Let cardinals eat cake

Share

Are you a paying subscriber?

1. Visit pillarcatholic.com/listen on your phone

2. Check the top right corner of the webpage to ensure you are logged into your Substack account.

3. Tap ‘set up podcast’ next to The Pillar Podcast

Having issues? Email our producer Kate at kolivera@pillarcatholic.com

Read more

Subscribe now

This episode is brought to you by The Secret of the Goldfish, a warm, faith-filled middle-grade mystery for curious Catholic kids, coming to you from Our Sunday Visitor.

To learn more, visit GloriaBook.com/SundaySchool

-
Photo: Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández attends the consistory for the creation of 21 new cardinals in St. Peter’s Square on Oct. 2, 2023. © Mazur/cbcew.org.uk.

Subscribe now

While the focuses of tension are varied, perhaps the largest one is the government’s attempt to “resignify” the Valley of the Fallen, a Franco-era monument to the deceased in the Spanish Civil War. The monument, which is owned by a public foundation, contains the world’s largest cross, a basilica, and a Benedictine abbey.

While the Spanish bishops have claimed they did not approve planned changes to the monument, recently leaked correspondence between the Archbishop of Madrid and the Spanish Minister of Justice suggest that the bishops have played a larger role than they have publicly admitted.

Meanwhile, the monks at the abbey have filed a civil complaint over the project, arguing that the Madrid archdiocese does not have legal standing to represent them in negotiations regarding the monument, because they belong to a sui iuris abbey, directly subject to the Holy See.

Share

The monument of the Valley of the Fallen – or Valley of Cuelgamuros, as it was officially renamed a few years ago – was meant to be a symbol of reconciliation after a bloody civil war that tore Spain apart in the 1930s.

Instead, it has become a frequent source of controversy between the political left and right in Spain, and more recently the subject of tense negotiations between the government, which intends to “resignify” the site, and Church authorities.

The monument was commissioned by Spanish dictator Francisco Franco in 1940, a year after his victory in the Spanish Civil War.

The monument uses Catholic symbols and imagery, and includes a 152-meter (500-foot) vertical cross, a cross-shaped basilica, and a Benedictine monastery.

More than 30,000 people are buried there, one-third of whom fought for the Republicans, who fought against Franco’s Nationalist forces.

The principal architects of the monument were Francoist supporters, while the sculptor in charge of the statues in the monument was a socialist.

The monument’s supporters laud it as a campus dedicated to reconciliation, where combatants and victims from both factions are buried side-by-side and where Benedictines are tasked with praying for atonement, reconciliation and peace.

But some contemporary Spaniards say the complex is a tribute to fascism, and stands as a testimony to a period and an event they wish had never happened.

Critics do not see the basilica as a gesture of reconciliation, but instead as a celebration of the regime, and the victory of Catholic nationalism over anti-clerical republicanism.

They also charge that the basilica was built by forced inmate labor, while supporters argue that only volunteer prisoners were used, and they had two days struck off their sentence for each day they worked, besides being paid a proper wage.

Adding to controversy over the site is that Franco was buried at the monument — against his own wishes — and his body remained there until 2019, when the government won a legal battle to exhume his remains, arguing that the site had become a pilgrimage destination for the far right.

Leave a comment

After more than a decade of discussion, the Catholic Church and the socialist-led government in Spain announced earlier this year that they had reached an agreement which would keep the basilica, its massive cross, and the Benedictines in place, with the government moving forward with plans to “re-signify” the parts of the monument “not reserved for worship” — although this would include parts of the basilica itself.

Cardinal José Cobo of Madrid downplayed the role he played in the negotiations, saying he didn’t have jurisdiction over the abbey. The Spanish bishops’ conference has also said that the Vatican did not sign any deal with the Spanish government.

This had led to confusion as to who was responsible for the negotiations, as well as criticism for the lack of transparency in such a thorny issue for the Spanish Church.

When the Spanish government announced an international contest for proposals to resignify the monument in April 2025, the Spanish bishops’ conference was quick to distance itself from the initiative, publishing a statement saying that “the Catholic Church has never been the promoter or driving force behind the re-signification activities that the Spanish government wishes to carry out in the Valley.”

“The government is taking the initiative by launching a tender for proposals without consulting the Church about the details or questions that should be clarified beforehand, in case the spaces and religious sensibilities are not respected.”

However, Religión Confidencial published leaked letters between Cardinal Cobo and the Spanish Minister of Justice Félix Bolaños regarding the agreements.

The correspondence between Bolaños and Cobo is dated March 4- 5, 2025, a month before the resignification was publicly announced. The letters indicate that the decision had been made in coordination with Cobo, even as the bishops’ conference statement suggested otherwise. They also suggest that the Vatican had given at least tacit consent.

The letters also include an annex outlining which parts of the monument would be included in the “resignification” plan. In it, Bolaños and Cobo agreed that the space reserved for worship would be reduced to the altar and the nearby seating area, while the rest of the interior of the basilica - narthex, atrium, nave, and dome - would be considered as “not destined for worship.”

Therefore, all these areas of the basilica are open to interventions, so long as these interventions are “compatible with the celebration of the liturgy,” and guarantee an independent space of access to the space reserved for worship.

In one letter, dated March 4, 2025, Cobo accepts the transformation of parts of the basilica as long that the “sacred spaces and the presented artistic expressions are harmonized in such a way that they respect the religious and cultural end of these spaces according to the characteristics of a Catholic church,” after Bolaños had told him that the Spanish government had launched an international contest of ideas to resignify the monument.

Bishop César García Magán, auxiliary bishop of Toledo and spokesman of the Spanish bishops’ conference, said in an April 2025 press conference that the government originally wanted to decommission the basilica, expel the Benedictine community from the basilica, and take down the cross in the monument, but the negotiations thwarted such proposals.

In the correspondence, Bolaños speaks of conversations held with the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, while Cobo said he had conversations with the Benedictine community in the basilica, the Spanish nuncio, and the president of the bishops’ conference under the coordination of the Holy See, “in which it was agreed that the Archbishop of Madrid should start the dialogue.”

In an April interview, Minister Félix Bolaños said that “regarding the Cuelgamuros there was an agreement, but not an agreement with Cardinal Cobo that I also signed. There was an agreement with the Vatican. Therefore, the Vatican is absolutely committed to the Valley being a place of memory and democracy and not a mausoleum of the dictatorship.”

The Spanish bishops’ conference, however, has repeatedly said that the Vatican did not sign the agreements and merely took part in some of the conversations.

While no Vatican official signed any documents on the resignification, the correspondence between Bolaños and Cobo seems to reveal a much more active role by the secretariat of state than the Spanish bishops’ conference and the Archdiocese of Madrid have publicly admitted.

In one of his letters, Cobo claims to be working in “coordination with the Holy See,” and of having informed Rome of his reply to Bolaños before writing the letter.

In a March 26, 2025 statement, the Archdiocese of Madrid said that the only things that had been agreed upon were the “the continued presence of the Benedictine community and the preservation of the Basilica’s status as a place for worship, as well as respect for all religious elements located outside the Basilica,” despite the fact that Cobo had already agreed to interventions within the basilica as part of the resignification.

Moreover, while more recently the archdiocese and the Spanish bishops’ conference said that the Holy See was not a signatory of any agreements, the March 2025 statement claimed that there was an agreement between the Holy See and the Spanish government that “guaranteed the continuity of the Benedictine community.”

The statement also added that “any other aspect related to the resignification is of the exclusive competence of the Holy See and the government, which are the parties that have taken part in the negotiations.”

That claim again appears to contradict the bishops’ conference’s statement about the Holy See’s role in the negotiations, as well as Cobo’s own signing of the agreement on the resignification with Spain’s justice minister.

An April 16, 2025 statement from the Archdiocese of Madrid said that the “the terms of the agreement reached between the government and the Holy See are general and have never gone into the details or specifics of the agreement,” despite the fact that the correspondence between Cobo and Bolaños discussed specifically which parts of the basilica would be resignified.

Share The Pillar

Some commentators in Spain have defended the Church’s negotiations on the grounds that the monument is owned by a public foundation, meaning the Church has no legal authority to block changes the Spanish government wishes to make. From that perspective, the continued presence of the basilica and the Benedictine community should be considered a victory.

But a December 2020 report from the council of legal affairs of the Spanish bishops’ conference published by Religión Confidencial mentions several legal arguments that could be used to defend the monument from resignification.

The report says that according to article I.1 of the Agreement on Legal Affairs between the Holy See and the Spanish state of 1979, the Basilica of the Holy Cross of the Valley of the Fallen is a “sacred place of the Catholic Church and, therefore, inviolable.”

The Decree-Law establishing the Fundación del Valle de los Caídos (Foundation of the Valley of the Fallen) in 1957 says that the basilica, abbacy, guesthouse, choir school, and adjacent premises are owned by the foundation, which is a public foundation established for religious purposes.

The Decree-Law includes the Spanish state’s commitment that the Benedictine community’s presence be perpetual, unless the monks fail to comply, “which is not the case,” according to the report.

Furthermore, Pope Pius XII established the abbacy “in perpetuity” through the Apostolic Letter Stat Crux of May 27, 1958, such that, “having been established by a pope, only another pope could abolish it.”

Moreover, the report itself claims that the abbey of the Holy Cross is a sui iuris abbey incorporated to the Congregation of Solesmes of the Order of Saint Benedict, and therefore, is a “canonical entity not under the jurisdiction of any bishop… or the Secretariat of State of the Holy See.”

The report adds that the legal representation of the abbey corresponds exclusively to the prior, and that “Any other ecclesiastical body or authority, such as an archbishop, is not authorized to sign an agreement that directly affects the abbey, and consequently that legal act is null and void,” while the third clause of the agreement between the foundation and the Abbey of Silos - the abbey from which the first monks came to the Valley of the Fallen - in 1958 expressly states that the administration of the goods of the foundation is specifically entrusted to the prior, and “not to any other authority.”

In fact, in an April 16, 2025 statement, the Archdiocese of Madrid, said that its role is of “support, but without having jurisdiction over the basilica or the religious community residing there,” and that the Church “has never been a promoter or driving force” behind the resignification activities.

The bishops’ conference report also says that using the monument for civil purposes, even when compatible with worship, violates the 1979 agreement between Spain and the Holy See on legal affairs — which is an international treaty.

Articles 1.1 and 1.5 of the agreement guarantee the free exercise of the Church’s activities and the inviolability of its places of worship. The report notes that “these precepts do not make a distinction depending on the ownership of the property,” meaning that the inviolability of places of worship also extends to places of worship in publicly owned buildings, as is the case with the basilica.

Therefore, the report concludes that any modification to make a civil use of the basilica should be conducted “according to the general rules of international law, and not of internal law.”

In November 2025, the monks of the Valley of the Fallen filed a civil complaint against the resignification project, which temporarily halted the contest and the negotiations between the Church and the Spanish government. If effective, the complaint would mean that no agreements can be made without the consent of the prior of the Benedictine community.

The complaint led Bolaños to ask Cardinal Parolin to expel the Benedictine community from the monument and replace it with a different religious community in October 2025, according to media reports.

In November, the Spanish government announced the project that was chosen for the resignification of the monument would cost 31 million euros. According to the project, most of the interventions would be done on the exterior of the monument, while the changes to the basilica would be minimal.

“It is a project that boldly confronts the monumental scale of the existing complex. It proposes a new vision of this monumental complex in which boundaries are redefined, nature is given greater prominence, and the axiality that had so characterized this monument is broken to create a large shadow—a great fissure—that facilitates encounters, invites dialogue, and encourages a more pluralistic, more democratic one that includes many perspectives,” Iñaqui Carnicero, one of the leaders of the project, said.

The project intends to eliminate the grand staircase that leads to the basilica and the construction in its place of a portico at the foot of the church, resembling a large horizontal fissure that will stretch from side to side of the monument’s esplanade.

Visitors will be able to enter through this portico into a circular, open-roofed vestibule that will provide shared access to both the basilica and the new visitor center, which seemingly violates the agreement between the Church and the Spanish government that said that the basilica should have an independent entrance.

While the project said the interventions in the interior would be “minimal,” much has been left to say beyond that. The only specific change the project mentioned was the installation of panels to “resignify” some of the basilica’s side chapels.

The project organizers say that the preparatory phase will take eight months, followed by 40 months of construction. The process, however, has been halted while the legal complaint filed by the monks is resolved.

Subscribe now

It is the end of the school year at most colleges and universities. Having spent many, many years as a student and as a professor, I know that this is an exciting time on campus. But not everywhere.

We already know the doors of at least eight schools are closing permanently, while six others are merging. This continues a trend which has already seen more than 130 private non-profit institutions closed or merged between 2020 and 2025.

This course is certain to continue since the number of Americans graduating from high school is expected to decrease 13% in the next fifteen years according to one analysis. Huron Consulting Group projects that this plunge puts over 25% of private non-profit four-year colleges and universities at risk of closing or merging in the next ten years. Nearly one-third of these schools already posted deficits in 2024.

This probably brings a slight bit of glee to some, who may think college is a waste, or perhaps don’t like what has been happening on some campuses in recent years. While I may understand these feelings, they may wish to reconsider for a number of reasons.

First, the importance of a college degree is not about to go away. We are a society of credentials. And for many good reasons — I would assume many if not most readers here have a college degree and are not shy about having achieved it. And few indeed are the people who would actually sit their children down and tell them “whatever you do, don’t go to college.”

Second, while they might reasonably attract the lion’s share of the attention and criticism, it is not the Harvards and Penns which are in danger. They are here to stay. These elite schools will never suffer from a dearth of applicants and they have huge endowments.

The most vulnerable schools are the ones which faithful Catholics should treasure most, the ones which provide an exemplary Catholic education through their curriculum, faculty, and student life.

And these schools do exist — while every list has its critics, the Newman Guide is often considered the authoritative source for which schools these are.

It is exactly these schools, however, that face even greater financial pressures than similar institutions.

Subscribe now

One reason is their commitment to educating students from families who struggle to pay bills. Added to that, most of these schools have small student bodies owing to a commitment to seminar classes and classical education. John M. Grondelski – former associate academic dean of the School of Theology at Seton Hall University – addressed this recently when he stated, “I really doubt any Catholic college or university today with fewer than 2,250-2,500 students will survive; the sheer costs of running a college just impose that.”

But some question the extent to which Catholics really need these institutions, pointing instead to faithful and vibrant Newman Centers on some elite campuses or to Focus missionaries who do often-heroic evangelization on college campuses. These Catholic lifelines might be enough for some, maybe many students, but not for all.

I recently spoke with friends who recounted a call from their daughter soon after they had gotten her settled into her dorm at one the country’s most prestigious universities. She told them that as soon as all the parents were gone, the dorm RA gathered the students to tell them, “now that your parents are gone, you need to know that college is a time to explore your sexuality and the university is going to help you do that ‘safely’.”

I attended Northwestern, Stanford, and Duke. Though these schools each have problems, they are valuable institutions in many ways and it is possible for a faithful Catholic to find a good path within them. But when I became a fellow at the University of Dallas, I saw up close how a committed Catholic university can shape the lives and characters of students in phenomenal ways.

I witnessed the extraordinary value of such institutions to individuals, to the Church, and to our broader society and culture. Their graduates punch far above their weight in their contributions to the common good of our country because they can think, write, and speak much better than most in their generation. That is why they are serving as members of Congress, ambassadors, NASA flight surgeons, and in other high level roles throughout the private and public sectors, along with numerous Church vocations.

Maybe these schools are not for every Catholic student – and in any event, their capacity falls far short right now –but they are largely underappreciated treasures of the Catholic Church which we all benefit from.

And which we all need to support.

Having spent most of my life in the worlds of politics and higher education – both of which rely on fundraising – I get the sense that many Catholics value the former more than the latter. There certainly seems to be more (and ever more) Catholic money sloshing around in politics.

Don’t get me wrong. I was a politician and I know good political causes usually require money to succeed. But most of us have seen how politicians and political organizations appeal to Catholics – as they do to others – by promising that a contribution will enable the recipient to thwart the triumph of a grave evil. I very rarely see such promises fulfilled. But I have seen the intellectual and moral lives of Catholic students blossom and their faith ignite from their experiences at faithful Catholic colleges.

There is a common misconception, especially among some who have carved out successful careers in business and finance, that if these schools just tightened their belts they would not have financial problems. This just is simply not the case. Most of these schools have made cuts as times have gotten tougher. These certainly are not bloated, gold-plated institutions.

Others believe that if these institutions were more entrepreneurial they would not be struggling. But there is only so much money-saving innovation to be had in a real education. It’s a labor-intensive endeavor.

Finally, there is a growing movement questioning whether a traditional college degree is the right path for every eighteen-year-old. I agree that there are better choices for some young people — a growing number of Catholic trade schools present students with career paths other than those offered by traditional colleges, often very stable and highly lucrative ones. This is good, and these schools need support also.

So as graduation bells ring, think about these faithful Catholic colleges and universities. Perhaps the next time you get a text or a phone call asking you to give $5 – or $5 million – to a politician or political organization who is going to save the soul of the nation and restore its greatness, consider instead these institutions which are helping young Catholics develop into the men and women who will be at the vanguard of bringing about real change in the culture.

After all, we do need to stop looking to politics to fix our culture and save us. But that’s a subject for a different day.

Subscribe now

Daniel Lipinski was a Member of Congress from 2005-2021, and is Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and Pope Leo XIII Fellow on Social Thought, University of Dallas.

Share

Are you a paying subscriber?

1. Visit pillarcatholic.com/listen on your phone

2. Check the top right corner of the webpage to ensure you are logged into your Substack account.

3. Tap ‘set up podcast’ next to The Pillar TL;DR

Having issues? Email our producer Kate at kolivera@pillarcatholic.com

Show notes:

If the SSPX consecrations happen, who exactly is excommunicated?

Did the Vatican really give a special award to the Iranian ambassador?

Polish archdiocese trials new priest appointment model

How Myanmar’s Catholics are faring amid civil war

Social media, situationships, and a ‘ring by spring’ — the complex dating world for Gen Z Catholics

What does Georgia’s new patriarch mean for Rome-Orthodox ties?

Israel expels priest leading West Bank youth ministry

‘There is plenty of life’: Bishop Lopes on the Australian ordinariate’s future

The survey, conducted by Russia’s Public Opinion Foundation on behalf of St. Tikhon’s University in Moscow, also concluded that the proportion of Orthodox Christians who never attend services has risen from 28% to 32% in the same period.

Share

The findings, reported May 14 by the Vedomosti newspaper, are significant because the Russian Orthodox Church is the largest of the 14 universally recognized self-governing Eastern Orthodox Churches. Estimates of its membership vary, with some counts suggesting there are 110 million Russian Orthodox Christians worldwide, including 95 million in Russia. But the number of active believers is considered to be far lower.

The new research, based on a survey of 1,501 adults in February and March, also sheds light on the state of Russian Orthodoxy amid Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which was launched in 2022 with the support of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow.

Leave a comment

But some Russian Orthodox commentators have cast doubt on the survey’s findings. Fr. Alexey Volkov, a priest in Ulyanovsk, western Russia, told the country’s National News Service that he saw no decline in practice.

He said: “I view these figures with skepticism, because what I see at the church where I serve, and at other churches, suggests exactly the opposite. The number of parishioners is growing, and the number of people attending services is not declining. There is no decline in people’s faith or in Orthodoxy.”

He added: “Participating in the Church’s liturgical life is one of the most important attributes of faith. However, no one requires a certain number of services attended per year. There are no such quotas. Not everyone who doesn’t go to church on Sundays fails to be Orthodox. They simply have their own personal rhythm of Church life.”

The new survey also explored how intensively Russia’s Orthodox Christians practice their faith, providing detailed figures about how often they receive Holy Communion. Broadly speaking, Orthodox Christians tend to receive Communion less frequently than Catholics because of more detailed requirements concerning fasting and recent confession.

But the survey found that the proportion of active Orthodox Christians receiving Communion once a month or more has increased significantly, from 14% in 2011 to 45% in 2020 to 64% in 2026.

Among Orthodox Christians in Russia as a whole, the overall proportion receiving Communion monthly has only risen from 2% in 2011 to 5% in 2026.

Elena Prutskova, a senior researcher at the Sociology of Religion Research Laboratory at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University, suggested that the increase reflected a contrast within Russian Orthodoxy between a highly committed core of believers and a broader group that identifies with the Church because it forms part of their ethnic identity.

Commenting on the decline in self-identification, Russian professor Valentina Slobozhnikova noted that religiosity in Russia grew strongly in the three decades after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.

But she told Vedomosti that this upward trend stopped around 2019, after which the number of believers began to decrease, especially among the country’s largest religions. She suggested the trend was part of a broader European-wide decline in religious affiliation, with the younger generation taking a more individualistic approach to religion.

But she argued that active Orthodox Christians were becoming even more committed amid contemporary challenges in Russia, such as the war in Ukraine.

Subscribe now

Listen to Ed read this Pillar Post here: The Pillar TL;DR

Happy Friday friends,

I got to do a fun thing yesterday.

Our pastor had the idea to bring back the tradition of walking the entirety of our parish’s borders, blessing them and praying for those within them along with those able to join for any or all of the procession.

Our family showed up to walk and pray along our corner of the map, we live quite near the line, the exact contours of which I became intensely interested in the moment our daughter was born and I suddenly became deeply invested in preferential access to the parish school.

Apart from the spiritual dimension, which is real enough, as an exercise in popular piety, I was all for it. A great, soft, stifling barrier to evangelization is the cabining of Catholics within the literal and metaphorical walls of the parish church and the gradual sense of “othering” which that fosters.

Who are those people, and what do they get up to in there?

It’s not nothing to have identifiable parishioners out and about, plainly visible to everyone else, if for no other reason than when we’re spotted again at the liquor store or BBQ spot it seeds the impression that we are around, animating the wider community, already part of the fabric of daily life.

This, in turn, takes some of the “weirdo factor” away when it comes to actual efforts to evangelize.

Oh him, sure I’ll give him two minutes.

I mention this because a not infrequent criticism you see of public prayer processions is that they are “triumphalist” and not evangelizing. This is an assessment often assumed by people with no actual experience of either public processions or front line, face-to-face evangelizing.

But for me, the important part of the procession yesterday was the reminder that I owe a duty of prayer to my neighbors and an obligation to love them as myself.

This isn’t idle sentimentality. Sure, some of my neighbors, most of them, I get on great with. But I can think of the odd house I fantasize semi-regularly about seeing a moving van in front of. The one with the “Be Kind” sign and a flag with an image of The Very Hungry Caterpillar over the motto “EAT THE RICH” comes to mind.

What have I done to witness the love of Christ to them? That was something to think about as I walked the parish border yesterday.

Here’s the news.

Subscribe now

The News

The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated Wednesday that if the Society of St. Pius X carries out plans to illicitly consecrate bishops in July, those involved will commit an act of schism and be subject to the canonical penalty of excommunication.

The statement, signed by the dicastery’s prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, stated that “This act will constitute ‘a schismatic act’ and ‘formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law.’”

While the canonical crimes and consequences of the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations have already been made clear, and explained for those directly involved — some Catholics have asked what the effects will be for the priests and laypeople who have joined the SSPX, or who regularly attend its liturgies.

We unpacked the meaning and consequences of “formal adherence” to schism this week, and you read it right here.

—

The Vatican press office has clarified that an award given to the Iranian ambassador to the Holy See is not an exclusive honor, but a customary award routinely given to ambassadors after two years of service.

The clarification came after several Iranian outlets reported May 12 that Pope Leo XIV had granted the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor to the Iranian ambassador, prompting social media criticism of the pope and bids by some to spin it as a political commentary on the U.S. conflict with Iran.

So, what is the award the Iranian ambassador received? Where does it rank among Vatican diplomatic honors? Does it say anything about the pope’s stance on political issues?

You can read the whole story here.

—

In a possible first in Poland, an archbishop has invited priests to apply to lead vacant parishes by submitting a résumé and a proposed pastoral program tailored to the needs of the respective parish.

The new approach is a marked departure from the traditional Polish model, in which priest assignments are made by the bishop with input from the diocesan curia but no formal application process.

The archbishop has said that the change was inspired by practices in U.S. dioceses, but what exactly is the new practice, and how similar is it to some U.S. models?

The Pillar explains it all right here.

—

When a country has been engulfed by civil war for five years, it’s surprising to hear a cardinal describe the local Church as “incredibly flourishing.” But that is exactly what Burma’s Cardinal Charles Bo did during a recent trip to Australia.

The cardinal noted that the Missionaries of St. Paul, a religious institute he founded in 1990, now has 140 sisters, seven brothers, and 10 priests. And the national seminary, located in the former capital, Yangon, has more than 200 students, up from around 150 seminarians almost 20 years ago.

So, what is the overall state of the Church in Myanmar? And what might explain its continued fruitfulness amid very harsh conditions?

Read all about it right here.

—

There is no shortage of data, analysis, and commentary on the fraught world of dating for Generation Z.

Financial instability, the ubiquity of social media and smart phones, and unprecedented levels of “social anxiety” were all amplified by the experience of COVID lockdowns, leading a generation to report frankly terrifying levels of romantic disengagement and disinterest.

But in a long feature this week, Jack Figge took a deep dive in the Catholic corner of Gen Z to find out how they are coping — or not — and managing to forge authentic human partnerships.

Read the whole thing right here.

—

The Vatican welcomed this week the election of a new head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, one of the 14 universally recognized self-governing Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Cardinal Kurt Koch, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, said in a May 11 message that he learned with great joy of Shio III’s election as the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.

But what is the Georgian Orthodox Church? Who is Shio III, and what does his election mean for Catholic-Orthodox ties?

Read all about it here.

—

The Israeli government has declined to renew the visa of a Catholic priest in the West Bank, who was responsible for youth ministry among the region’s Christian community.

According to sources close to the situation, Fr. Louis Salman was interrogated by Israeli officials in late April, and soon after informed by Church leaders that he would need to leave the country for his safety. Salman was then notified officially that his visa would not be renewed, and that he should leave the country before Monday, May 11.

No official reason was given for the decision.

Hundreds gathered at his parish in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, for a farewell Mass on Sunday before the priest left for his native Jordan.

Salman is known for being a very committed and energetic pastor, local Catholics told The Pillar.

Read the whole story here.

—

Pope Leo XIV has named a new apostolic administrator to oversee Australia’s ordinariate for groups of former Anglicans, amid questions about its long-term future.

The Vatican announced May 11 that the pope had named Bishop Steven Lopes, the head of North America’s Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, as apostolic administrator of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.

Observers had expected a leadership transition at the Australian ordinariate since March, when Leo XIV named its previous apostolic administrator, Bishop Anthony Randazzo, as prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts.

But the appointment of an administrator on the other side of the world raised some eyebrows, and some questions.

Bishop Lopes discussed the significance of his nomination in an interview with The Pillar, and you can read that whole conversation right here.

Subscribe now

Budgeting for next year’s pew resource? Consider the Source & Summit Missal — a faithful, beautifully designed pew resource paired with easy-to-use digital tools for your music program. Built for authentic liturgical renewal in real parishes like yours. Subscribe before July 1 to get 2026 pricing for next year.

Extra omnes

Cardinal Fernendez’s statement regarding the upcoming SSPX episcopal consecrations is, as I hope our explainer makes clear, kind of a big deal.

It’s not “new news” to say that if bishops are consecrated without a papal mandate then the ones doing and receiving the consecrating will be automatically excommunicated, both for the specific crime of illicit consecration and for schism — we’ve known that for months, and Rome has been commendably upfront about the cause and effect there.

It seems to me that the real news of the Fernandez statement, which is exactly four sentences long, comes entirely in its use of two words and a citation. The consecrations will be, the cardinal explained, an act of schism and excommunicate those who participate. But also, he said, “formal adherence” to the same act will also constitute schism and carry the excommunication.

What constitutes “formal adherence” to an act performed by someone else is the sort of canonical legal argumentation I just go nuts for. Parsing out exactly when a person’s actions can be taken as legally probative of an internal disposition is my canonical happy place, my Mastermind specialist subject. When I read that phrase in Fernandez’s statement I got the same twitchy fidget Tolkien nerds get when someone mentions elves.

I was all set for a big row with m’colleague about imputability and external manifestations of assent. But then I checked the citations from the cardinal’s comment and it rather shot my fox — there’s no real room for debate on this one, at least to a large degree.

In issuing his warning about “formal adherence” coming with an excommunication, Fernandez cited a 1996 legal brief from the then-Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, now ranked as a dicastery, the function of which is to clarify and interpret doubtful areas and applications of canon law.

According to the PCLT, who were asked about the exact same issue — the SSPX, schism, and who is excommunicated — there’s a sufficient enough grey area around the fringes of “formal adherence” to make it a case-by-case matter as regards lay people who attended their liturgies on a non-exclusive basis. But, they said, there’s no such ambiguity for clerics who participate in SSPX liturgies — “their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that there is therefore a formal adherence.”

That’s the headline here: If these consecrations go ahead, as far as the Vatican is concerned all SSPX bishops, priests, and deacons are adhering to a schismatic act by continuing to function in the society and are excommunicated.

It’s clear to me that this is something that the SSPX clergy have been expecting and not so much working to avoid as gearing up for. SSPX leaders like Bishop Fellay have been warning society attendees for months that they — all of them, the people — soon face dire punitive action from Rome.

As the Vatican’s legal position makes clear, this ain’t exactly so. What it boils down to is if any lay people attached to the SSPX want to go associate themselves with a schism and excommunicate themselves, well, go nuts guys, but it’s a case-by-case choice. But there’s no such grey area for the clergy.

That is, I would submit, refreshingly clear, canonically speaking. And exceptionally prudent from a pastoral governance perspective.

Ever since Benedict XVI revoked the excommunications of the previous round of illicitly consecrated SSPX bishops, the society has benefited from a kind of canonical limbo. They aren’t exactly in perfect communion with the Church but they aren’t explicitly cut off, either.

Benedict, perennial softy that he was, always imagined that with enough patient dialogue at the theological level and enough liturgical latitude through measures like Summorum pontificum, they’d eventually find a way to square all the circles.

Things changed under Francis, who simultaneously revoked Summorum and replaced it with the draconian and punitive Traditionis custodes while giving SSPX priests a ton of practical pastoral credibility and license by granting them faculties to hear confessions and witness marriages with canonical validity.

The result was a lot of liturgically traditionally minded Catholics were essentially incentivized to affiliate themselves with SSPX churches, while the society itself was encouraged to walk and quack like a kind of global TLM ordinariate, far enough away from true communion with Rome to do what it liked but just tethered enough to claim the name Catholic.

My own read of this was that it wasn’t accidental — those around Francis with the biggest stake in Traditionis seemed, to me, to have decided that anyone who liked the old liturgy was immediately suspect, and probably secret schismatic and definitely outside the bounds of todos, todos, todos.

Shipping “those people” out of parishes and into SSPX churches was a feature, not a bug, for a lot of Traditionis’ most ardent cheerleaders, and I found that deeply, deeply unpleasant on a personal level and downright abusive on a pastoral one.

It’s always been my suspicion that some people around Rome harbored the quiet plan that, eventually, a final conflict between the Vatican and the SSPX would arrive and the cord between the two would be severed entirely with mutual anathemas and expressions of regret, of course, but quiet satisfaction. I’m glad they seem to have failed.

Instead — this is just my read of it — Pope Leo seems to be gearing up for a completely different kind of showdown and an opposite result.

The pope has, as we have reported, let it be known that Traditionis can and will be dispensed for any bishop who sees a pastoral need and asks for it to be. And he has urged the “generous inclusion” of those attached to the old Mass in diocesan life.

At the same time, via Cardinal Fernandez’s DDF, he’s drawing a deep ecclesiological line in the sand with the SSPX leadership — as he is with the German bishops. There is not going to be any more circular negotiations on non-negotiables like the Second Vatican Council, Tradition, and ecclesiastical authority.

Assuming the society’s leadership carries through with their plans, Catholics who have felt drawn (or pushed) towards SSPX churches over the last decade are going to be asked a question, and offered a choice:

What do they believe the Church is — the divinely instituted means of salvation, founded on the rock of St. Peter and guaranteed by Christ, or, as the SSPX superior has claimed, a place where the necessary means of salvation can no longer be received?

Depending on your answer, the choice is clear.

I expect that most people who’ve found themselves in the SSPX orbit will find the consecrations in July and what happens next to be a sobering moment, and they will decide that no, actually, they aren’t going to follow some rogue shepherds into schism and will instead find the pope standing at the door of the sheepfold ready to welcome them in.

As for the rest?

What Leo wants, he’s been clear since his election, is unity — but not German style federalism and unity of branding, and not SSPX unity of agreement to disagree and the freedom to reject this or that teaching, reform, papal pronouncement and so on. My sense is that Leo doesn’t do a unity of moods and vibes, of opt-ins and cop-outs.

Leo, it seems to me, wants and expects full, authentic unity in faith, sacraments, and governance. And as a canon lawyer he’s comfortable reminding people that anything else is schism.

That’s a healthy reminder to get, from time to time.

Subscribe now

Playing God

One of the perils of deflecting decisions on to Providence is that the Lord has a habit of providing. I have been reminded of this of late by my wife and daughter.

For years, I have closed off conversation about getting a pet for two linked reasons.

The first is that getting a pet means, as far as we are all concerned, getting a dog. I like dogs. I grew up with dogs. My family are dog people. And getting a dog means getting a large dog.

Dogs ought to be large, or at least solidly medium sized — a springer spaniel is, I would argue, the minimum acceptable size, though I’d make allowances for specialist working breeds like basset hounds.

Small dogs, intentionally bred for low energy and competitive ugliness, like French bulldogs are, to my mind, offenses against nature; Darwinian abuses created to serve as living scatter cushions. They are worse than cats, who at least serve a function in pest control and have the dignity to revile the people who anthropomorphize them.

So if we were to get a dog it would be a large one. And if you get a dog, even one you raise and train yourself, there are going to be teething pains as it settles in. Floor boards are going to get scratched, skirting boards are going to get chewed, screen doors are going to get clawed up.

Which brings us to the second reason I have refused talk of dog acquisition: these are things you want to avoid in rented houses. So my standard response to any dog chat has been that we can get a dog if God gave us a house of our own.

As many of you will recall, to my surprise, last year God did, in fact, through a kind of administrative miracle I still don’t entirely follow, allow us to buy the house we’ve been renting. So that particular promise has been “resurfaced” as people say nowadays. Most recently, yesterday.

As I was doing the school run, my daughter addressed me saying how she “should like a dog, please, daddy. Quite a big dog, really. When shall we get it?”

Now, nothing short circuits my cognitive-evaluative-votive process like my four-year-old aping the grammar and cadence of a well-educated English woman, so I was kind of impressed with myself I was able to defer, rather than say “we’re going right now darling,” and start googling breeders on my phone.

Instead, I told her she could have a dog when she was six.

Now, here I thought I was on safe ground, since the kid is a famously unreliable witness of her own age, rarely giving the correct answer when asked and showing almost no grasp of the concept of time, despite my efforts to get her to take an interest in wrist watches.

Imagine my surprise when she chirped back “Alright daddy. I am four and soon I will be five. Then I will be six.” My wife reported that she was similarly vocal about her advancing age when picked up at the end of the day, dammit.

Just goes to show you what a kid will do when properly motivated, I guess. So I’m getting a dog, and have little more than a year to prepare for it.

It’s not the end of the world, of course. Like I said, we are dog people and I genuinely like dogs. But is it weird that I feel a sense of anticipated responsibility about it all? I mean let’s not kid ourselves, I’d be getting it for my daughter, and my wife would borrow it for walks every now and then, but it would be my dog.

I’ll be the one giving it the runaround twice a day, training it to know its place and it will be my desk the thing comes sniffing and wagging to when it wants something.

If I am honest, I don’t really want the burden of raising and domesticating a brute beast from birth to death, committing to providing for its every true need, and to patiently tolerating its endless lapses, mistakes, and base instincts while serving as its existential lodestar, source of validation and ultimate consolation.

That’s the sort of nonsense God has to deal with from me, and it’s no picnic let me tell you.

But perhaps I am looking at this wrong. Maybe reluctant dog ownership can be a kind of gratuitous act of penance, a daily call to patience and a renunciation of selfishness?

And there’s something to this “man’s best friend” thing. I mean, a dog doesn’t mind comfortable silences, won’t take offence at my poorly judged jokes, and is unlikely to dispute my superior opinions on canonical penal law.

Oh who am I kidding. I’ll buy the bloody thing and serve it up to the little girl in a hat box with a bow on it because, in the end, there’s nothing I won’t give my child if she asks me the right way. I learned that from somewhere, too.

See you next week,

Ed. Condon
Editor
The Pillar

Subscribe now

Budgeting for next year’s pew resource? Consider the Source & Summit Missal — a faithful, beautifully designed pew resource paired with easy-to-use digital tools for your music program. Built for authentic liturgical renewal in real parishes like yours. Subscribe before July 1 to get 2026 pricing for next year.

I’m Luke Coppen and I seek to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and commentary.

Read more

Pope Leo XIV marks the 45th anniversary of the attempted assassination of Pope St. John Paul…

Read more

Archbishop Stanisław Budzik of Lublin, southeastern Poland, took the step following an archdiocesan synod that called for a new way of filling vacant parish posts.

The new approach is a marked departure from the traditional Polish model, in which priest assignments are made by the bishop with input from the diocesan curia but no formal application process.

Budzik, who has led the Lublin archdiocese since 2011, has invited priests to apply by May 20 to lead one of 16 vacant parishes, in the first test of the new process.

Fr. Adam Jaszcz, chancellor of the archdiocesan curia, told media that “there’s no shortage of applicants.”

“There is a great deal of interest; applications are constantly being received by the curia and will be reviewed by the bishops’ council,” he said, referring to an advisory body composed of auxiliary bishops and senior clergy.

Jaszcz has previously said the change was inspired by practices in U.S. dioceses.

For example, the Los Angeles archdiocese — the most populous U.S. diocese — invites priests to submit applications to the archbishop to oversee vacant parishes, while also sending a profile to the priest personnel board that “includes a self-evaluation of the priest’s pastoral gifts, abilities, and skills.”

But it is unclear how widespread such practices are in the U.S.

Subscribe now

The new procedure for parish appointments was set out in a synod document published by the Lublin archdiocese in November 2025.

The text said that when a parish vacancy arises, “the archbishop may publicly announce his intention to make an appointment and invite interested priests with at least 15 years’ experience to submit their candidacy.”

The archbishop is required to inform priests about which parishes are becoming vacant and set an application deadline.

In response, “each candidate submits a letter addressed to the archbishop requesting assignment to a specific parish, containing a justification for his candidacy as well as a description of his ministry and achievements in previous pastoral assignments.”

The candidate should also include “a proposed pastoral plan for the parish to which he is applying, and a recommendation from the current dean (or the vice-dean if the candidate is the dean), a certificate of passing the parish priest examination, a certificate of fulfillment of financial obligations to the archdiocese, and certificates of any completed studies, postgraduate courses, and other achievements.”

Before taking charge of a parish, Polish clergy are required to pass a parish priest examination, which covers both practical aspects of parish ministry and relevant principles in canon law.

The synod document also said that experienced priests incardinated in the Lublin archdiocese can submit a request to serve as a pastor without specifying a particular parish.

After receiving the applications, the archbishop freely selects the candidate he believes is best suited to each parish, “after consulting with the dean, considering all the circumstances, and gathering any additional opinions.”

As of 2023, the Lublin archdiocese served 1 million Catholics in 271 parishes with 969 priests. Lublin has seen a steady decline in the number of priests in the 21st century, as have other Polish dioceses.

Polish media have widely described the pilot project in Lublin as introducing a “competition” among priests for parish assignments. But some Catholic commentators have objected to the term.

In a May 14 article for Aleteia, Dariusz Dudek wrote: “Although the media sometimes refer to it as a ‘parish priest competition,’ this is not an election or a popular vote. The faithful do not vote for candidates, and the procedure itself does not deprive the bishop of the right to appoint a parish priest.”

According to the Code of Canon Law, “a diocesan bishop is to entrust a vacant parish to the one whom he considers suited to fulfill its parochial care, after weighing all the circumstances and without any favoritism.”

“To make a judgment about suitability, he is to hear the vicar forane [dean] and conduct appropriate investigations, having heard certain presbyters and lay members of the Christian faithful, if it is warranted.”

Dudek said the Lublin process adhered to canon law while offering “an additional tool for discernment.”

“As a result, the curia gains a more detailed understanding of the candidates and their vision for leading the parish,” he wrote.

Dudek argued that the innovation reflected changes in the Catholic Church in Poland.

“With fewer priests, a declining number of practicing believers, and growing expectations of pastors, an administrative appointment alone may no longer be sufficient today,” he said.

“The new model is intended to encourage priests to take on greater responsibility and initiative. A priest does not simply wait for the curia’s decision, but instead outlines his own vision for his future ministry and what he hopes to accomplish in the parish.”

“It is no coincidence that candidates must prepare a pastoral plan. This signals that today’s parish priest is expected not only to manage effectively, but also to have a concrete vision for working with people.”

He concluded that the change was not revolutionary, as the archbishop’s decision remained final and the procedure was only being applied to a small number of parishes.

Nevertheless, he said, “in the Polish context, this is undoubtedly one of the most interesting organizational changes in recent years.”

Fr. Paweł Kaleta, a canon law professor at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, expressed support for the new approach.

He said: “This method of selecting candidates grants the priest the status of an active participant in his own vocational journey, which significantly increases his motivation for pastoral work, while providing the bishop with an effective tool for precisely tailoring the candidate’s pastoral plan to the specific needs of a given parish.”

Subscribe now

I’m Luke Coppen and I aim to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and comment.

Read more

The clarification came after several Iranian outlets reported May 12 that Pope Leo XIV had granted the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor to the Iranian ambassador, prompting social media criticism of the pope.

What is the award the Iranian ambassador received? Where does it rank among Vatican diplomatic honors? Does it say anything about the pope’s stance on political issues?

The Pillar explains.

Subscribe now

What happened?

On May 12, Mohammad Hossein Mokhtari, Iran’s ambassador to the Holy See, received the Grand Cross of the Papal Order of Pius IX along with 12 other ambassadors accredited to the Holy See.

Iranian media described the order as being “among the Vatican’s most distinguished knighthoods,” and “typically conferred upon ambassadors and prominent figures who have played a significant role in strengthening diplomatic ties and serving the cause of peace and dialogue.”

Some social media posts claimed that the pope had personally granted the award to the Iranian ambassador, while one Iranian outlet said that “the award and the pope’s denunciation of the aggression are closely linked to the ongoing efforts of the Iranian embassy at the Vatican to promote messages of peace, justice, and opposition to warmongering.”

Share

So was the Vatican giving the Iranian ambassador an exclusive honor?

Soon after the Iranian media posts gained attention, the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See contested the account they presented. The U.S. Embassy posted on twitter.com that the pope had not “bestowed an exclusive special honor on the Iranian Ambassador to the Holy See. This decoration is given to all accredited ambassadors to the Holy See after 2+ years of service and has been standard practice for many years.”

In a statement to The Pillar, the Vatican press office confirmed that the award “is an honor bestowed upon ambassadors after two years of service at the Holy See.”

“Yesterday, the Sostituto [of the Secretariat of State] presented it to 13 ambassadors, including Iran’s ambassador,” the press office statement continued.

The awards were presented by the papal chief of staff, Archbishop Paolo Rudelli, and the certificates attesting to the honor were signed by secretary of state Cardinal Pietro Parolin.

Leave a comment

What is the Order of Pope Pius IX?

The order, also referred to as the Pian Order, is a papal order of knighthood that was originally established by Pope Pius IV in 1560.

It fell into disuse years later, but was revived by Bl. Pius IX in 1847.

The order itself has several ranks:

• Knight/Dame with the collar: Reserved for heads of state.

• Knight/Dame Grand Cross: Typically awarded to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See or distinguished laypersons for exceptional contributions.

• Knight/Dame Commander with Star: Granted for extraordinary merit in diplomatic or ecclesiastical service.

• Knight/Dame Commander: Granted for significant contributions to Church and society.

• Knight/Dame: Rarely bestowed and reserved for lay Catholics from ancient European noble families.

King Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Albert II of Belgium, and King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden have all received the collar of the order. King Charles III of England became the most recent head of state to receive the distinction in his latest visit to the pope.

The original members of the Order of Pope Pius IX were members of the pope’s lay court. They served as his escort, resided in the Apostolic Palace, and accompanied him in his daily tasks.

Each class of the order has some unique elements of insignia:

• Knight/Dame with the collar: The insignia includes a gold chain adorned with papal symbols, such as the papal tiara, the keys of Saint Peter, and two doves.

• Knight/Dame Grand Cross: They wear a wide dark blue silk sash with a red border from the left shoulder to the right hip and a large silver star on the left side of the chest, with the medallion of the order.

• Commanders: The insignia includes a small star on the left side of the chest, and commanders wear a badge with a ribbon around the neck.

• Knight/Dame: They wear a small badge without a star on the left side of the chest.

  Share The Pillar

Is it the Vatican’s highest diplomatic honor?

Yes and no.

Technically, the Supreme Order of Christ and the Order of the Golden Spur are considered higher in precedence, but both are dormant.

The last person to receive the Supreme Order of Christ was Frà Angelo de Mojana, 77th prince and grand master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. The last living member of the order was King Baudouin of Belgium, who died in 1993.

The last living member of the Order of the Golden Spur was Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg, who died in 2019.

The Order of Pope Pius IX is the highest diplomatic honor that the Holy See has bestowed upon diplomats or heads of state in almost 40 years.

Leave a comment

Does receiving the Order of Pope Pius IX make one a nobleman?

Not anymore.

When Pope Pius IX reinstituted the order, knights received the privilege of personal nobility through their membership. At the time, it was the only way to become a nobleman in the Papal States.

However, Pope Pius XII suppressed the privilege of nobility in November 1939. Before the suppression, the recipients were entitled to use the title of “Nobile di S.S.” (Noble of the Holy See).

The recognition of nobility also gave them precedence in certain Vatican ceremonies, the recognition of nobility in other European monarchies, and inclusion in the papal court.

Subscribe now

“We reiterate what has already been communicated,” wrote DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, “the episcopal ordinations announced by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X do not have the requisite papal mandate.”

“This act will constitute ‘a schismatic act’ (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei, no. 3) and ‘formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law’ (ibid., 5c; cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Explanatory Note, 24 August 1996).”

The canonical crimes and consequences of the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations have already been made clear, and explained for those directly involved — that is to say those who impart or receive ordination as a bishop without a papal mandate.

But as the date of the proposed schismatic act draws near, some Catholics have begun to ask what the effects will be for the priests and laypeople who have joined the SSPX, or who regularly attend its liturgies.

So who, exactly, is going to be excommunicated? What is the nature of the impending schism? And who, exactly, becomes a “schismatic” if it all goes ahead as planned?

The Pillar explains.

Leave a comment

Remind me again, what exactly is the SSPX planning to do, and why is it a crime?

We’ve been over this a few times now.

But alright — in the words of Peter Parker — let’s do this one last time:

Episcopal consecration without a papal mandate — a bishop ordaining a man as a bishop without the explicit permission or instruction of the Bishop of Rome — is a specific crime in canon law, which carries the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication.

This means the bishop who does the consecrating and the one who is consecrated are both excommunicated by the act itself.

The SSPX superior has repeatedly made it clear in recent months that he knows this, and is going to do it anyway.

So consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate is what canon law means by ‘schism?’

Again, we’ve talked about this in detail here.

But the short answer is this: In addition to illicit consecration of a bishop there is a separate canonical crime called schism — “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

In 1988, Pope St. John Paul II stated directly that SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s plan to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate would constitute an act of schism.

John Paul wrote that “this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.”

He also wrote that “the root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops.”

After illicit episcopal consecrations, a penalty of excommunication was formally declared by John Paul II against SSPX bishops, and then remitted by Benedict XVI, who hoped that lifting the penalty would be part of an effort to reunite the group with the Church’s hierarchy.

In recent months, SSPX superior Fr. Davide Pagliarani has written several public letters and given interviews explaining that he and the SSPX still hold to the notion of tradition described by John Paul II as “incomplete and contradictory.”

And as Cardinal Fernandez made clear on Wednesday, if the consecrations go ahead in July, the SSPX will be committing the same act their previous leaders did in 1988, for the same reasons, and will incur the same consequences.

If the SSPX consecrations happen, who actually commits the schism — the bishop consecrating, the bishops being consecrated, or everyone in the room?

Well, according to the norms of canon 1387, those who perform and receive the consecration are excommunicated because of the illicit consecration itself.

As for who commits the schism, the same men are obviously and directly committing an act of schism as described and defined by the Holy See, both by St. John Paul II and by recent warnings and clarifications issued by the DDF.

But Cardinal Fernandez made a very important point on Wednesday — one not noticed by every reader.

The DDF’s statement said two things.

First, that the episcopal consecrations are an act of schism.

Second, that “formal adherence to the schism constitutes a grave offence against God and entails the excommunication established under Church law.”

That means something in canon law: That those who formally associate themselves to the schism of the organization’s leadership can incur their own excommunication. It’s a broad and significant statement — and one worth diving into.

Well, what does ‘formal adherence to the schism’ mean — how does a person formally or informally adhere?

Now we’re getting into the canonical nitty-gritty of this situation.

While the term “formal adherence” might seem very vague, it was actually defined back in 1996 by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, now the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, in reference to the schismatic nature of the SSPX.

The explanation said that “such adherence must imply two complementary elements:

• one [element] of an internal nature, consisting in freely and consciously sharing the substance of the schism, that is, in opting in such a way for the followers of Lefebvre that this option is placed above obedience to the pope (at the root of this attitude there will usually be positions contrary to the Magisterium of the Church);

• another [element] of an external nature, consisting in the externalization of that option, the most evident sign of which will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church (this is, however, a non-univocal sign, since there is the possibility that some faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of Lefebvre’s followers without sharing their schismatic spirit).”

In other words, a person could share in the schism of SSPX’s leaders — and be subject to the same excommunication — if he placed the SSPX and its actions above obedience to the pope, and manifested that disposition by some external action, which could include exclusive participation in SSPX liturgies.

Does that mean everyone goes to an SSPX Mass after July 1 is committing schism?

Not necessarily.

According to the Vatican’s statements, there is clearly some room for at least some people to participate in SSPX liturgies either without agreeing with the group’s schismatic actions, or without sufficiently manifesting that agreement externally, even if they do go to SSPX liturgies.

That’s among the reasons, for example, that attending Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel has not been ruled out as a way to meet the Sunday obligation.

In short, there is a grey area of connection to the SSPX.

But the Vatican has been clear that this grey area does not cover every lay person, and does not seem to cover SSPX clergy at all.

“In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests, it seems clear that their ministerial activity within the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign that the two requirements mentioned above (n. 5) are met and that there is therefore a formal adherence,” the 1996 guidance says.

“In the case of other faithful, however, it is obvious that occasional participation in liturgical acts or activities of the Lefebvrian movement, without adopting the movement’s attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunity, is not sufficient to constitute formal membership in the movement. In pastoral practice, it may be more difficult to assess their situation.”

TL;DR: In 1996 the Vatican said that SSPX clergy would seem to meet the requirements to be declared in schism — and be excommunicated — but that not all laypeople who attend their chapels meet those requirements.

If this document was issued in 1996, does that mean SSPX clergy have been excommunicated for schism all that time?

Well, here’s what can be said. The Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts guidance indicated that SSPX priests and deacons meet the requirements of “adhering to schism” — and thus to incur the penalty of excommunication.

But, even if actually incurred, the Apostolic See has not formally declared those priests to be in schism, or declared their excommunication.

And in recent decades, the Vatican has used other language to describe the SSPX’s status — using phrases like “imperfect communion.” At least some experts view that rhetoric as an exercise in politely veiled language; figuring that one is either in communion, or one is in schism, whether material or formal.

For some, the status of the group has seemed a bit muddled since Pope Benedict XVI lifted in 2009 declared excommunications on the surviving SSPX bishops, leading some to claim a new status, or era, for the entire society.

But when he lifted those excommunications, the pope aimed to clarify that his move was personal, not institutional, and changed nothing for the society as a group.

Benedict explained that “The excommunication [and its lifting] affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope.”

“The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties,” Benedict wrote.

“In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”

In other words, Pope Benedict was clear that he intended his act — lifting excommunications — to be a personal act, for those particular bishops, and not a kind of institutional approval.

After that, the matter got even more complex.

In the 2015 Year of Mercy during the pontificate of Francis, SSPX clerics were given confessional faculties, and also delegation to witness marriages. And while that was framed as an act of mercy toward the laypeople who attend SSPX chapels, it indicated a solicitous Vatican approach to the SSPX.

That’s why the statement from Fernandez this week has been taken as such a strong statement.

The language Fernandez used this week — and the citations in his statement — would seem to suggest a return to a more exacting legal standard for the treatment of SSPX priests and deacons — a move away from the conciliation of Benedict and Francis, toward the hardline stance to the group of Pope St. John Paul II.

OK, but if SSPX priests are in schism, does that mean their sacraments are invalid?

You might reasonably expect that, but actually no, not according to the law.

Excommunicated clergy are, among other sanctions, prohibited from “exercising any ecclesiastical offices, duties, ministries or functions,” from “celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the other sacraments,” and “from administering sacramentals and from celebrating the other ceremonies of liturgical worship.”

But being prohibited from doing a thing is not the same as being incapable of doing it — if they were the same, then the episcopal consecrations in July could just be declared invalid and there would be a lot fewer headaches for the Vatican.

There is no question that priests of the SSPX can celebrate Mass validly.

And since 2015, priests of the SSPX have had the faculty to hear confessions validly in all circumstances, not only in danger of death. Regardless of what happens in July — and even if an excommunication were declared against the priests of the SSPX — that faculty would have to be explicitly revoked to render their confessions invalid.

But while sacraments administered by SSPX clergy would still be valid — even if there was a return to the general state of schism and excommunication — there is still the legal expectation that the Church’s proper authorities would take steps to stop them from offering sacramental ministry.

In fact, canon 1331 states that if an excommunicated cleric is attempting to offer a sacrament, he “is to be removed, or else the liturgical action is to be suspended, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary.”

The reason for this is that medical penalities like excommunication — called censures — have as their primary aims the reform of the offender and the avoidance or mitigation of scandal to the wider community. That is why there is also a significant canonical difference between the external effects of a penalty like excommunication, depending on whether it has been publicly declared by a competent authority, or simply incurred automatically but not yet declared.

The law presumes that the excommunicated cleric would be in a place where the liturgy could be suspended by Church officials — imagine an excommunicated cleric trying to offer Mass in an ordinary diocesan parish church, for example.

But because the SSPX have their own buildings, it seems unlikely that diocesan bishops would have much success suspending their liturgical celebrations.

Still, the law articulates an expectation that the illicit celebration of sacraments will be stopped by competent ecclesiastical authorities — and leaves to individual bishops the discernment about the degree to which that is possible for them.

So what about ordinary laypeople who go to SSPX liturgies? What’s their status?

Well, here things get a little complicated.

In order for a crime like schism to be committed, it is necessary that there be both an internal disposition and intention to commit the crime (as defined by the competent ecclesiastical authority) and an external manifestation of the internal disposition — a clear and unambiguous act which allows the Church to judge acted on the internal intention.

As we have seen, the Vatican has made it clear that just occasionally attending SSPX liturgies doesn’t qualify as a sufficient external manifestation of “adhering” to the society’s schism.

But the 1996 PCLT text cited by Cardinal Fernandez does say that “the most evident sign [of adhering to schism] will be the exclusive participation in the Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church.”

That means it is at least possible for the Church to consider as schismatic — and subject to excommunication — a person who chooses to attend only SSPX liturgies, especially if schism is formally declared for leaders after the planned July episcopal consecrations.

The PCLT cautioned that possibility would have to be considered on a “case-by-case basis” — but it remains to be seen whether the Vatican will continue emphasizing that possibility — as its statement’s citations did this week — after the expected consecrations in July.

Moreover, diocesan bishops can legislate in their own dioceses to remove any ambiguity about the question.

In the same year the PCLT text was issued, one bishop declared that Catholics who join SSPX chapels can be subject to excommunication, an act which was upheld by the Vatican on appeal, and which remains particular law in the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska.

But the PCLT has emphasized that the moral questions about attending SSPX liturgies are the ones most important for Catholics to consider.

In other words, Catholics might not be declared in schism for attending SSPX liturgies.

But as the group’s communion with the Church becomes ever more fractured, Catholics who want to be obedient to the Church — and avoid even an undeclared-but-still-very-serious excommunication — have to consider seriously their own obligation to maintain ecclesial communion.

Subscribe now

Share

But that is the phrase Cardinal Charles Bo used to sum up the Catholic Church in Myanmar.

Read more

A 25-year-old software engineer, Joe struggled to find a long-term relationship, so he took his desire to prayer. Later that month, he met a woman named Cameron at a parish retreat.

Now, a year later, the two are engaged.

Joe has some advice for other young men facing a challenging dating scene: “Just go for it.”

“You kind of have to take things seriously yourself, and make sure that you’re entering into the dating scene with the right intentions,” Kuebler told The Pillar.

Subscribe now

But that’s a lot easier said than done, as Joe can confirm. Dating as a Catholic can be challenging. Actually, according to recent data, dating for anyone in Gen Z is no longer light and breezy, nor fun and simple.

A series of recent studies has confirmed that a growing number of young people are just not dating.

Experts cite a variety of reasons.

Financial instability may contribute to a hesitancy to pursue a relationship, while a greater focus on career may leave romantic relationships on the back burner. The rise of smart phones has brought with it the tendency toward constant distraction, as well as widespread availability of pornography, which can decrease both interest in forming romantic relationships and ability to do so.

In addition, Gen Z has unprecedented levels of anxiety, including social anxiety. It’s a generation that saw many formative teen social experiences - like prom, football games, and high school classes - canceled or altered during the Covid pandemic.

In the years since the pandemic, social interaction has not returned to pre-Covid levels. Remote work, restaurant delivery, grocery pick up, and Zoom meetings continue to be a normal part of life.

As a result, Gen Z just hasn’t developed the social muscles that previous generations have, said Dr. Timothy O’Malley, associate director of research at Notre Dame’s McGrath Institute.

“Human interaction is fairly low amongst this group that is much more comfortable communicating via device than in person, especially when it comes to having uncomfortable conversations,” he told The Pillar.

“The post-Covid world has become so digitalized and remote that there’s just so little need for human interaction anymore,” Kuebler added.

“Our social circles become so small because there’s no real, in-person interaction happening.”

Share

A study from the Survey Center on American Life found that nearly half of Gen Z adults went through their teen years without having any dating experience. And the majority of single Gen Zers – both men and women – say they are not optimistic that they will find a compatible partner.

As dating becomes less of a normal experience for young people, there’s less social expectation and pressure to spend the time and money pursuing a romantic relationship.

Dating at Villanova University has become so bad that Dr. Anna Moreland, director of the university’s honors program, has had to institute a dating assignment for her class, “Shaping an Adult Life.”

The assignment: go on a date with somebody.

She’s been teaching the class for seven years now, and every year she has to adapt the course to address new problems. The newest one: students do not know what dating even looks like.

“I find them as ill-equipped in a lot of ways to date,” Moreland told The Pillar.

“Their romantic muscles now are much weaker than they were when I arrived at college as a student, when dating was still alive in high school culture.”

Leave a comment

Vague language, vague commitments

As dating trends have shifted, so too has the terminology surrounding dating. Rather than clearly defined relationships, with a committed boyfriend and girlfriend, the young adults of today are more likely to say they are “talking” with another person.

But “talking” can mean anything from having regular text conversations to having sex, rendering the term basically meaningless in conveying actual information about a relationship between two people, Moreland said.

There’s also the “situationship” – in which two people act as though they are dating, but without formal terms or commitment.

“The language is intentionally vague,” Moreland said. Fluid terms offer a measure of self-protection to ward off potential hurt that comes from the possibility of ending a serious relationship.

But the lack of commitment among young people today has been difficult for those who are seeking a serious relationship. Nathan Henshaw, a 31-year-old engineer in Denver, said he has been on many dates, but none have stuck.

“The dating culture is pretty terrible,” Henshaw told The Pillar. “Everyone is super kind until you get to that commitment phase and then everyone just flutters out. I’ve heard so many times, ‘I need to go and pray and reflect on that.’”

“I now just assume that line is a soft no.”

The lack of committed dating is augmented by the use of social media to connect. Rather than buying a girl a drink at a bar or slipping a phone number on a napkin, guys today “slide into a girl’s DMs” to flirt.

“Even for my Catholic friends, they meet a girl and then they’re like Snapchatting, things just kind of become a relationship. It is a lot more low stakes than asking somebody out,” Danny Callaghan, a junior at Notre Dame told The Pillar. “Few people go on actual dates anymore.”

Give a gift subscription

Challenges for Catholics

Christine Emba, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Catholic, penned a recent op-ed for the New York Times examining Gen Z’s lapsed dating habits.

Emba’s article focuses on the secular dating culture. But, she told The Pillar that while she thinks Catholics probably date more than their secular counterparts, she still sees some of the same problems play out at her parish, Immaculate Conception in Washington D.C.

Catholic young adults seeking a spouse often face many of the same obstacles as their secular peers – and there are additional challenges for Catholics in the dating world as well.

One is that some Catholics put too much pressure on a date – even a first date, said Emba.

“With Catholics, there is this mindset, ‘Oh, if I ask this person on a date, it means something really serious.’ Many do not know how to treat a date as a date.”

Anna Kelly, a senior computer science major at the University of Notre Dame, agreed. She said she observes the phenomenon playing out on campus. She believes it’s antithetical to a healthy dating culture in the Church.

Kelly herself is currently single, after spending two years in a relationship earlier in college. But she knows about eight people who have gotten engaged so far this year.

She told The Pillar there are some social circles at the university where hookup culture is prevalent, but others where the focus on marriage is serious – maybe a little too serious. In particular, the desire to be engaged before graduation can create a “ring by spring” mentality that puts unnecessary pressure on relationships.

While the desire to take dating seriously may stem from the hopes of discerning marriage, and a reaction against the casual nature of the hookup culture, an overemphasis on the importance of a single date may make young Catholics hesitant to ask someone on a date, or to accept an invitation to one, Kelly suggested.

“There’s almost the mindset that asking someone out on a date has to be kind of like the end-all be-all, that you need that ring by spring, which creates some hesitancy for people there,” she said. “Guys won’t ask a girl out, and then it’s kind of like the girl can’t really do anything. That’s frustrating.”

Share The Pillar

Like Moreland, Dr. O’Malley gives students in his theology marriage course the assignment of going out on a date. And he tells them that a date should not be too serious.

“My super, super, super Catholic students have been formed to think that the beginning of every date should commence with plans to put a down payment on your 12-passenger van that you’re going to need in eight years,” O’Malley said.

“Sometimes, at the beginning of a date, you just talk to someone … so that something akin to a friendship might form,” he suggested.

Another factor cited by experts in the decline of dating is the drastic political divide by gender within Gen Z. While men of all generations tend to poll more conservative, and women tend to poll more liberal, the gap in Gen Z is far greater than in any other generation.

This divide can spill over into Catholic circles, where the image of a “trad” Catholic lifestyle has become more prominent in recent years.

The concept of a “tradwife” — a submissive stay-at-home wife invested in a traditional lifestyle — has become particularly prevalent on social media.

Rachel B, a 28-year-old artist in Denver, said in her experience, many men are looking for a “tradwife,” and this expectation creates an imbalance in a relationship.

“The random Catholic guys that I’ve gone out with want a very trad-seeming girl,” Rachel told The Pillar. “I noticed that with a lot of my friends where the relationship feels a little controlling with some of the really, really Catholic guys.”

Emba agreed, saying this mentality is both “objectifying” and “controlling.”

“There are more young men who profess to be really trad or have adopted politically right wing postures where they are only looking for submissive women who stay in the home, et cetera, et cetera,” she said. “That is not particularly attractive to women and can contribute to a negative dating culture.”

Leave a comment

Dating apps: a double-edged sword

Some Catholics looking to find someone who shares their values turn to dating apps. In addition to the plethora of secular apps, there are a number of Catholic-specific dating apps and websites.

These apps can serve as tools helping to connect likeminded Catholics. But Emba cautioned that many of these apps are built for profit, and can prioritize visuals in a dehumanizing way.

“Even Catholic dating apps, depending on the way that they’re set up, can still be like secular dating apps in the way that they emphasize visuals, how someone looks or like sort of the qualities you can list on an app instead of conversation, personality, values,” Emba said.

Henshaw, the 31-year-old engineer from Denver, compared the experience of most dating apps to window shopping.

“In an hour, I can like 40 to 50 girls on an app and you’re almost devaluing the experience of meeting someone in person,” he said.

Taylor O’Brien, the co-founder of Candid, a Catholic dating website and app, agreed that dating apps in general can be dehumanizing.

To counter a “window shopping” mentality, Candid was intentionally created without a swipe feature.

Instead, users meet in virtual speed dating events.

“Dating apps have made us see each other as a commodity. The swiping has taken away the human person, the dignity, the element of actually remembering that there’s a person on the other side of the screen,” O’Brien said.

Candid has also hosted in-person events, including two speed dating events at recent FOCUS SEEK conferences, with each drawing more than 2,000 participants.

CatholicMatch, the Catholic dating website that was founded back in 1999, has also begun hosting live events in recent months, both virtually and in-person.

Mariette Rintoul, director of community experience at CatholicMatch, told The Pillar that the events have become popular among Gen Z, who make up the majority of CatholicMatch members.

Still, Rintoul believes online dating will continue to be the bulk of what CatholicMatch offers.

“Gen Z, they want the apps, they want that convenience, and also they just like the wide range of potential people that are on our app,” she said.

Share

Encouraging dating

The in-person approach is one that Father Charles Gallagher embraced when he realized that young people at his parish weren’t pursuing relationships.

Gallagher is the pastor at Immaculate Conception Parish in Washington D.C., where some 75% of the congregation, he estimates, consists of young adults in their 20s and 30s.

A few years ago, the priest noticed that while there were plenty of young adults, they didn’t seem to be doing much dating.

In past generations, he said, relationships often began at churches. But churches are no longer the cultural centers of community that they once were.

Gallagher wanted to change that.

He started with increased opportunities for prayer, offering more chances for Eucharistic adoration and confession. He’s currently working to open a perpetual adoration chapel.

That emphasis on the spiritual life, Gallagher believes, has helped to foster a healthier dating environment.

“We have been trying to get people to really go deeper in their prayer lives because it’s from that, that they are able to be clearer about what God’s calling them to do. And not only to be clear about it, but to get the courage to pursue it,” he said.

In addition, he decided to host more social events for young people to meet one another and interact.

The parish now hosts one to two social events every month, including speed dating events, service opportunities and formal dances.

“These are just great opportunities for young people to meet each other and form friendships,” Gallagher said.

And these efforts have borne fruit, with several couples who are now engaged or married at the parish.

Young adults who spoke with The Pillar agreed that regular live events are good opportunities to meet people. But, they cautioned, the atmosphere should be lighthearted, not pressured.

“Smaller, more dedicated events would really help,” Henshaw said. “When there is a Catholic meetup and there’s 180 people, that’s just distracting and overwhelming. But smaller groups would help people be more intentional.”

O’Brien believes that even talking about dating more frequently can help normalize the experience.

“We need to make sure that as a Catholic community, that we’re supporting Gen Z and reinforcing healthy dating habits,” O’Brien said. “Making sure that people understand that it is fun and good and normal to date, that we need to bring intentionality back and take the pressure off of the all-or-nothing mindset.”

Emba added that friends and family of Gen Zers should encourage them to date – anything from a simple “you should ask her out” to an offer to set friends up on a blind date.

“Everybody should be setting everybody up more,” Emba said. “This is a clear role that anyone could play.”

And, of course, the men and women involved need to be willing to pluck up the courage to go out on a date.

“Guys need to ask out girls, girls need to say yes, and we need to tamp [down] our expectations,” said Kelly, the University of Notre Dame senior.

“When you’re asking someone out, you’re not asking them to marry you. You are just asking them out to coffee.”

Subscribe now

Cardinal Kurt Koch, prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, said in a May 11 message that he learned with great joy of Shio III’s election as the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.

The Swiss cardinal wrote: “I am certain that your service will reinforce the bonds of charity and unity which, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, we already truly share, even if not yet fully, with all those who believe in Jesus Christ, so that the Lord’s commandment may become ever more visible: ‘that you love one another as I have loved you’ (John 13:34).”

What is the Georgian Orthodox Church? Who is Shio III, and what does his election mean for Catholic-Orthodox ties?

Subscribe now

What is the Georgian Orthodox Church?

Georgia is a nation of around 3.8 million people bordering Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey. It regained independence in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But its history as a unified entity dates back to 1008 AD.

The Georgian Orthodox Church traces its origins back even further, to apostolic times. According to its tradition, its earliest communities were established directly by St. Andrew the Apostle. It was recognized as an independent, self-governing church in the 5th century.

In the 11th to 13th centuries, a period known as the Georgian Golden Age, the Georgian Church occupied an influential position within the Orthodox world, offering political and financial support to Orthodox communities across the Balkans and Holy Land.

Subscribe now

The Georgian Orthodox Church suffered persecution under Soviet rule, driven by Joseph Stalin, who, in a grim irony, had studied for the Orthodox priesthood in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, before becoming a communist revolutionary. The era forged outstanding figures, including St. Gabriel Urgebadze, who set fire to a giant portrait of Lenin at a May Day event in 1965 while denouncing the crowd’s idolatry.

In 1990, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople formally recognized the long-established self-governing status of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the title of Catholicos for its leader.

From 1977 to March 2026, the Church was led by Ilia II of Georgia, a beloved national figure. Concerned by the country’s low post-Soviet birth rate, he offered to serve as godparent to the third child onward of Georgian families. At his death, he had around 50,000 godchildren and was credited in some quarters with singlehandedly reviving the birth rate.

When Ilia II died March 17, at the age of 93, he was the longest-serving patriarch in the Georgian Orthodox Church’s history. He had ensured that the Church returned to its historic place as Georgia’s paramount religious institution. His death appeared to mark the end of an era of revival, and signal the start of a new and uncertain epoch for Georgian Orthodox Christians.

Who is Shio III?

Ilia II was frail in his final decade. In 2017, he took the precaution of appointing a locum tenens to steer the Georgian Orthodox Church following his death and until the election of a new patriarch. The man he chose was the then-Metropolitan Shio, the Bishop of Senaki and Chkhorotsku.

Shio was born Elizbar Mujiri in Tbilisi in 1969. He studied the cello at the Tbilisi State Conservatoire, graduating in 1991, before pursuing his theological studies in Georgia and Russia. He was tonsured as a monk in 1993, taking the name Shio, associated with a 6th-century saint who helped to establish Georgian monasticism.

Shio oversaw churches in Tbilisi and Moscow before his appointment as bishop in 2003. In addition to governing the Senaki and Chkhorotskuri eparchy in Georgia, he was responsible, from 2009, for Georgian Orthodox Christians in Australia and New Zealand.

His profile rose greatly with his nomination as patriarchal locum tenens, which many observers interpreted as a sign he was Ilia II’s preferred successor. He was elected May 11 by the Holy Synod, receiving 22 out of 39 possible votes.

What does his election mean?

Commentators are currently delving into Shio III’s biography in an effort to discern his position on contested Church issues. There’s a consensus that his views are close to Ilia II’s, if not identical.

Both men, for example, have not endorsed the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople’s decision to grant recognition to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in 2018. This stance underlines that the Georgian Orthodox Church has a closer affinity with the Russian Orthodox Church than the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

But there are many nuances. Ilia II reportedly criticized Patriarch Kirill of Moscow’s support for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While Shio III has biographical ties to Russia, he is now head of a fully independent Eastern Orthodox Church, not a satellite of the Moscow Patriarchate.

On relations with Rome, Ilia II’s position could be described as respectful but distant. He became the first Georgian patriarch to visit the Vatican in 1980. He welcomed Pope John Paul II to Georgia in 1999 and Pope Francis in 2016, where they also met with the country’s small Catholic community, which numbers around 112,000, according to the Vatican.

But Ilia II had reservations about the ecumenical movement that restricted his engagement. The Georgian Orthodox Church continued to be involved in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, but it was more hesitant than other self-governing Eastern Orthodox Churches. For instance, Georgian Orthodox theologians expressed concerns about the language of a 2016 Catholic-Orthodox document on primacy, but did not block its publication.

Shio III is said to share Ilia’s doubts about ecumenism and possibly be even more cautious. This may explain why the Vatican was quick to send its congratulatory message and may be eager that its representatives meet with the new patriarch at the first opportunity.

Subscribe now

I’m Luke Coppen and I aim to guide you each weekday morning to the most interesting Catholic news and commentary.

Read more

Share

Are you a paying subscriber?

1. Visit pillarcatholic.com/listen on your phone

2. Check the top right corner of the webpage to ensure you are logged into your Substack account.

3. Tap ‘set up podcast’ next to The Pillar TL;DR

Having issues? Email our producer Kate at kolivera@pillarcatholic.com

Show notes:

A bishop with t…

Read more

According to sources close to the situation, Fr. Louis Salman was interrogated by Israeli officials in late April, and soon after informed by Church leaders that he would need to leave the country for his safety. Salman was then notified officially that his visa would not be renewed, and that he should leave the country before Monday, May 11.

No official reason was given for the decision.

Hundreds gathered at his parish in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem, for a farewell Mass on Sunday before the priest left for his native Jordan.

Salman is known for being a very committed and energetic pastor, local Catholics told The Pillar.

As chaplain of the Youth of Jesus’ Homeland ministry he organized frequent events, including yearly summer camps, and led dozens of young Palestinian Christians to Rome in 2025 for the Jubilee of Hope.

But he was also an outspoken critic of the actions of Israeli forces in the West Bank, and the challenges Palestinian Christians faced in their daily lives because of them.

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which has jurisdiction over Latin Catholics in the Holy Land, has not made any official comment on the situation. A source in Jerusalem told The Pillar that the patriarchate is declining to make any public comments while it prepares for what it expects to be a drawn-out legal battle over the decision. The source said this is widely believed to be the first time Israel has involved itself in the patriarchate’s personnel decision in such a direct manner.

A person close to Salman confirmed to The Pillar that the priest had left Israel Monday “at the request of the patriarch, and for his own safety,” and that he had decided not speak publicly about the situation.

According to some reports by local press, Israel’s decision was driven by Fr. Salman’s role in organizing a prayer vigil for a Christian journalist working for Al-Jazeera who was killed during a May 2022 Israeli military operation.

Shireen Abu Akleh, who held U.S. and Palestinian citizenship, was shot in the head from a distance while she covered the operation in Jenin. Several investigations concluded that the shots had come from Israeli soldiers, but no charges have been filed in Akleh’s death.

The journalist’s funeral drew crowds and Israeli police intervened more than once during the procession, beating protesters and pulling Palestinian flags from mourners surrounding Akleh’s coffin. Israeli authorities said they were attempting to maintain public order in the face of rioters at the funeral procession.

The deadline given by the Israelis this month for Salman to leave the country coincided with the fourth anniversary of Abu Akleh’s death.

But a Christian source from the Holy Land with knowledge of the situation said that issue was not the main reason for the decision not to renew Fr. Salman’s visa.

“While that event drew significant attention, it is important to understand it was not the primary issue. The core of his problem lies in his vocal positions against daily acts by settlers in the West Bank, and the various measures implemented by the occupation authorities on the ground.”

The reference to settlers includes the activities around Taybeh, the last fully Christian town in the West Bank.

For several months, Jewish settlers have harassed the town’s residents, vandalizing buildings, destroying crops and even setting cars on fire, according to residents. To date, no settler has been arrested in connection to unrest in Taybeh.

“These actions directly impact the presence of Christians in the Holy Land, testing their resolve to withstand overwhelming socioeconomic pressures. This constant strain is stretching the local Church’s resources to their absolute limit,” the source said.

“We cannot ignore the reality that is right in front of us. These issues are visible to all who look, and they form the true context of our current situation, yet the authorities wanted him to close his mouth and act as if nothing is happening.”

Salman’s removal from the Holy Land comes at a time when tension between Israel and Christians are high.

Recent incidents include the reported assault of a Catholic nun in the Old City of Jerusalem; repeated cases of spitting on Christian religious or in the doorways of churches; at least two acts of desecration of Christian images by Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon and the decision by Israeli police to block Patriarch Pierbattista Pizzaballa from celebrating Mass in the Holy Sepulchre on Palm Sunday.

The backlash against the Palm Sunday events, which drew widespread international criticism, led Israeli prime-minister Benjamin Netanyahu to appoint a Special Envoy to the Christian World, on April 23.

George Deek, an Orthodox Christian Israeli Arab who was the first Christian ambassador of Israel, has weighed in on several of the recent incidents. In an interview with Italian Agenzia Nova, he pointed out that the spitting and violence in Jerusalem “offend not only Christians, but also the principles of dignity and mutual respect for which Israel stands.”

Regarding the desecrations in Lebanon, he told the same outlet that “what matters is how a nation responds. In both cases, the Israeli leadership clearly condemned the acts and took action.” Four soldiers were convicted and sentenced to a few weeks incarceration, as well as facing other disciplinary measures.

But in other high-profile cases no charges have been filed, including the shooting by sniper fire of a mother and a daughter in the Catholic compound in Gaza in 2023, and the shelling of the same Catholic church in July 2025, which Israel attributed to a “technical error.” Three people died in that attack, which took place three days after Cardinal Pizzaballa made a widely publicized visit to Taybeh, to show solidarity with the Christian community there and denounce settler violence.

Despite George Deek’s diplomatic overtures, local Christians charge that the situation has grown significantly worse under Benjamin Netanyahu’s current government and the appointment of Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of national security.

After the Hamas attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, Ben-Gvir pushed to accelerate weapons permits and to distribute weapons in Israel and in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Critics argued this empowered extremist groups and would contribute to increases of violence in the region.

Fr. Nikodemus Schnabel is the German Benedictine abbot of the Dormition Monastery in Jerusalem, which also runs a residence in Tabgha that was attacked in 2015 by extremist settlers who set fire to part of the building.

In an interview with AsiaNews, he explained that “the lawyer who defended the arsonists at the time was Itamar Ben-Gvir. This man, who hates Christians – who really hates Christianity – is now in charge of my security, and this is really horrible.”

Subscribe now

The Vatican announced May 11 that the pope had named Bishop Steven Lopes, the head of North America’s Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, as apostolic administrator of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.

Observers had expected a leadership transition at the Australian ordinariate since March, when Leo XIV named its previous apostolic administrator, Bishop Anthony Randazzo, as prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Legislative Texts.

Randazzo, the bishop of Australia’s Broken Bay diocese, had overseen the local ordinariate since July 2023. The Vatican confirmed May 11 that the pope had concluded Randazzo’s mandate following his Rome appointment.

Lopes discussed the significance of his nomination in a May 11 interview with The Pillar.

To put his comments in context, it’s worth recalling the background of the Australian ordinariate, which was founded in June 2012, following the creation of the U.K. Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in January 2011 and the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter in January 2012.

Subscribe now

The Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross is the smallest of the three in terms of the number of laity, priests, and parishes. But it also covers the widest geographical area, serving Japan, New Zealand, and other parts of Oceania, in addition to Australia. This helps to explain why its 13-year existence has been marked by struggle.

The Australian ordinariate was led initially by the English-born Msgr. Harry Entwistle until his retirement in 2019. He was succeeded by the Canadian Msgr. Carl Reid, who resigned in 2023, paving the way for Randazzo’s appointment.

Some ordinariate members have questioned why the new apostolic administrator isn’t another Australian bishop. But the Texas-based Lopes is already familiar with the Antipodean ordinariate because he conducted an apostolic visitation in 2022, coinciding with its 10th anniversary.

The Pillar understands that following the visitation, Rome expressed a strong commitment to the Australian ordinariate and sought ways to strengthen it. This included the appointment of Randazzo, who had also participated in the visitation.

Ordinariate members credit Randazzo with building up the organization. On April 21, he ordained two new deacons for the body.

In a May 11 message to ordinariate members, Randazzo said that Lopes was “a man of the Church and will strongly encourage the continued growth and mission of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross.”

In one of his first moves, Lopes reappointed Fr. Stephen Hill, a liturgical expert ordained as an ordinariate priest in 2013, as the Australian ordinariate’s vicar general.

In his Pillar interview, Lopes addressed the debate about the Australian ordinariate’s viability, his hopes for the body, and the obstacles to realizing them.

People have questioned the viability of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross since it was established in 2012.

Does the appointment of a second apostolic administrator in succession suggest it may not be viable in the long term?

Or does it show, on the contrary, that the Church as a whole is committed to its future?

I certainly understand some of the impressions that one can have looking at the relatively small Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross from the outside. After all, I participated in the apostolic visitation several years ago that came about precisely because of some of these impressions. But what we found, even in that process, was that impressions do not tell the full story. Or even part of it. Actually, there is plenty of life and robust faith in this ordinariate.

I recall a lecture I attended several years ago by a great Australian, Professor Tracy Rowland. She described the realized ecumenism of the ordinariate as “reweaving the ecumenical tapestry.” The face of a tapestry is a thing of great intricacy and beauty. But the back is a mess, with threads going every which direction and little discernible pattern. The early years of the ordinariate have felt and looked a bit like that!

Subscribe now

Just this past March, the Holy See published a reflection on ordinariate patrimony. It affirmed that the things that make the ordinariate distinctive, which we call patrimony, “is a way of receiving and living out the faith … it is a living reality, which looks to the future in the transmission of the faith to future generations. [It] not only equips the ordinariates to welcome communities and individuals into full communion, but also continues to shape their distinctive participation in the Church’s mission well into the future.”

So this transition of leadership is to be seen in precisely that context. This is another step in the Church’s commitment to foster the patrimony and draw out the mission of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross. The ordinariate has been given unique tools for evangelization, and I have no doubt that these tools can and will bear great fruit for the Church in Australia and Oceania. Because it already is.

And for some inside baseball, notice that my official appointment is “sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis.”

The “ad nutum” part is pretty standard in the appointment of an apostolic administrator. It simply means I’m going to work with the Holy See until such time as the Holy Father decides on the next, permanent provision of leadership.

But the “sede vacante” part is new, as this was not the case under Archbishop Randazzo. In declaring that the see of the ordinariate is vacant, the first thing I observe is that the Holy See is recognizing that it is, in fact, a see. It is a true Particular Church juridically configured to a diocese.

My role is therefore that of a custodian. I am there to offer pastoral support and governance until such time as the ordinariate receives its own bishop, as has happened in North America and in the United Kingdom.

New dioceses are not simply created out of nothing. They grow and mature over time as the parishes that constitute them grow and mature, until such time as the Church recognizes they have the ecclesial elements that call for the apostolic ministry of a bishop. I see hints of that even in how my appointment is structured.

What are your greatest hopes for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross?

I simply want more people to see the vitality that I see in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross. If you look beyond the seeming smallness of our parish communities, you will see the Church at its best. There are priests in their 70s and 80s working harder than men half their age and covering great distances for the good of souls. There are young parents finding new ways to draw on the rich English patrimony to transmit the faith to their children in a highly secular environment. There are young men and women discerning vocations and finding courage to pursue them. There are liturgies celebrated beautifully and reverently, thanking God for these blessings.

Happily, some of these things will become apparent rather quickly. Later this year, the ordinariate will celebrate the ordination of two men to the priesthood.. We will also see the dedication of a new parish church in Perth, which is the first church construction project undertaken by the ordinariate in Australia.

Vocations and parish growth do not just happen. This is grace at work, and real people faithfully receiving that grace and allowing it to bear fruit in tangible ways. That gives me hope. Real hope, which is not just a feeling but a deep trust in the Lord’s promises and not just in our own strength and ingenuity.

What do you think are the biggest obstacles to realizing these hopes?

A common challenge for the ordinariate in Australia, as well as North America, is what I have begun to call the “tyranny of distance.” Our parish communities are so far apart from one another. It becomes very difficult to gather the clergy together, let alone any of the lay faithful.

Forming a lively sense of our identity and mission in the Church is complicated enough, but when you feel isolated — that your own parish is an island — it’s all the more difficult.

Another challenge that will simply take time to overcome is that the narrative about the ordinariate is often created by people with very little actual experience of it. Simply stated, our fellow Catholics often don’t know how to describe us and so the Ordinariate gets painted with all sorts of different brushes. We are often called the “Anglican Ordinariate” … which is ecumenically insensitive to actual Anglicans and can be downright offensive to ordinariate members, many of whom entered into full communion with the Catholic Church at great personal cost.

In North America, several of our parishes from the Pastoral Provision have been in existence nearly 50 years. That means we have generations of our faithful who have grown up with our distinctive form of liturgy and parish life as simply their expression of what it means to be Catholic.

Distinctions imposed from the outside — like convert or cradle Catholic — are meaningless in the actual context of our parish life. This will be all the more true as our parishes continue to mature and grow.

Subscribe now