [Rimini] or elsewhere, and yet they might, in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex-cathedra decisions” (Arians of the Fourth Century, London 1876, p. 464). What the Bishop of Regensburg Mgr. Rudolf Graber stated more than fifty years ago, characterizes even more the current situation of the Church: “What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is today the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored, killing by assassination of character” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Edinburgh 1974, p. 23; original: Athanasius und die Kirche unserer Zeit, Abensberg 1973).

The SSPX is virtually the only community in the Church today that openly draws attention to the evident doctrinal ambiguities in certain conciliar statements and in the rite of the New Mass, calling for their unequivocal clarification and, if necessary, even amendment, in accordance with the constant Magisterium of the Church. The “hermeneutic of continuity” or of “reform in continuity” — an approach that is in itself valid and helpful — can also become a kind of “straitjacket,” one that merely covers over, cosmetically, the wounds caused by doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities and confusion. In effect, the Holy See requires a form of circular reasoning: that everything is in order, provided one makes sufficiently strenuous intellectual efforts.

In fact, through its tireless insistence on clarity in doctrine and liturgy, the SSPX renders a great service to the entire Church — a service of historical value. If the Holy See were to take this stance of the SSPX seriously — and, moreover, acknowledge the objective ambiguities in certain statements of the Second Vatican Council and in the rite of the New Mass — it would mark the beginning of the end for the modernist project within the Church, which in fact began more than a hundred years ago.

The current crisis between the Holy See and the SSPX can also be illustrated by the following parable: A fire breaks out in a great house. The fire chief permits the use of only the new firefighting methods, even though these have proven less effective than the old, tested methods and tools. A group of firefighters defies this order, continues to use the tried-and-tested methods, and even recruits new firefighters — all despite the fire chief’s prohibition — and indeed, the fire is contained in many places. Yet these firefighters are branded disobedient and schismatic and are punished for it.

To extend the parable further: the fire chief now admits only those firefighters who acknowledge the new methods and obey the new firehouse regulations. But given the sheer scale of the fire, the desperate struggle to contain it, and the insufficiency of the official methods, other helpers selflessly intervene — despite the fire chief’s prohibition — bringing skill, knowledge, and good intentions, and in the end helping to save the very house the fire chief was struggling to protect.

In time, historical circumstances shift, and a new fire chief emerges — one who recognizes the unfortunate effects of the new firefighting methods. He not only grants permission to use the old, tried-and-tested methods once again, but becomes their zealous champion himself. He also acknowledges the contribution of those firefighters who had once been misunderstood, harshly punished, treated as outcasts, and expelled as rebels — and welcomes them back into the ranks. In the end, once that great upheaval had passed, what had once been condemned as disobedience and rebellion was revealed to have been an act of selfless commitment.

History will one day reveal whether the following words St. Augustine apply to the current situation with the SSPX:

“Often Divine providence permits even good men to be driven from the congregation of Christ by the turbulent seditions of carnal men. When for the sake of the peace of the Church they patiently endure that insult or injury, and attempt no novelties in the way of heresy or schism, they will teach men how God is to be served with a true disposition and with great and sincere charity. The intention of such men is to return when the tumult has subsided. But if that is not permitted because the storm continues or because a fiercer one might be stirred up by their return, they hold fast to their purpose to look to the good even of those responsible for the tumults and commotions that drove them out. They form no separate conventicles of their own, but defend to the death and assist by their testimony the faith which they know is preached in the Catholic Church. These the Father who seeth in secret crowns secretly. It appears that this is a rare kind of Christian, but examples are not lacking. So divine providence uses all kinds of men as examples for the oversight of souls and for the building up of his spiritual people” (De vera religione, 6:11).

What St. Athanasius wrote to his brother bishops throughout the world amid an extraordinary crisis of faith is applicable to our time as well:

“The canons and decrees of the Church were not given at the present day but were rightly and steadfastly transmitted to us from our forefathers. Neither had the faith its beginning at this time, but it came down to us from the Lord through His disciples. That therefore the ordinances which have been preserved in the churches from old time until now, may not be lost in our days, and the trust which has been committed to us be required at our hands, rouse yourselves, brethren, as being stewards of the mysteries of God, on seeing them now seized by aliens.” (Ep. encyclica, 1)

God, in His Providence, writes straight even with lines that, from a merely legal perspective, appear crooked. May He grant that this day come soon. Let us be joyful amid tribulation and say: I believe in the invincibility of the Church and of the Papacy, and I believe that the Holy See will one day shine forth again as the Cathedra of truth before the entire world.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC MEDIA

In an interview conducted shortly after the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals convened by Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican on June 26–27, 2026, the former Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments said Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio severely restricting the Vetus Ordo need not be formally repealed to lose its force. It could simply be allowed to “disappear gradually, day after day, year after year,” beginning with a change in tone from Rome.

The Cardinal pointed to Pope Leo XIV’s March letter to the French bishops, which called on them to find “concrete solutions that would generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo,” as the approach he believes should now extend to every diocese in the world.

Asked directly whether Traditionis Custodes should be abrogated, Cardinal Sarah said: “Yes, let’s hope so.” But he also made a case for a more informal path, positing that if, at a future consistory, the Pope were simply to say, “Let’s have more openness, let’s not impede anything,” Traditionis Custodes would gradually “disappear.”

Watch my full interview with Robert Cardinal Sarah here.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers (below) or support this work by donating here:

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC MEDIA

VATICAN CITY, 3 August 2026 — Dubious claims made by a Spanish media outlet are causing widespread distress and scandal among many faithful Catholics.

In an Aug. 3 article displaying a woeful lack of accuracy, the Spanish secular daily La Razon claims that Cardinal Arthur Roche’s discredited report on the liturgy, distributed to Cardinals in January at Pope Leo XIV’s first extraordinary consistory, conveys the mind of the Pope on the traditional Roman liturgy and indicates the decisions he is to make in the future.

According to La Razon, the Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship’s recent statement to The Tablet — that “Pope Leo is not going to change Traditionis Custodes” — merely echoes a position that was already communicated to Cardinals in January.

Noting the “firmness” of the Cardinal’s comment to London daily, the Razon author writes:

“In any case, the Pope with a background in mathematics had already been reflecting on this issue since the beginning of his pontificate. Thus, according to information obtained by LA RAZÓN, the first extraordinary consistory of cardinals, held at the beginning of the year, proved decisive. On the first day of the gathering, Wednesday, January 7, Leo XIV invited the participants to choose two of the four proposed subjects they considered most important for discussion: synodality, evangelization, reform of the Curia, and liturgy. By a large majority, the nearly 170 cardinals set aside the question of liturgy and the central governance of the Church.

In light of the participants’ lack of interest, Roche distributed among them a one-and-a-half-page document on liturgy, signed by him, defending Francis’ position and his motu proprio [Traditionis Custodes]…”

The author continues:

“After it was distributed to the cardinals, the document was quickly leaked through conservative digital forums, which immediately rushed to describe it as controversial, partial, and tendentious—as though its circulation among the cardinals in the room had been Roche’s own initiative or merely an accidental occurrence. This newspaper has confirmed that the cardinal distributed the text at Leo XIV’s request and therefore with the Pope’s approval of its contents.”

It’s absurd to think that Cardinal Roche would have circulated his report on the liturgy among the Cardinals at an extraordinary consistory without the permission of the Holy Father. Moreover, the fact that the text was distributed at Pope Leo XIV’s request does not mean that he “therefore” approved its contents in general or in its specific details. This simply doesn’t follow.

What took place in January was a normal Vatican procedure. Due to time constraints, the Cardinals were asked to choose two of the four topics originally proposed by Pope Leo for discussion. The Holy Father therefore had the other two reports distributed to the Cardinals (Cardinal Baggio’s report on the Reform of the Roman Curia, which was also not discussed, received exactly the same treatment as Cardinal Roche’s).

La Razon says further:

“It appears that the document was written by Roche and the members of his Dicastery at the request of the Pontiff, who later reviewed it himself. ‘He did not change a single comma,’ Vatican sources affirm.”

Once again, this is normal Vatican procedure for any consultation document. That the Pope read the text and said it could be discussed does not mean that he agreed with all its contents or that it conveyed his own opinions on the matter.

The fact that the Pope “did not change a comma” means nothing, as it was not a report intended to reflect the mind of the Holy Father, but a text prepared by the relevant dicastery to serve as a point of departure for discussion among the Cardinals.

However, without foundation, La Razon, quoting its sources, insists that “‘the distribution of the document to the cardinals was intended to make the new Pope’s position on this matter visible, not to serve as a provocation by Roche, as some sought to portray it by separating him from his superior.’”

The Razon author concludes the article with surprising confidence, writing:

“Indeed, in recent months pressure has increased on Leo XIV both to overturn Traditionis Custodes and even to remove Roche from office. Neither will happen. ‘Furthermore, the second consistory convened for this June has once again confirmed that this is not an issue that concerns the vast majority of the Church, since it did not arise spontaneously in the discussions. It is an issue that a vocal minority wants to keep alive,’ the same source maintains.”

The reason why the Cardinals did not discuss the liturgy at the June consistory was simply because it was not on the agenda, as indicated in the June 3rd letter of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, Dean of the Sacred College, to the Cardinals.

One Cardinal told Italian journalist Nico Spuntoni that the topic of the liturgy was removed from the June 26-27 agenda due to the impending SSPX episcopal consecrations.

Moreover, although the liturgy was not officially on the agenda, it did come up during the discussions. In his free intervention, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller called for the establishment of a commission along the lines of Ecclesia Dei to facilitate the reception of clergy and faithful who leave the SSPX.

The former prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith was not the only cardinal to raise the issue. As Nico Spuntoni also reported shortly after the consistory concluded: “On the final day of meeting, an Asian cardinal also criticized the continuing restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass, arguing that if they did not exist, it would be easier to attract the faithful ready to leave the SSPX.”

Dampening media furore

To be perfectly clear, therefore: the distributing of a discussion document to Cardinals during an extraordinary consistory does not indicate that it reflects the mind of the Pope or that he agrees with all of its contents. La Razon’s interpretation of this oversteps the mark.

It is likewise a matter of fact that the Cardinals themselves did not regard Cardinal Roche’s document as expressing the Pope’s own position. They took it for what it was: a text the Pope approved for discussion, without approving of all of its specific contents.

In any document of the Holy See whose contents have received the Pope’s specific approval, that fact is stated unambiguously.

Why all the noise?

Is it a coincidence that Cardinal Roche’s interview appeared in The Tablet last week, and that the Razon article — which makes the egregious claim that Pope Leo had already made up his mind on the liturgy before a consultatory meeting with members of the Sacred College — appeared this week?

The Pope Leo seems to be a studious man who examines issues carefully and does not act hastily. Furthermore, it’s perfectly clear from his first two extraordinary consistories that he wishes to listen and not dictate, before he discerns and decides.

The only official document that may properly be regarded as expressing the mind of the Holy Father is the letter sent in March by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, to the French bishops on the Pope’s behalf. The letter states that the Holy Father is “particularly attentive” to the growth of communities attached to the TLM, acknowledges the “painful wound that continues to open” over the celebration of the Mass, and calls for “concrete solutions that would generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo, while respecting the orientations set forth by the Second Vatican Council regarding the Liturgy.”

We also know that he has received in audience proponents of the traditional Roman liturgy such as U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, and the former prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Robert Sarah.

In December, he also received Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who afterward stated openly that he spoke to the Holy Father about the Traditional Latin Mass, encouraging him to bring “liturgical peace” through the coexistence of the new and old forms. Bishop Schneider remarked that the Pope “listened” attentively, demonstrated “understanding,” and acknowledged that the traditional liturgy is fostering conversions and having a profound impact on many young people.

The idea that Pope Leo XIV has already made up his mind therefore seems unlikely. Could it be that the recent media noise is itself a form of pressure?

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers or support this work by donating.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

VATICAN CITY, 31 July 2026 — Repeating a lie may convince a man of what he wishes to believe, but it doesn’t make it any more true.

In a new widely circulated interview with The Tablet, Cardinal Arthur Roche, Prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, has once again claimed that the traditional Roman liturgy is readily available for Catholics who wish to attend it, and that if anyone thinks otherwise the problem lies with them.

Asked by the British weekly if Pope Leo XIV will make restricting the TLM as much a priority as Pope Francis had done with his 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Roche said: “Well, let me say, first of all, it’s a very complex area. And it’s a very important area because the Eucharist is the sacrament of unity: it’s the place where we should all be able to be together to celebrate Mass. So if it begins to divide us, there’s something seriously amiss. But no, Pope Leo is not going to change Traditionis Custodes, and he’s not going back to Summorum Pontificum,” Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 apostolic letter liberalizing the use of the traditional liturgy.

The Cardinal added:

“It’s interesting. When I meet with groups who want the antecedent liturgy, and I say: ‘Well, the Holy Father has given you that, so what’s the problem?’, they can’t answer. But then they go away and say, ‘We’re still being persecuted’. In what way persecuted? Why is the band still playing a tune that is discordant with the life of the Church?”

Cardinal Roche’s remarks echo comments he made earlier this year in a sit-down with OSV News, after the severe criticism leveled at his document on the liturgy, distributed to members of the Sacred College in January at Pope Leo XIV’s first extraordinary consistory of Cardinals.

Defending the positions put forth in that document, the Cardinal argued that Catholics can still attend the Traditional Latin Mass “by papal authority.”

“So, I ask myself: Why is all this so intense (debate) going on? Why all this noise, the battering of drums and the blowing of trumpets? What else is going on when they have been given the concession of this Mass? What is the problem? Something else is clearly afoot,” he said.

Unbelievable Gaslighting

Rarely has gaslighting been so nakedly displayed by a Curial official. Lest we forget, Cardinal Roche was appointed DDW prefect in May 2021, just six weeks before Pope Francis promulgated Traditionis Custodes, which banned the traditional Roman liturgy from parish churches, revoked the permission Benedict XIV had granted to priests to celebrate the Old Mass, and took authority away from priests and purportedly put it into the hands of diocesan bishops.

However, these same bishops were subsequently strong-armed by Cardinal Roche and his officials into complying with their very narrow interpretation of the motu proprio. Bishops in fact received unexpected letters from the Dicastery for Divine Worship ordering compliance. In some instances, the Dicastery for Bishops was asked to enforce this policy.

Cardinal Roche worked assiduously with the DDW Secretary, Archbishop Vittorio Viola, a largely unseen but resolute advocate of the restrictions.

Because diocesan bishops were using their legitimate power according to canon law (Canon 87 §1) to dispense from the provisions of Traditionis Custodes, Cardinal Roche found it necessary in February 2022 to obtain a rescript from Pope Francis to “ensure the correct application” of the motu proprio. Henceforth, a bishop who wished to use Canon 87 §1 to dispense from Traditionis Custodes had to inform the Dicastery for Divine Worship, which would then decide either to affirm or overrule his decision. The rescript thus severely limited the freedom of bishops as “directors, promoters, and guardians of the entire liturgical life” in their dioceses (Canon 835 §1; cf. Christus Dominus, n. 15).

The rescript was necessary for Cardinal Roche because of growing opposition to his crackdown, continuing resistance from bishops, and mounting criticism from canonists that he had been exceeding his authority.

This pharisaical zeal did lead to a worldwide persecution of the traditional Roman liturgy. It defies belief that His Eminence cannot or will not concede this reality. Were he in fact to concede this, he would also need to admit that it is he who has been “breathing threats” against those who find the usus antiquior to be the fruitful source and summit of their Christian life (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, 10).

Instead, as evidenced in his recent interviews and consistory document (cf. art. 10), he either obfuscates, or denies that the older liturgy is unavailable and claims that the problem lies with anyone who thinks otherwise.

What makes Cardinal Roche’s gaslighting even more astounding is the fact that it persists, even though we now know that the results of the survey of the world’s bishops used to justify Traditionis Custodes were falsified. In fact, the majority of bishops who responded to the survey wanted to stay the course with Summorum Pontificum.

What’s the Problem?

In his interview with The Tablet, Cardinal Roche claims that the TLM is readily available and asks, “So, what’s the problem?” His Eminence might pose this question to all those who have lost access to the traditional Roman liturgy, were effectively banished from their parishes, and now have to drive hours on Sunday with their children to attend the TLM — if that is even physically possible — or who have no option other than to attend the Society of St. Pius X. He might ask the young couples who were denied the possibility of marrying, or baptizing their newborn, according to the Church’s ancient rites, or those whose deceased parents were denied a traditional requiem — not because their bishops were opposed to it but because they feared the repercussions should Cardinal Roche and his officials find out.

His Eminence might also consult the growing number of young people, particularly in the secularized West, who find in the Church’s traditional rites not only a sacred oasis but also the necessary fortification to battle against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Or he might ask the six deacons of the Missionaries of the Divine Mercy community in the diocese of Frejus-Toulon: Cardinal Roche continues to insist that they cannot be ordained to the priesthood in the traditional liturgy (according to their constitutions), for the celebration of which their community was founded. Finally, His Eminence might ask the many new young priests whose requests to offer the Old Mass were summarily refused by his office with a form letter. These examples are neither imagined nor speculative, they are legion.

Such a divisive attitude and blatant disregard from the prefect for Divine Worship is totally unbefitting a priest of Jesus Christ and shepherd of the Church, who was consecrated a bishop to care for souls, not to crush what St. John Paul II described as their “rightful aspirations” (Ecclesia Dei, 5).

Cardinal Roche also claims in his new interview that the liturgy had to be changed to make the Church more missionary. St. Ignatius of Loyola, whose companions went to the furthest corners of the world and suffered martyrdom to preach the Gospel, fortified by Blood of Christ received at the Mass of the Ages, might beg to differ.

Unfortunately, His Eminence hasn’t gotten out of his “ivory tower” enough, and it seems that staring at its inner walls has left him with a severe case of myopia. If only he could see, as so many others do, that the tension in Rome and elsewhere over the traditional Roman rite seems to be part of a generational struggle which is in its death throes. As one priest recently put it to me: “Young Catholics and a great many converts are struck by the profound beauty and transcendence of the Traditional Mass and have no interest in the ‘liturgy wars’ and the ugly political controversies that were such a feature of Catholic life for an older generation.”

He added: “The irenic approach of Pope Benedict XVI still makes a lot of sense to these people and has great appeal for an increasing number of practicing Catholics who are unwavering in their faithfulness to the Successor of St. Peter. And perhaps it’s ironic, that, if anything, Traditionis Custodes has made younger Catholics even more aware of the ‘Old Rite’ as a treasure to be sought out and valued. The work of the Holy Spirit shouldn’t and ultimately cannot be thwarted, and reading the signs of the times it’s clear that the Traditional Roman Rite will continue to flourish come what may.”

So yes, there is indeed “plenty of work still to do,” but Arthur Cardinal Roche is not the man to do it. According even to his own words, “I’ve never felt equal to any task I’ve been given.”

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers or support this work by donating.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

This interview was conducted in Italian. The video, with English subtitles, appears below; a full English transcript appears at the end of this article.

VATICAN CITY, 16 July 2026 — Cardinal Robert Sarah has a message for bishops the world over: emulate Pope Leo XIV’s generosity towards the Traditional Latin Mass. In a new video interview, the Guinean Cardinal — Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments — argues that Pope Leo’s recent letter urging openness from France’s bishops toward priests and communities attached to the vetus ordo should bind every bishop of the Roman rite, not France’s alone. “What was written to the French Bishops must apply to all Bishops,” he says.

His call comes as new weight falls on a year-old revelation: that a Vatican survey of the world’s bishops had in fact contradicted the very grounds Pope Francis gave for severely restricting the TLM in his 2021 motu proprio, Traditionis Custodes. “We cannot say that what has been done for 1,600 years is no longer valid now,” Cardinal Sarah says, rejecting the premise behind the restrictions and calling on the world’s episcopate to follow the new Pope’s lead rather than cling to what was imposed under his predecessor.

Cardinal Sarah goes further still, questioning the very legitimacy of a decree that would cancel centuries of liturgical practice: “What cancels is not a valid text, because the Church is a continuity.”

The interview was conducted on June 29, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, at the close of the second extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals of Pope Leo XIV’s pontificate. It ranged far beyond the question of the status of the Traditional Latin Mass.

Commenting on the ongoing Synod on Synodality, the Cardinal says flatly it is a term he has “never understood.” The Study Group No. 9 report on homosexuality, he argues, should not reach the world’s dioceses without Pope Leo’s own scrutiny first. And on the liturgy at large, he warns of what happens when divine worship becomes, in his words, “a kind of entertainment.”

Cardinal Sarah expanded on his critique of Synodality in remarks following the interview. “Synodality,” he said, is “an abstract term, untranslatable into our African languages,” with no grounding in Scripture, history, or Church Tradition. When Paul VI restored the Synod of Bishops, he recalled, the aim was precise: to let bishops “better live out collegiality” and help the Pope fulfil his mission as universal Pastor “with greater fidelity.” What is needed now, urgently, is a clear definition of “the exact meaning, the competencies, the limits, and the mission” of Synodality — one that leaves the Church’s doctrine, morals, nature and structure untouched. The Church, he insists, is Bride, Mother, and the Mystical Body of Christ. “It seems improper to me to call her ‘synodal,’” he said.

In our sit-down interview, we also discuss his new book (available in French), 2050, in which he confronts the Church’s crisis of faith head-on and asks whether she will still be a beacon a quarter-century from now.“The Church belongs to Christ; it is not ours,” he says — not something “we manufacture,” reshape, or rename to suit the age.

He also points to what he regards as paganism entering the Church. In a forceful and candid critique on the Pachamama’s presence at the 2019 Amazon Synod hosted at the Vatican, he says: “We carried it in procession from the Basilica to the Paul VI Hall, and it remained in front of us the whole time during the Synod.” Missionaries once told African converts to burn such idols, he notes. “And now,” he says, “we bring the Pachamama into the Basilica.”

Asked directly whether the Church will still be that light in 2050, Cardinal Sarah does not equivocate: “Yes … Christ will not abandon his Church,” he says. “He will remain until the end of the world.” But he insists that “we must convert ourselves to Christ; it is not that Christ must convert Himself to us, to our ideas, to our paradigm shift.”

Below is the English transcript of my interview with His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah.

My Substack is sustained entirely by you, its readers. Your support doesn’t just keep it going — it makes possible the kind of reporting, analysis and independence that would be difficult to maintain otherwise. I’m deeply grateful to those who choose to become paid subscribers or support this work by donating.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

Robert Cardinal Sarah Interview Full Transcript - Diane Montagna

39KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

VATICAN CITY, 15 July 2026 — Cardinal Raymond Burke has raised serious concerns about the use of “synodality” in a recent consistory of cardinals, warning that the current methodology risks undermining open debate within the Sacred College and obscuring critical issues facing the Church.

Speaking to The College of Cardinals Report on June 28, following the June 26–27 consistory convened by Pope Leo, Cardinal Burke welcomed the renewed gathering of cardinals, something he noted had not occurred for many years under Pope Francis, and described the opportunity for greater fraternal exchange as a “very great fruit.”

But he also expressed concern that the structure of the meeting limited meaningful discussion as it had adopted a format modeled on “synodal” processes, with cardinals divided into small groups and guided by preset questions.

He argued that this approach prevented in-depth engagement and reduced feedback to consensus-based summaries, potentially excluding dissenting but important viewpoints from reaching the Pope.

“The reports are only reports of what every cardinal agreed upon,” Cardinal Burke said, adding that perspectives not shared by a majority may be omitted despite their significance.

He described a final session conducted in the traditional open-debate format as the most productive part of the gathering, although limited by time. The free discussion, in the presence of the Pope, was how past consistories of cardinals were undertaken.

Overall, he said the consistory was a “very controlled” process, including the apparent pre-selection of discussion leaders and limited opportunities for free intervention. In his view, this risked diminishing the role of cardinals as advisors to the Pope.

Turning to the growing use of “synodality” in the Church, Cardinal Burke firmly questioned its theological and historical grounding, describing it as a concept without clear definition or precedent in Church tradition. While synods have long existed as occasional consultative gatherings, he emphasized that they are not constitutive elements of the Church’s nature.

“There is no definition of synodality, there’s no history of it in the Church,” he said, expressing concern at the merging of established structures, such as consistories, with what he regards as an undefined concept.

Citing St. Paul’s teaching on the transmission of the faith — “I hand on to you what I first received” — Burke argued that continuity is essential and absent from current formulations of synodality.

“So we have to insist that this whole synodality business stop, and there be a very serious study done of the whole matter, because we’re talking about the very life of the Church, and we’re talking about the salvation of souls,” he said.

The cardinal also cautioned against reshaping established ecclesial structures around what he characterized as a contemporary and insufficiently examined idea. “The Church does not have paradigm shifts,” he said, rejecting language used in synodal and other discussions that suggested a radical change in direction for the Church’s teaching or mission.

The cardinal also warned that an excessive focus on contemporary concerns risks conforming the Church to secular ways of thinking, rather than addressing the modern world from within her own doctrinal and historical continuity.

“I’m confident our Lord will protect the Church,” he said, “but we have to do our part to say, ‘No, this concept of synodality, while it may have a good motive in the sense of wanting to address the faith of the contemporary time, is fundamentally flawed.”

Read the rest of the article at The College of Cardinals Report.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

ROME, 13 July 2026 — The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) has announced that it has formally challenged the decree of excommunication issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 2, following the Society’s consecration of four new bishops against the expressed will of Pope Leo XIV.

By submitting a preliminary recourse under the Code of Canon Law, the SSPX has taken the required first step before any possible hierarchical appeal and says the filing suspends the execution of the decree while the matter is under review.

In a statement issued today by the SSPX General House, the Society said it was exercising the right recognized by the Church for those who believe they have been “harmed by an administrative act to seek its correction.” It added that the recourse was made in a “spirit of respect for ecclesiastical authority” and fidelity to justice, truth, and the good of the Church, and asked the faithful to pray for the process.

The Society’s decision to invoke the procedures established by the 1983 Code of Canon Law drew notice from some Catholic commentators. The Italian site MessainLatino (MiL) observed: “From reading the communiqué, we are pleased to note that—at long last—the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X appears to acknowledge the continuing force of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which constituted the fifth point of the Protocol of Agreement between the Holy See and the SSPX, signed on 5 May 1988 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and repudiated by the latter the following day.”

MiL expressed the hope that “this apparent and welcome recognition may mark the first step toward a constructive dialogue between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.”

Here below is the official statement from the SSPX.

COMMUNIQUÉ

FROM THE GENERAL HOUSE

The Society of Saint Pius X announces that, in response to the decree issued on 2 July 2026 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, it submitted on 11 July a preliminary recourse to the same Dicastery, in accordance with canons 1734 and following of the Code of Canon Law.

This request, which constitutes the mandatory preliminary step before the possible introduction of a hierarchical recourse, has the effect of suspending the execution of the decree, in accordance with canon 1353 of the Code of Canon Law.

By this recourse, the Society intends to exercise the right which the Church recognizes to any person who considers himself harmed by an administrative act to seek its correction, in a spirit of respect for ecclesiastical authority and of faithful attachment to justice, truth and the good of the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X entrusts this request to the competent authorities and commends this undertaking to the prayers of all the faithful.

Menzingen, 13 July 2026

VATICAN CITY, 2 July 2026 — The Holy See today issued a decree declaring the excommunication of the bishops involved in the episcopal consecrations carried out by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (SSPX) on 1 July.

Signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and accompanied by an explanatory note, the documents state that the consecrations, carried out without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the Roman Pontiff, constituted a schismatic act under canon law. They also set out the resulting canonical consequences for the SSPX clergy and faithful concerned.

Following the episcopal consecrations in Ecône yesterday, the SSPX General House issued a statement saying, in part: “The Society sincerely regrets that, owing to exceptional circumstances, these consecrations had to be conferred without the authorization of the Holy Father.”

It added that the SSPX “regrets in particular that the Superior General of the Society was not afforded the opportunity to meet personally with His Holiness Pope Leo XIV, in order to set before him filially the grave reasons which rendered this ceremony necessary.”

Below is an unofficial English translation of the DDF decree and explanatory note, which were published in Italian.

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Prot. No. 99/2009

DECREE

Despite the admonitions addressed to Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, having committed an act of a schismatic nature by conferring episcopal consecration upon four presbyters without a pontifical mandate and against the will of the Supreme Pontiff, he has incurred ipso facto the penalties provided for in can. 1387 and can. 1364 §1 of the 2021 Code of Canon Law.

Accordingly, I declare, with all juridical effects, that both the aforementioned Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta and Pascal Schreiber, Michael Goldade, Michel Poinsinet de Sivry, and Marc Hanappier have incurred ipso facto the latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

I further declare that Bishop Bernard Fellay, having directly participated in the liturgical celebration as a co-consecrator, thereby publicly adhering to the schismatic act, has incurred the latae sententiae excommunication provided for in can. 1364 §1 of the 2021 Code of Canon Law.

Clerics and the lay faithful are hereby admonished not to adhere to the schism of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, lest they incur ipso facto the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication.

From the Palace of the Dicastery, 2 July 2026

Víctor M. Card. Fernández
Prefect

John J. Kennedy
Titular Archbishop of Ossero
Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

Msgr. Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Prot. No. 99/2009

EXPLANATORY NOTE

From the time of Saint Paul VI until the most recent discussions held at this Dicastery, the many efforts undertaken to restore those adhering to the movement initiated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to full communion with the Catholic Church have proved fruitless. This situation has been further aggravated by the recent episcopal consecrations carried out without a pontifical mandate, against the will of the Holy Father, and in open violation of canon law. Accordingly, this Dicastery, in the faithful exercise of the responsibilities entrusted to it, deems it necessary to state that this act has constituted the canonical offense of schism, together with the canonical consequences that follow for the sacred ministers and lay faithful involved. Indeed, as was already declared in 1988, “such disobedience—which carries with it a practical rejection of the Roman Primacy—constitutes a schismatic act” (cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, no. 3).

Accordingly, henceforth:

1. The sacred ministers belonging to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X are in schism and must therefore be regarded as schismatics (cf. Ecclesia Dei, no. 5(c); Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note on the Excommunication for Schism Incurred by Those Adhering to the Movement of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 24 August 1996, nos. 5–6), and are consequently subject to the excommunication prescribed by law (can. 1364 §1 CIC).

2. With regard to the lay faithful, those who formally adhere to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X under the conditions established in the 1996 Explanatory Note of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (cf. ibid., no. 7), which remains in force and which this Dicastery hereby adopts as its own, are likewise to be regarded as schismatics and excommunicated.

3. Finally, the holy People of God are hereby informed that the sacred ministers of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X administer the sacraments illicitly, and that the sacrament of Penance administered by them and the marriages at which they assist are invalid.

The Church, as a loving mother, will receive with sincere affection and pastoral solicitude all those who desire to return to full communion. The Apostolic Nuncios shall provide the procedures that the Ordinaries may employ in the various cases.

Finally, all the faithful are exhorted to remain steadfast in communion with the Roman Pontiff, with the Bishops in communion with him, and with the whole Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 22; can. 751 CIC), and to refrain from participating in the liturgical celebrations and other activities promoted by the aforementioned Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

From the Palace of the Dicastery, 2 July 2026

Víctor M. Card. Fernández
Prefect

Msgr. Armando Matteo
Secretary for the Doctrinal Section

John J. Kennedy
Titular Archbishop of Ossero
Secretary for the Disciplinary Section

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

ROME, 30 JUNE 2026 — Pope Leo XIV has issued a final appeal to the Society of St. Pius X one day before the traditionalist group’s planned consecration of four new bishops without papal mandate, an act the Vatican has said would automatically incur excommunication.

In a letter dated June 29, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, and addressed to SSPX Superior General Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Pope pleaded with the Society’s leadership to “turn back,” warning that the consecrations, set to take place Wednesday in Ecône, Switzerland, would constitute a schismatic act depriving the faithful of “the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments.”

“With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act,” the Pope wrote, adding: “I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.”

Here below is the official English text of the Pope’s letter.

To The Reverend
Davide Pagliarani
Superior General
of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X

With a paternal heart, and aware of the responsibility entrusted to me by the Lord as the Successor of the Apostle Peter, I address you and, through you, the bishops, priests, seminarians and faithful connected to the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.

The Church recognizes the devotion to liturgical life, commitment to priestly formation, apostolic zeal and desire for fidelity to Tradition that characterize many people and communities connected to your Fraternity. This has motivated the attentive and generous attitude that my Predecessors have consistently shown to you.

In this spirit, and filled with Christian affection, I plead with you and ask you with all my heart: please turn back! I urge you to consider carefully the spiritual good of the faithful, because the schismatic act you are about to undertake would deprive them of the licit and, in some cases, even valid reception of the Sacraments, which they love and seek for their sanctification.

The Church is open to a path of dialogue and understanding that the Holy Spirit can make possible and fruitful.

I pray for you, because to tear the seamless garment of Christ is a sin of extreme gravity. May the Lord enlighten your consciences and awaken your hearts. With a sorrowful yet hopeful heart, I feel it is my duty, through the authority received from Christ, to ask you to desist from your intended act. I entrust these intentions to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of Good Counsel.

From the Vatican, 29 June 2026

Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul

LEO PP. XIV

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

ROME, 28 June 2026 — Cardinal Gerhard Müller used his intervention at the June 26-27 extraordinary consistory at the Vatican to call for a clear response to the Society of St. Pius X following its open letter to Pope Leo XIV and the College of Cardinals on the eve of the meeting.

In his three-minute remarks, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also proposed establishing a commission along the lines of Ecclesia Dei to facilitate the return of those seeking “full communion with the Pope” following the SSPX episcopal consecrations scheduled for July 1 in Écône.

It has now emerged that he also pushed back on the new “synodal style” format of consistories, criticizing the prioritization of small-group exchanges over plenary debate and discussions between the Pope and members of the Sacred College.

Below is an English translation of the full text of Cardinal Müller’s intervention, followed by the original Italian text.

INTERVENTION AT EXTRAORDINARY CONSISTORY OF CARDINALS

Cardinal Gerhard Müller

Rome, 26 June 2026

1. I thank the Holy Father for reaffirming the fundamental role of the College of Cardinals for the universal Church. From Irenaeus of Lyons to the First Vatican Council, the primacy of the Pope was not spoken of as though it belonged to an isolated individual, but rather as the primacy of the Church of Rome, whose Bishop is at the same time the visible head of the entire Catholic Church. This served to avoid isolating him from the Church. As Bishop of Rome, he is always the head of the college of the suburbicarian bishops, as well as of the Roman presbyters and deacons. There exists, indeed, a broad external collegiality of the Pope with the bishops of the other Churches; but there also exists an internal collegiality, insofar as every bishop is always in communion with his own presbyterate, as Ignatius of Antioch affirms. A portion of the Roman clergy was institutionalized in the College of Cardinals, not for the pastoral care of the Diocese of Rome, but as an instrument which the Pope employs in the governance of the universal Church.

From this perspective should one likewise reflect on the manner in which a consistory is conducted. In every depiction and photograph of the councils, the plenary discussion is shown. Accordingly, the free exchange of views, preceded by carefully prepared interventions, ought to precede group work and should be accorded greater space than is presently the case. In any event, further reflection should be given to the new method, taking into account the nature of an ecclesial assembly of cardinals and bishops with the Pope, as well as that of the bishop with his presbyterate and the lay councils.

2. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X has sent an open letter to all the cardinals. It is our duty by virtue of our office, both individually and as a college, to reject the scandalous accusation that the Roman Church has departed from the Catholic faith. In the face of the schismatic act of episcopal consecration carried out without the prior grant of communio with the Pope, there must be no ambiguity. In pastoral and liturgical matters, one may proceed with pastoral sensitivity. I propose the establishment of a commission, along the lines of the former Ecclesia Dei, to enable those who have embraced this schismatic position to return to full communion with the Pope. But the boundary into schism is definitively crossed when the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, as the visible principle and enduring foundation of the Church’s unity in revealed truth, is violated. During the Council of Trent, the distinguished Polish Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius said to the Protestants of his own day—and his words apply equally to the Lefebvrists of our own time:

Catholicus non est, qui a Romana ecclesia in fidei doctrina discordat.

He is not a Catholic who is at variance with the Roman Church in the doctrine of the faith.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM

VATICAN CITY, 27 June 2026 — Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has urged the Holy See to issue a formal response to the Society of St. Pius X’s latest challenge to Rome and proposed establishing a new Ecclesia Dei structure to receive members expected to leave the Society following its planned episcopal consecrations on 1 July.

The former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made the proposal on the opening day of the extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals being held at the Vatican June 26-27.

The development was reported this morning by Italian journalist Nico Spuntoni in Il Giornale.

An English translation of Spuntoni’s article follows below.

Schism Rocks the Consistory: “We must respond to the Lefebvrists”

by Nico Spuntoni

Müller immediately shakes up the Consistory: "We must respond to the Lefebvrists." He also proposes a new Ecclesia Deito receive those who break away. The inside story in @ilgiornale.

Leo XIV had asked the cardinals to speak candidly. Some took him at his word. As we can reveal, although the agenda made no mention of the imminent schism involving the Lefebvrists, one cardinal took it upon himself, on the very first day of the Consistory to point out the elephant in the room: the Society of St. Pius X’s open challenge to Rome.

The intervention

On the eve of the Consistory, the fraternity founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre threw down another gauntlet to the Pope and the cardinals by sending them a profession of faith that, in effect, accuses Rome of having departed from the perennial tradition and magisterium of the Church.

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, urged that this j’accuse be firmly rejected. He proposed that a formal response to the Lefebvrists be prepared, reaffirming that Rome has never abandoned the path of tradition, contrary to their claims. His intervention was all the more significant given that he formerly headed the dicastery responsible for matters arising from precisely this rupture.

A new Ecclesia Dei

The cardinal also addressed the implications of one of the scenarios we reported in recent days: should the Society of St. Pius X formally enter into schism following the episcopal consecration of new bishops without a pontifical mandate, many Lefebvrists are expected to seek reconciliation with Rome.

He therefore stressed the need to prepare for their reception, proposing a structure modeled on the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, established in 1988 by St. John Paul II to welcome those who wished to return to full communion with Rome after Archbishop Lefebvre’s illicit episcopal consecrations.

Preparing to receive those who leave the Society has become an important concern, and one that is already under consideration by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith. Among members of the Society there is growing anxiety over the prospect of excommunication which, unlike thirty-eight years ago, might not be limited to the bishops performing and receiving the illicit consecrations.

If the penalty were confined to the bishops alone, for example, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X and the principal advocate of its hard-line position, would not be affected. At present, however, there is no certainty regarding the precise response that will come from the former Holy Office. Nevertheless, it is expected that a number of priests, religious, and sisters will leave the schismatic body and seek restoration to full communion with Rome.

Liturgy

Thanks to the work carried out at the time by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Church today includes institutes that celebrate the traditional liturgy while remaining in full communion with Rome and accepting the Second Vatican Council. Ecclesia Dei was suppressed by Pope Francis in 2019.

In 2021, further restrictions on celebrations of the traditional liturgy were introduced through Traditionis Custodes. Today, however, a more tolerant approach appears to be gaining ground within the College of Cardinals. This is due in part to the fact that, as Vatican correspondent Diane Montagna revealed about a year ago, the majority of bishops consulted before the decree was issued had opposed the proposed restrictions.

Müller’s intervention, like the others, was met without comment. Yet, according to sources, after the session concluded several cardinals from across the theological spectrum appeared to agree with his remarks and expressed appreciation for the frankness of the German prelate, widely regarded as one of the most authoritative figures in the College by virtue of both his scholarship and his ecclesiastical career.

SUPPORT INDEDEPENDENT JOURNALISM

ROME, 26 June 2026 — In Hamlet, Shakespeare gave the line “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” not to Hamlet the prince, nor to any man of power, but to Marcellus — an officer standing watch in the dark, perceiving a truth that those in authority could not or would not see. Today, across the water in Sweden, it is the lay faithful who are sounding the alarm, calling on Rome to investigate what they describe as corruption at the heart of the country’s only Catholic diocese.

The calls for an apostolic visitation to the Diocese of Stockholm follow the publication of a two-part investigation by Swedish Catholics. This journalist has both studied the report and independently corroborated its overall account, speaking with sources within the diocese not connected to the investigation. All confirm its portrayal of the diocese as “very accurate.” The diocese calls it “not serious.”

“We are desperate here,” said one priest, describing a climate of fear that exists particularly among diocesan clergy. The investigation describes a “power vacuum” at the top of the diocesan administration that has enabled an “axis of power” within the Chancery — one that, it alleges, has moved against those it perceives as disloyal or threatening. It is a dynamic Shakespeare understood well: when legitimate authority fails or is corrupted at the top, what rushes in to fill the vacuum is not order but its opposite.

The calls have grown more urgent as Cardinal Anders Arborelius, 76, approaches retirement and the diocese awaits the appointment of his successor.

This article, the first in a series, turns to the investigation’s central but not only case: that of Father Tobias Unnerstål, removed as parish priest of Christ the King parish in Gothenburg in January 2022, suspended from priestly ministry in November 2024, and never permitted to see the complaint that drove both actions.

Published in Swedish under the name “Thomas More” — and now available in English — the report was compiled over two years by a group of Catholics within the Diocese of Stockholm, drawing exclusively on first-hand sources, documentation, and testimony from hundreds of people across the diocese. Its subject, in the authors’ words, is a pattern of corrupt governance at the highest levels of the Stockholm Diocesan Chancery.

Its authors say they raised their concerns with the diocese on countless occasions and through proper channels. They were not alone: over the years, many others — clergy, parishioners, and individuals from across the diocese not connected to the report — brought their concerns directly to the diocese and to Cardinal Arborelius himself. They went unaddressed.

The report was first circulated among priests and lay members of the diocese in November 2025 before being made public in December. “To remain silent in this situation,” the authors write, “would mean accepting the diocese’s corrupt handling of matters like this, thus allowing more people to come to harm in the future.”

The Case of Father Tobias Unnerstål

Fr. Tobias Unnerstål served as parish priest at Christ the King Church in Gothenburg from 2007 to 2022 — fifteen years during which the parish flourished by every account. Under his care, the congregation grew, vocations grew, conversions multiplied, and a vibrant youth culture took root that became known throughout the diocese. He celebrated the Traditional Latin Mass, which drew young families and worshippers from across the region; at its height, the report says, some sixty per cent of those attending were children and young people. He was also a driving force behind a plan to establish an Oratory in Gothenburg on the model of St Philip Neri — a project endorsed in writing by Cardinal Arborelius and his Vicar General in October 2020 and reaffirmed by the Cardinal on 9 January 2022 — just eight days before Fr. Tobias’s dismissal. More than one priest who knew him told this journalist they had considered him a potential successor to Cardinal Arborelius.

On 15 February 2021 — the very same day that Fr. Tobias wrote to the Vicar General, Father Pascal-René Lung, OP, seeking guidance on how to proceed with the Oratory — a complaint of emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse was filed against him by Joseph Rizk, then a seminarian and now a priest of the diocese. Under canonical procedure, the complaint should have been communicated to Fr. Tobias within two months of being filed, giving him a couple of weeks to appeal. It was not. When he was finally summoned to Stockholm for questioning on 22 April 2021 — already past that deadline — he met alone with Fr. Pascal; the Cardinal was absent. Fr. Pascal read out excerpts from the complaint, but Fr. Tobias was never shown the document itself, and to this day the diocese has not provided it to him.

Three charges were read aloud. Each had an answer. Fr. Tobias was said to have isolated Rizk from the other altar boys by having him change in the sacristy rather than upstairs with the group — standard practice for older servers, Fr. Tobias explained, and after Rizk entered seminary he had been especially careful to maintain clear boundaries. He was also said to have given Rizk money: true, he acknowledged, but given at Rizk’s own explicit request, as the text messages between them showed. The third charge concerned a photograph from a 2009 altar-server trip to Malta, described in the complaint as “inappropriate”: a holiday snapshot of Rizk in swimming trunks with his shirt over his head like a hat. Fr. Tobias produced the same message thread to show he had sent the photo to Rizk himself, suggesting in jest that he use it as a Facebook profile picture. Fr. Pascal, in presenting the charges, stressed that nothing physically improper had been alleged between the two men at any time.

The meeting ended with an ultimatum: confess to the three charges or face suspension — which Fr. Tobias understood to mean he could no longer celebrate Mass. Believing he had no alternative, he complied. He subsequently retracted the admission in its entirety, stating that the interpretation placed on every point had been wrong.

Cardinal Arborelius, who was not present at the meeting, later issued what was termed a “fraternal warning” and placed him on sabbatical leave that autumn.

The Letter

What lends the case its more disturbing character is the role played by Birgitta Gelotte — a former parish assistant to Fr. Tobias, and a close friend of Rizk. As early as 2019, the report says, she was telling other clergy that Fr. Tobias was an alcoholic and a homosexual who had behaved improperly with a young man — claims multiple witnesses quoted in the report describe as untrue. (The report notes that she had made serious accusations against others in correspondence to the Cardinal, then withdrew them as “misunderstandings” after he accidentally forwarded one to the very people she had accused.)

In July 2021, she wrote and privately circulated her own account of the relationship, binding those with whom she shared it to secrecy. In the letter, she states her motive plainly: “Rumours had begun to spread that Fr. Tobias and Father Joakim wanted to start an Oratory — I knew I had to do everything I could to stop it.” She also describes spending years working to shift how Rizk understood his relationship with the priest: at first, he was surprised and denied her interpretation, she said, but “as the years passed” he eventually “came to share my view.” By her own account, she did not merely suspect a problem — she worked, over years, to construct one in Rizk’s mind.

The letter did not remain entirely private. That same month, she invited Maxim and Cecilia Jaruta — close friends — to her home for dinner; they arranged childcare so they could attend. Over the course of the evening, Gelotte read from the letter on her phone, telling them it was the most important thing she had to say. At the end of the evening, Maxim asked for a copy; Gelotte sent it to him by text message.

Maxim Jaruta, who goes on the record in the report, confirmed the account to this journalist. “I stand by what I said.”

A father of seven and parishioner at Christ the King for ten years, he said that nothing in that time had given him any reason to think the allegations were true — but he found them serious enough to raise with Fr. Tobias directly. He did so on 7 August 2021. Fr. Tobias denied every point, seemed to know — before Maxim revealed the author — that Gelotte had written the letter, and asked to see it; Maxim shared it with him, but with no one else.

One week later, on the eve of his sabbatical, Fr. Tobias met the Vicar General and had him read the letter in full. Fr. Pascal was reportedly “visibly pained” and implied that something would need to be done to correct Gelotte.

Gelotte would later tell Maxim that the Vicar General had telephoned her, alert to the letter’s existence, and warned her that Fr. Tobias was now aware of it.

That autumn, Maxim met with Monsignor Jorge de Salas, Episcopal Vicar for Juridical Affairs — whom he had known for several years — to discuss the matter. Msgr. de Salas appeared to be aware of the letter already but dismissed its significance: it was the text messages, he said, that could potentially put Fr. Tobias in prison. The diocese, however, had never reported the matter to the police, as far as Maxim knew — and he had no access to those messages, which made the claim all the harder to interpret.

Gelotte states in the letter that she raised her concerns about Fr. Tobias directly with Cardinal Arborelius. She also describes contacting the “diocese” to request permission to search the parish’s shared server for photographic evidence of what she alleged was an improper relationship between the priest and Rizk. Permission, she says, was granted. She found one image — a picture of sixteen-year-old Rizk shirtless in the summer heat in Malta during the altar-server excursion — which left her, in her words, “overwhelmed with incredible anger.”

The Dismissal

Fr. Tobias spent his sabbatical in the United States. He left believing the matter of Birgitta Gelotte’s letter would be addressed. While abroad, rumors of his dismissal began circulating.

He returned to Gothenburg in late December 2021. On 9 January 2022, the Cardinal wrote to him — reaffirming the Oratory project and, in the same letter, informing Fr. Tobias for the first time that “the Prosecutor’s Office” had declared the correspondence criminal. The reviewer — whose name the Cardinal had not disclosed — was Magnus Bolin, simultaneously a diocesan employee and a member of Fr. Tobias’s own congregation at Christ the King. The report calls the diocese’s failure to appoint a reviewer independent of both “questionable, not to say inappropriate.”

On Friday 14 January 2022, the Cardinal telephoned him to discuss a new assignment. Fr. Tobias did not want to leave his parish, but in the end acquiesced. He was told the Vicar General would contact him with the details. Fr. Pascal did so on Monday 17 January — but said nothing to suggest that Fr. Tobias’s removal from the parish would take effect that same day. Fr. Tobias learned of it the following morning, through a public announcement stating that his tenure as parish priest of Christ the King Church had ended. He was also stripped of his roles as dean, member of the priests’ council, and member of the diocesan council.

In an accompanying announcement, the Cardinal cast the removal as a new appointment. In the wake of Traditionis Custodes — Pope Francis’s July 2021 motu proprio restricting the old rite — and in light of Fr. Tobias’s “great pastoral experience and insight into the liturgical tradition,” he said he was entrusting him with a new mission: coordinator of the Traditional Latin Mass across the diocese.

His parishioners did not receive the news quietly. Within days, a petition gathered 457 signatures, accompanied by testimonials describing a priest of rare pastoral generosity — patient, selfless, someone who had remained at the church door long after Mass to speak with whoever needed him, who had helped people return to the faith. One signatory wrote that the congregation felt “orphaned” without him.

On 1 February, Fr. Tobias moved out of the parish. The same date marked the end of the Traditional Latin Mass at Christ the King.

Two weeks later, he met privately with the Cardinal in Stockholm to discuss the new role. Afterwards, the two went together to the Vicar General’s office, where the Cardinal instructed Fr. Pascal to provide Fr. Tobias with a company car, a credit card, and a budget for the work. The first two arrived. The budget never did.

Then, on 24 February 2022, the Cardinal issued a decree that was not made public. It barred Fr. Tobias from working with children and young people, stated that it could not be appealed, and was to be disclosed only to those the Cardinal judged needed to know.

Fr. Tobias was not, however, removed as TLM coordinator. At a meeting with the Cardinal and Vicar General on 29 March, the scope of the decree was clarified: he could continue to celebrate Mass and hear confessions only within the TLM community, including for minors — but he was not permitted to teach catechism or organize summer camps. The diocese had formally barred him from ministry to children and young people. It had not removed him as coordinator of a community whose core was precisely those families, children and young people.

Six months later, the diocese moved again. On 19 October 2022, it announced that Fr. Tobias had been “relieved of his ordinary pastoral duties in the Catholic Diocese of Stockholm,” effective 1 October. Fr. Tobias learned of the announcement when a friend telephoned to ask what it meant.

He requested a meeting with the Cardinal to clarify the matter but received no response. Damiano Ognissanti, a layman and father of eight, wrote to the Cardinal to ask whether Fr. Tobias was still permitted to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass on Sundays; Mother Maria of the Annunciation OCD, then Prioress of the local Carmel, asked whether he could hear confessions for the Sisters; Father Dominik Terstriep SJ, pastor of the Jesuit parish in Stockholm, asked whether he could participate in a parish evening on the Traditional Latin Mass. Each was told there was no impediment.

Fr. Tobias then engaged a criminal defense lawyer, Andreas Stenkar Karlgren, who secured a meeting with the Cardinal and Vicar General in January 2023. At that meeting it was confirmed that the restrictions applied only to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments in the Novus Ordo. Stenkar Karlgren had also been asked to examine Fr. Tobias’s entire text message correspondence with Rizk. His conclusion was unambiguous: “There is absolutely nothing criminal in this.”

The psychological evidence pointed in the same direction. Between 2023 and 2024, Per Magnus Johansson — a prominent psychologist and psychotherapist renowned in his field in Sweden — conducted a full assessment of Fr. Tobias and reviewed a portion of the text messages. He found the relationship between the two men to have been close, trusting and mutual. He saw no reason to prevent Fr. Tobias from continuing priestly ministry, and recommended the diocese arrange a supervised conversation between the two men. No such conversation was arranged and the diocese’s position did not change.

The Suspension

For the next two years, Fr. Tobias carried on in his role as he understood it, ministering to several TLM communities and the Carmelite nuns. Then, on 10 November 2024, the Cardinal issued a formal decree suspending him and revoking all his faculties; the news was published on the diocesan website the next day.

The decree cited three grounds: a “Rehabilitation Plan” drawn up in January 2023 that had, in the Cardinal’s words, “not been able to be completed as I wished”; unspecified “shortcomings in his current pastoral ability”; and an allegation that the February 2022 prohibition on working with children and young people “has not been fully respected.” The decree made no mention of emotional exploitation — a characterization that would not feature in any public communication until months later. On 14 November, Fr. Tobias filed a remonstratio with the Cardinal, formally contesting the grounds of the decree.

On 10 December 2024, he brought a civil action against the diocese in the Stockholm District Court, seeking annulment of his dismissal and damages. Fr. Tobias did not get the chance to test his evidence at trial. Court records show that the diocese, “in order to resolve the dispute,” formally admitted his claims and their grounds. The case was decided on 10 June 2025 under a Swedish procedural rule allowing judgment where a defendant concedes a claim outright, without a main hearing. The diocese was ordered to pay Fr. Tobias roughly 240,000 kronor (approximately €21,700) in damages, plus legal costs. On 2 July — before it had said anything publicly about the outcome — the diocese terminated Fr. Tobias’s employment and stopped his salary.

The diocese’s response to the judgment was not to acknowledge that it had lost. On the contrary: its public statement, headlined “Civil legal proceedings concluded: priest’s employment ends and suspension remains in place,” made no mention anywhere that the court had found in Fr. Tobias’s favor, annulled his dismissal, or ordered damages to be paid. His departure was described in the passive language of employment law — his contract had “ended… in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Protection Act” — and the court-ordered damages were referred to only as “a limited lump sum in accordance with the law,” as if they were a routine severance payment rather than the product of a court judgment the diocese had chosen not to contest.

Then, having said nothing about losing the case, the diocese used the occasion to go further than it ever had in its public characterization of Fr. Tobias. It itemized in granular detail every priestly act the suspension forbade him from performing and described the underlying concern — for the first time in any public communication — as “emotional abuse of an adult individual that is alleged to have taken place since the affected person was a minor.”

That characterization is considerably starker than anything formally put to Fr. Tobias at his April 2021 interrogation. Like those points, it has never been accompanied by a formal charge, disclosed evidence, or any opportunity for him to respond. The diocese had just lost in court; its public statement left the reader with a darker picture of Fr. Tobias than any it had published before.

The ruling became final on 25 July 2025. In November 2025, Fr. Tobias was given one month to vacate his official residence.

Throughout the entire process — spanning more than four years from the initial complaint to the civil court ruling — Fr. Tobias was never shown the charges against him, never provided with a formal decree setting them out, and never given a meaningful opportunity to confront the evidence the diocese claimed to hold. His canonical lawyer’s assessment was unsparing: if the diocese had followed proper procedure, it would not have needed to pay damages to avoid disclosure. What the case ultimately placed in question, he observed, was not merely justice for one priest, but the integrity of canon law itself — the very framework the Church professes to uphold.

The Dicastery’s Decision

In September 2025, Fr. Tobias formally sought recourse before the Dicastery for Clergy in Rome. The review concluded on 5 May 2026, when the Dicastery — of which Cardinal Arborelius is himself a member — issued its own decree. It determined that the November 2024 suspension had been imposed without the correct procedure and was therefore “invalid.”

The Dicastery did not, however, restore Fr. Tobias to unrestricted priestly ministry. Citing undisclosed “documentation at hand,” it imposed restrictions to remain in force for three years. According to the decree, that documentation included concerns raised by Cardinal Arborelius about Fr. Tobias’s “behavior with men.”

The Dicastery argued the restrictions were justified also based on “canonical warnings and pastoral interventions that, in the mind of the [Cardinal] and the Dicastery have not born fruit” — as well as the notoriety of the case in Sweden, and the “risk of scandal.” On that basis, it restricted Fr. Tobias from celebrating Mass publicly — unless concelebrating with his local Ordinary, i.e. the Cardinal — and revoked his faculties to hear confessions and to preach.

It also rejected the diocese’s argument that the court-ordered damages it paid following the loss of the civil case had satisfied its canonical obligation to provide for him. Fr. Tobias remains entitled, the Dicastery ruled, to ongoing support separate from any civil damages.

To date, the “documentation at hand” has not been disclosed to Fr. Tobias, and it is not known whether the Dicastery intends to provide it. The restrictions thus rest on material he has never seen and therefore cannot challenge — a fact that strikes sources close to the Dicastery for Clergy as the most fundamental violation of the process the Church’s own law requires.

He may appeal the decree to the Apostolic Signatura — which, sources familiar with its recent record say, has often overturned the Dicastery for Clergy’s rulings.

Father Tobias’s Successor

Fr. Tobias’s removal left Christ the King in need of a new parish priest. Father Johan Lindén OP served in that role on an interim basis in the months that followed. In October 2022, on the recommendation of Fr. Lindén, Cardinal Arborelius appointed Father Pär-Anders Feltenheim — putting him in charge of one of the diocese’s largest and most active parishes. The Thomas More report devotes an entire section to his history: a decades-long documented record of complaints about his conduct toward young people that followed him through every assignment he subsequently held — from his years as a political activist before ordination through three successive parishes and Stockholm Cathedral. The report assembles personal testimony from dozens of individuals — school classmates, political colleagues, youth leaders and parishioners — spanning three decades and entirely separate contexts, all of whom arrived at the same account.

The most significant episode in that record took place in 2013–14, when Fr. Pär-Anders was serving as a new chaplain at Our Saviour’s Congregation in Malmö. Complaints about his behavior toward young people prompted a formal investigation conducted by Msgr. de Salas, who traveled to Malmö and spoke directly with those affected. He was thus directly aware of what had happened, including the departure of several young people from the parish as a result. The investigation led to Fr. Pär-Anders’s immediate transfer to Stockholm Cathedral and to an express prohibition on his working with children and young people. Despite that prohibition, he subsequently became responsible for the Cathedral’s altar server group — consisting, the report notes, of boys in their early teens.

Cardinal Arborelius appointed Fr. Pär-Anders parish priest of the Mother of Christ Parish in Umeå in 2019. Testimonies from that period describe denial of sacraments without reason, slander of fellow priests, and the punishment and exclusion of parishioners who questioned him. Three years later — in the same month that Fr. Tobias was formally dismissed from regular pastoral service — the Cardinal promoted Fr. Pär-Anders to Christ the King. By that point, the report says, Cardinal Arborelius, Vicar General Fr. Pascal-René Lung and Msgr. de Salas were all aware of Fr. Pär-Anders’s history and the complaints that had followed him from parish to parish. Testimonies from his time in Gothenburg describe the “stalking of young people on social media” and an “alcohol incident” on a confirmation trip that resulted in a police report.

In early autumn 2025, Fr. Pär-Anders was finally summoned to a meeting at the Chancery with the Cardinal and Vicar General; due to scheduling conflicts, the meeting took place in early November. According to a well-informed diocesan source, at the meeting Fr. Pär-Anders was confronted with allegations regarding internet activity that, while not criminal in nature, were judged incompatible with his continuing as a parish priest. He was stripped of his duties and effectively placed on paid leave. The diocese gave him a quiet exit.

Shortly afterwards, Cardinal Arborelius wrote to the parish community at Christ the King. His letter, dated 4 November, was read aloud at the 11 a.m. High Mass on 9 November and published on the parish Facebook page the following morning. It expressed his “deep gratitude” to Fr. Pär-Anders for serving “with zeal and great commitment” in a role that had “often presented him with difficult and burdensome challenges.” As he had been “in danger of becoming burnt out,” the Cardinal had granted him “a sabbatical to allow him to recover and regain his strength.” The Chancery meeting, the allegations, and the removal of his duties were not mentioned.

Comments from the Stockholm Chancery

This journalist reached Msgr. de Salas, Episcopal Vicar for Juridical Affairs, by telephone. Asked first about Fr. Tobias’s successor at Christ the King, he confirmed that Fr. Pär-Anders — then on sabbatical — was a priest in good standing. So, if a parishioner wished to make an appointment with him for confession, would that be alright?

“Why not?” he replied.

This journalist noted that the same would not apply to Fr. Tobias — whose name Msgr. de Salas had already raised.

“That’s different,” he said.

Asked then about Fr. Tobias’s current status, Msgr. de Salas was precise: “He’s not suspended, strictly, but he’s not in good standing: he cannot go to another diocese to work as a normal priest, because he has the restrictions.” The substance of the Dicastery’s decree was confirmed: Fr. Tobias “cannot celebrate Holy Mass with people, cannot hear confessions for three years, cannot preach.”

Asked whether the diocese had conducted an investigation before the allegations were ever presented to Fr. Tobias, Msgr. de Salas said only that the diocese had conducted “a proper investigation” — but that it was “not for the media. It’s only for us and for the Vatican.”

When this journalist raised the name of Birgitta Gelotte and began to describe her admission that she had spent years shaping the accuser’s complaint, Msgr. de Salas — clearly having grasped the reference to the “Thomas More” report — cut across before the sentence was finished. The allegations were “anonymous,” driven by “a lot of anger,” he said.

He also said they were “false.” He insisted it was not a “serious” report “for a journalist or for anybody.” Pressed further, he replied: “No, no, it’s not serious. It’s not serious. It’s not serious. If you don’t understand that…” He had many things to do, he said. He was not at his office. The call ended.

A Pattern of Governance

For Catholics in Sweden who are calling for an apostolic visitation to the Diocese of Stockholm, these are not isolated failures — they are the character of governance in this diocese: one priest stripped of his ministry without ever seeing the complaint against him; another retained despite a documented record spanning three decades, and quietly retired with a letter of commendation.

Having studied the investigative reports and consulted informed sources within the diocese, the case of Father Tobias Unnerstål and of his successor is only the first chapter of a longer chronicle.

In his first soliloquy, Hamlet could not say aloud what he knew — he could only think it, alone, in anguish. Surveying the kingdom of Denmark, he saw not a realm but a neglected garden: “’Tis an unweeded garden, that grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature possess it merely.”

Marcellus stood his watch for a single night. The Catholics of Sweden have been standing theirs for years. Heaven, they trust, will direct it.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JOURNALISM