Italian, english, español, dutch

THE UNSUPPLIABLE CHARM EXERCISED ON CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE BY THE "THEOLOGY OF UNDERPANTS"

It is good to remind these lay people - that on the one hand they establish "How far to go?» according to theirs “pant theology” and who on the other are protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority -, than systematic protest, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people living in a relationship outside of marriage.

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article – Article print format – Article in printed format – Article in print format

.

Every ecclesial era knows its own moral deformations. One of the most recurrent - because apparently reassuring - is that which reduces the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the sexual sphere. A reduction that does not arise from moral seriousness, but by a simplification as crude as it is misleading which ends up betraying the very thing it claims to defend.

In the contemporary ecclesial debate, especially in some lay environments linked to an unspecified tradition, We are witnessing a curious and at the same time worrying phenomenon: the emergence of a sort of “underpants theology”, in which the mystery of evil is substantially limited to what happens - or is presumed to happen - from the waist down. Everything else can take a backseat: wounded charity, justice trampled upon, the manipulated truth, the violated conscience. The important thing is that the underwear stays in place, whether real or symbolic.

Morality and morality are not the same thing, it is good to clarify this immediately: they don't coincide, in fact they often oppose it. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because it is based on rigid criteria, abstract and selective, while Catholic morality is based on charity, theological virtue that does not eliminate the truth, but it makes it habitable for concrete man, fragile and sinful.

Bigotry, Puritanism in the worst sense of the word and obsessive moralism are well-known realities, but it must be said honestly that they very rarely arise from the priestly ministry lived in a holy way. More often they take shape in self-referential secular environments, in which the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated with a doctrinal security as inflexible as it is abstract.

It's not about defending a category — that of the priests — but to note a fact: lay people who have never listened to a wounded conscience, who have never accompanied a royal penitent, who have never carried the weight of certain delicate spiritual directions, they hardly possess the tools to judge the complexity of human sin with balance. Despite this, they launch themselves into themes that touch the most intimate and delicate spheres of human souls, often even in a pedantic way, thus giving secularists a bizarre image of Catholicity and increasing their prejudices and negative judgments on the Catholic Church.

The hierarchy of sins is an often forgotten truth. The Catholic moral tradition has always taught that not all sins have the same weight. There is an objective hierarchy of evil, based on the gravity of matter, on intentionality and consequences. And in this hierarchy, sins against charity, justice and truth occupy a much higher place than many sins related to the sexual sphere.

but yet, for lovers of the "underpants theology", this distinction seems unbearable. Better a serious sin against charity, as long as you are well dressed, than a human frailty experienced in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than tiring truth. Like this, what should scandalize — hatred, the lie, the abuse of power, the manipulation of consciences — is relativized, while what concerns people's intimacy becomes the privileged field of obsessive surveillance, all of which is typical – I repeat – of certain bigoted secularists, not priests.

The “underpants theology” is an obsession which often says more about those who judge than about those who are judged. The maniacal obsession with bedrooms, you have inches, to postures and presumed intentions reveals a profound difficulty in inhabiting one's own inner world. It is easier to measure the sin of others with the goldsmith's scale than to deal with one's own conscience. The priest, instead, when he seriously exercises his ministry, it starts from an elementary and anything but theoretical assumption: we are all sinners, we are the first ones called to absolve sins. It is this awareness that generates mercy, not laxity; comprehension, not relativism. Christian mercy does not arise from a minimization of sin, but from the real knowledge of man.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel reserves very harsh words not so much to manifest sinners, as for those who transform the law into an instrument of oppression. That warning from Jesus, often forgotten by professional lay moralists, remains of disconcerting relevance:

"Woe also to you, lawyers!, you load men with unbearable burdens, and those weights you do not touch with a finger!» (LC 11,46).

It is in front of this word that every easy "underpants theology" it should collapse. Because the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, of self-absolution and spiritual superiority.

A morality that loses contact with charity becomes ideology. A morality that selects sins based on its obsession ceases to be Christian. A morality that ignores the hierarchy of evil ends up protecting the most serious sins and persecuting the most visible ones.

The “underpants theology” is not a sign of faithfulness to the doctrine, but of a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. He does not defend Catholic morality: he cheats on her. E, paradoxically, it does a terrible service to the very Church it claims to want to save.

To conclude with a concrete example truly embodied: in recent days I have had the opportunity to experience the pain of a man who felt betrayed and abandoned by another man he had loved - and continued to love - with whom he had started a relationship that was then abruptly interrupted. A real pain, lacerating, who didn't need lessons, but listening. I may have made moral judgments? Perhaps I have drawn up a list of faults or measured that relationship with the scale of abstract morality? Absolutely not. My priestly task, in that moment, it was welcoming a wounded soul, collect the pain, help her - as much as possible - not to succumb to the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I can't imagine what "lesson on purity" would have received that man if he had turned to certain zealous lay leaders who, with a smiling air and glossy language, they even propose themselves as Catholic trainers, only to then allow himself to publicly insult with insolence the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and to repeatedly contest the official documents approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

Indeed, the same Lord who explains to young people on video «How far to go?» it's the usual guy who, with just as many videos, unloaded tankers of mud against Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández for a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff - and therefore an authentic act of the Magisterium -, locked up with his associates in the logic of a Church "in-my-way”, where authority is accepted only when it confirms their obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass to the theological aberration of Mary Coredemptrix.

It is therefore good to remind these lay people — which on the one hand establish «How far to go?» according to theirs “pant theology” and who on the other are protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority -, than systematic protest, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people living in a relationship outside of marriage. I state this unambiguously as a man, as a priest, as a theologian, as confessor and spiritual director. Because I'm a priest and, even before, a sinner. And for this I thank God, as two other great sinners thanked him before me: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

We would like to point out Father Ariel's latest book, a historical-theological journey into the profession of faith published on the occasion of 1700 years after the Council of Nicaea – To access the book shop click on the image

.

 

 

 

 

.

THE IRRESISTIBLE FASCINATION EXERTED ON CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE BY THE “THEOLOGY OF THE UNDERWEAR”

It is therefore fitting to remind these lay people — who on the one hand establish “how far you may go” according to their theology of the underwear, and on the other hand make themselves protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesial authority — that the systematic, public, and contemptuous contestation of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a sin far more grave, more serious, and more objectively disordered than the affective fragility of two young people who live a relationship outside of marriage.

— Eclesial actuality —

.

.

Every ecclesial age knows its own moral distortions. One of the most recurrent — precisely because it appears reassuring — is the tendency to reduce the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the sexual sphere. This reduction does not arise from moral seriousness, but from a simplification that is as crude as it is misleading, and which ultimately betrays precisely what it claims to defend.

In contemporary ecclesial debate, especially in certain lay environments loosely connected to an ill-defined notion of “tradition”, one observes a curious and at the same time troubling phenomenon: the emergence of a kind of “theology of the underwear”, in which the mystery of evil is essentially confined to what happens — or is presumed to happen — below the waist. Everything else may be relegated to the background: wounded charity, trampled justice, manipulated truth, violated conscience. What matters is that the underwear remains in place, whether real or symbolic.

Moralism and moral theology are not the same thing; this must be made clear at once. They do not coincide — indeed, they often stand in opposition. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because it is based on rigid, abstract and selective criteria, whereas Catholic moral teaching rests upon charity, the theological virtue that does not abolish truth but renders it habitable for the concrete, fragile and sinful human being.

Bigotry, puritanism in its worst sense, and obsessive moralism are well-known realities; yet it must be said honestly that they very rarely arise from a priestly ministry lived in a holy and authentic manner. Much more often they take shape in self-referential lay circles, where the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated by a doctrinal self-assurance that is as inflexible as it is abstract.

This is not a matter of defending a category — that of priests — but of acknowledging a simple fact: lay people who have never listened to a wounded conscience, who have never accompanied a real penitent, who have never borne the weight of delicate spiritual direction, can scarcely possess the tools required to judge with balance the complexity of human sin. Yet they rush headlong into issues that touch the most intimate and delicate spheres of the human soul, often in a pedantic manner, thus offering secularists a bizarre image of Catholicism and reinforcing their prejudices and negative judgments about the Catholic Church.

The hierarchy of sins is a truth that is often forgotten. Catholic moral tradition has always taught that not all sins carry the same weight. There exists an objective hierarchy of evil, grounded in the gravity of the matter, intentionality, and consequences. Within this hierarchy, sins against charity, justice, and truth occupy a far more serious place than many faults connected to the sexual sphere.

And yet, for the devotees of the “theology of the underwear”, this distinction appears intolerable. Better a grave sin against charity, provided it is well dressed, than a human fragility lived in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than demanding truth. Thus, what ought truly to scandalize — hatred, lies, abuse of power, manipulation of consciences — is relativized, while everything concerning personal intimacy becomes the privileged field of an obsessive surveillance, entirely typical — I repeat — of certain bigoted lay people, not of priests.

The “theology of the underwear” is an obsession that often reveals far more about those who judge than about those who are judged. A manic fixation on bedrooms, measurements, postures, and presumed intentions betrays a profound inability to inhabit one’s own interior world. It is easier to measure the sins of others with the goldsmith’s scale than to come to terms with one’s own conscience. The priest, on the other hand, when he exercises his ministry seriously, begins from an elementary and anything but theoretical premise: all of us are sinners — we who are first called to absolve sins. It is this awareness that gives rise to mercy, not laxity; understanding, not relativism. Christian mercy is not born from minimizing sin, but from a real knowledge of the human person.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel reserves its harshest words not so much for manifest sinners as for those who transform the law into an instrument of oppression. That warning of Jesus, so often forgotten by professional lay moralists, remains strikingly актуal:

“Woe also to you, lawyers, for you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them!” (Page 11:46)

It is before this word that every facile “theology of the underwear” ought to collapse. For the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, self-absolution, and spiritual superiority.

A morality that loses contact with charity becomes ideology. A morality that selects sins according to its own obsessions ceases to be Christian. A morality that ignores the hierarchy of evil ends up protecting the gravest sins and persecuting those that are merely more visible.

The “theology of the underwear” is not a sign of fidelity to doctrine, but of a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. It does not defend Catholic morality; it betrays it. And, paradoxically, it renders a very poor service precisely to the Church it claims to want to save.

To conclude with a concrete and truly incarnated example: in recent days I had occasion to receive the pain of an excellent young man who felt betrayed and abandoned by another young man whom he had loved — and whom he continued to love — and with whom he had entered into a relationship that was then abruptly broken off. A real, lacerating pain, which did not require lessons, but listening. Did I pronounce moral judgments? Did I draw up a casuistry of faults or measure that relationship with the scales of abstract morality? Absolutely not. My priestly task at that moment was to welcome a wounded soul, to gather its pain, and to help it — insofar as possible — not to succumb beneath the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I do not dare imagine what kind of “lesson on purity” that young man would have received had he turned to certain zealous lay animators who, with smiling faces and polished language, present themselves as Catholic formators, only then to permit themselves to publicly and insolently insult the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and to repeatedly contest official documents approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

The same individual who, in videos, explains to young people “how far you may go”, is the very one who, through other videos, has poured tanker loads of mud upon Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández for a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff — and therefore an authentic act of the Magisterium — enclosed together with his associates within the logic of a “Church my way”, in which authority is accepted only when it confirms their obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass to the theological aberration of Mary Co-Redemptrix.

It is therefore fitting to remind these lay people — who on the one hand establish “how far you may go” according to their theology of the underwear, and on the other hand make themselves protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesial authority — that the systematic, public, and contemptuous contestation of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a sin far more grave, more serious, and more objectively disordered than the affective fragility of two young people who live a relationship outside of marriage.

I affirm this without ambiguity as a man, as a priest, as a theologian, as a confessor, and as a spiritual director. For I am a priest and, before that, a sinner. And for this I give thanks to God, as before me two other great sinners gave thanks: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

THE FASCINATING AND IRRESISTIBLE ATTRACTION THAT THE “THEOLOGY OF BRAGA” EXERCISES ON CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE

It suits, well, remind these lay people - who on the one hand establish "how far you can go" according to their braga theology and on the other hand, establish themselves as protagonists of the public contempt of the legitimate ecclesiastical Authority - that the systematic, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people who have a relationship outside of marriage.

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

Every ecclesial era knows its own moral deformations. One of the most recurrent - precisely because it is reassuring - is the one that reduces the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the sexual sphere.. This is a reduction that is not born of moral seriousness, but of a simplification as crude as it is misleading, that ends up betraying precisely what it seeks to defend.

In the contemporary ecclesial debate, especially in certain lay environments linked to a poorly defined tradition, a curious and at the same time worrying phenomenon is observed: the emergence of a kind of “panty theology”, in which the mystery of evil is substantially limited to what happens — or is presumed to happen — from the waist down. Everything else can take a backseat: wounded charity, justice trampled, the manipulated truth, the violated conscience. The important thing is that the panties stay in place, sea ​​real or symbolic.

Moralism and morality are not the same; It is worth clarifying it from the beginning. They do not match and, often, they oppose. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because it is based on rigid criteria, abstract and selective, while Catholic morality is based on charity, theological virtue that does not eliminate the truth, but it makes it habitable for the concrete man, fragile and sinful.

The beguinage, puritanism in its worst sense and obsessive moralism are well-known realities; but it must be said with honesty that they are very rarely born from a priestly ministry lived holily.. They most often take shape in self-referential secular environments, in which the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated by a doctrinal security as inflexible as it is abstract.

It is not about defending a category — that of the priests — but to verify a fact: laymen who have never heard a wounded conscience, who have never accompanied a real penitent, who have never carried the weight of delicate spiritual directions, they hardly have the necessary instruments to judge with balance the complexity of human sin. Y, however, They launch into topics that touch the most intimate and delicate spheres of the human soul., often with a pedantic attitude, thus offering secularists an extravagant image of Catholicity and feeding their prejudices and negative judgments about the Catholic Church..

The hierarchy of sins is an often forgotten truth. The Catholic moral tradition has always taught that not all sins have the same weight. There is an objective hierarchy of evil, based on the gravity of matter, in intentionality and consequences. And within this hierarchy, sins against charity, Justice and truth occupy a much more serious place than many guilts linked to the sexual sphere..

However, for the adherents of the “panty theology”, This distinction is unbearable. Better a serious sin against charity, as long as you are well dressed, that a human fragility lived in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than demanding truth. So, what should shock — hatred, the lie, abuse of power, the manipulation of consciences - is relativized, while everything that refers to people's privacy becomes the privileged field of obsessive surveillance, entirely typical — I repeat — of certain blessed laymen, not from the priests.

The “panty theology” is an obsession which often says more about those who judge than about those who are judged. The manic fixation on bedrooms, centimeters, postures and presumed intentions reveal a profound difficulty in inhabiting one's own inner world. It is easier to measure another's sin with the goldsmith's scale than to face one's own conscience.. The priest, instead, when he seriously exercises his ministry, part of an elementary budget and not at all theoretical: we are all sinners, starting with us, that we are the first called to absolve sins. It is this awareness that generates mercy, not laxity; comprehension, non-relativism. Christian mercy is not born from minimizing sin, but of the real knowledge of man.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel reserve very harsh words not so much for manifest sinners, how much for those who transform the law into an instrument of oppression. That warning from Jesus, so often forgotten by professional lay moralists, retains a disconcerting relevance:

"Woe to you too, doctors of the law, that you load men with unbearable weights and you do not touch them even with a finger!» (LC 11,46)

It is before this word that all easy “panty theology” should collapse. Because the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, of self-absolution and spiritual superiority.

A morality that loses contact with charity becomes ideology. A morality that selects sins according to its own obsessions is no longer Christian.. A morality that ignores the hierarchy of evil ends up protecting the most serious sins and persecuting the most visible ones..

The “panty theology” is not a sign of fidelity to the doctrine, but from a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. Does not defend Catholic morality: betrays her. Y, paradoxically, provides a terrible service precisely to the Church that it claims to want to save.

To conclude with a concrete example and truly embodied: In recent days I had the opportunity to welcome the pain of an excellent young man who felt betrayed and abandoned by another young man whom he had loved - and whom he continued to love - and with whom he had established a relationship that was then abruptly interrupted.. a real pain, piercing, that I didn't need lessons, but listen. Did I make moral judgments?? Did I create a casuistry of guilt or did I measure that relationship with the scale of abstract morality?? At all. My priestly task at that time was to welcome a wounded soul, collect her pain and help her — as much as possible — not to succumb under the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I dare not imagine what a “lesson on purity” would have received that young man if he had turned to certain zealous lay animators who, with a smiling face and polished language, They present themselves as Catholic trainers, and then allowed himself to publicly insult with insolence the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and repeatedly answer official documents approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

The same character who in videos explains to young people "how far you can go", is the same as, through other videos, has dumped veritable tankers of mud against Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández for a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff — and, therefore, authentic act of the Magisterium —, locked together with his followers in the logic of a Church “my way”, where authority is only accepted when it confirms its obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass to the theological aberration of Mary Co-redemptrix.

It suits, well, remember these laymen — who on the one hand establish “how far you can go” according to their braga theology and on the other hand, establish themselves as protagonists of the public contempt of the legitimate ecclesiastical Authority — that the systematic, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people who have a relationship outside of marriage.

I affirm it without ambiguity as a man, as a priest, as theologian, as confessor and as spiritual director. Because I am a priest and, even before, sinner. And for that I thank God, as before me two other great sinners gave thanks: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

THE IRRESISTIBLE FASCINATION, WHICH EXERCISES THE “UNDERWEAR THEOLOGY” ON CERTAIN LAYS

It is therefore appropriate, to remind these laypeople of this - on the one hand they determine, “how far one is allowed to go” according to their underwear theology and, on the other hand, appear as protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority —, that the systematic, public and contemptuous challenge to the church's magisterium is a far more serious one, represents a more serious and objectively disordered sin than the affective fragility of two young people, who are in a relationship outside of marriage.

— Church topicality —

.

.

Every ecclesiastical era has its own moral distortions. One of the most common - precisely because it seems to have a calming effect - is this, to reduce the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the area of ​​sexuality. However, such a reduction does not arise from moral seriousness, but rather a simplification that is both gross and misleading, which in the end reveals just that, what she claims to be defending.

In the current church debate, especially in certain amateur milieus, which refer to a vaguely defined “tradition”., A phenomenon that is as strange as it is disturbing can be observed: the emergence of a kind of “underwear theology”, in which the mystery of evil is essentially limited to that, what - or what supposedly - below the belt line happens. Everything else can fade into the background: wounded charity, trampled justice, manipulated truth, violated conscience. What matters is alone, that the underwear stays in its place - be it real or symbolic.

Moralism and morality are not the same thing; This needs to be made clear from the start. They don't coincide, rather, they often contradict each other. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because he is rigid, based on abstract and selective criteria, while Catholic morality is grounded in love — that theological virtue, which does not cancel out the truth, but for the specific one, makes fragile and sinful people habitable.

Bigotry, Puritanism at its worst Sense and obsessive moralism are well-known phenomena. However, fairness must be said, that they only very rarely emerge from a holy and authentic priestly service. They arise far more often in self-referential, lay circles, in which the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated for by a doctrinal self-assurance that is as indomitable as it is abstract.

That's not what this is about, to defend a certain category - that of priests, but rather the sober statement of facts: Laymen, who have never listened to a wounded voice of conscience, who have never accompanied a real penitent, who have never borne the weight of delicate spiritual accompaniments, hardly have the necessary instruments, to give a balanced assessment of the complexity of human sin. Nevertheless, they pounce on topics, that touch the most intimate and vulnerable areas of the human soul - often in a didactic tone - and thus provide secularists with a bizarrely distorted image of catholicity, while at the same time reinforcing their prejudices and negative judgments about the Catholic Church.

The hierarchy of sins is a truth, which is often forgotten today. Catholic moral teaching has always taught, that not all sins have the same weight. There is an objective hierarchy of evil, based on the gravity of the matter, in the intention and in the consequences. Within this order, sins take place against love, Justice and truth are far more serious than many sexual offenses.

For the followers of “underwear theology” however, this distinction seems intolerable. Better a serious sin against charity, as long as she is well dressed, as a human fragility, which is lived in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than laborious truth. That's how it will be, what should actually be scandalous - hate, lie, Abuse of power, Manipulation of conscience - put into perspective, during everything, when it comes to personal intimacy, becomes the preferred field of obsessive surveillance, quite typical - I repeat - of certain bigoted laymen, not for priests.

“Underwear theology” is an obsession, which often says more about them, who judge, than about those, that is being judged. The manic fixation on the bedroom, centimeter, Attitudes and supposed intentions reveal a deep inability, to inhabit your own inner space. It's easier, to measure the sins of others with gold scales, than to face one's own examination of conscience. The priest, on the other hand, if he carries out his ministry seriously, begins from an elementary and anything but theoretical premise: We are all sinners, and we ourselves are the first, who are called to absolve sins. From this insight comes mercy, not laxity; Understanding, not relativism. Christian mercy does not arise from trivializing sin, but from a realistic knowledge of people.

It's not a coincidence, that the Gospel does not direct its harshest words so much to obvious sinners, but to them, who turn the law into an instrument of oppression. This admonition of Jesus, so often forgotten by professional amateur moralists, has a frightening relevance:

“Woe to you too, teachers of the law! You are putting burdens on people, which they can barely carry, but you yourself do not touch these burdens even with a finger.” (Page 11,46)

Any superficial “underwear theology” would have to be confronted with this word. collapse in on itself. Because the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, of self-justification and spiritual superiority.

A moral, who loses touch with love, becomes an ideology. A moral, chooses sins based on one's own obsessions, stops, to be Christian.
A moral, which ignores the hierarchy of evil, ends there, to protect the gravest sins and persecute the more visible ones.

“Underwear theology” is not a sign of fidelity to doctrine, but rather an expression of a profound misunderstanding of the gospel. It does not defend Catholic morality - it betrays it. And paradoxically, it is precisely this church, that she claims to save, a disservice.

Finally, a specific one, truly incarnated example: In the past few days I have had the opportunity, to absorb the pain of an excellent young man, who is from another young man, whom he had loved - and whom he continued to love -, felt betrayed and abandoned; he had had a relationship with him, which had suddenly and abruptly ended. A real one, wrenching pain, who didn't need any instruction, but listening. Did I make moral judgments?? Did I create a casuistry of guilt or measure this relationship using the standard of abstract morality?? Not at all. My priestly task at that moment was this, to take in a wounded soul, to collect her pain and help her - as far as possible, not to collapse under the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I dare not imagine, what “teaching about purity” this young man would have received, if he had turned to certain zealous amateur animators, who present themselves as Catholic formators with smiling faces and neat, polished language, to then allow yourself, publicly and with impudence insulting the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and repeatedly official, to challenge documents approved by the Holy Father.

The same people, which explain to young people in videos, “how far you can go”, In other videos, they poured out real dirt on Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández — because of a document, which was approved by the Pope and therefore represents an authentic act of the magisterium —, enclosed with their companions in the logic of a church “according to my taste”, in which authority is only accepted, when it confirms one's own obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass right up to the theological aberration of a “co-redemptrix” of Mary.

It is therefore appropriate, to remind these laypeople of this - on the one hand they determine, “how far one is allowed to go” according to their underwear theology and, on the other hand, appear as protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority —, that the systematic, public and contemptuous challenge to the church's magisterium is a far more serious one, represents a more serious and objectively disordered sin than the affective fragility of two young people, who are in a relationship outside of marriage.

I say this without any ambiguity — as a human being, as a Priest, as a theologian, as a confessor and as a spiritual director. For I am a priest and before that a sinner. And I thank God for that, as two other great sinners before me thanked God: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the island of Patmos, 13. January 2026

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.