The malignant narcissist and the use of blogs and social media to cause damage to the Church and her faithful servants

THE MALIGNANT NARCISSIST AND THE USE OF BLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH AND ITS FAITHFUL SERVANTS

Certain formulas typical of improvident clericalism, such as "ignore it", «don't stoop to his level», "let him talk", "in a month they will have forgotten about it" ... they produced no results and what should have been nipped in the bud was left to grow. Outcome: the silence, instead of a condemnation to oblivion it has bestowed the most effective of legitimisations.

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

The malignant narcissist is a person suffering from a serious disorder that makes him particularly harmful, as it is endowed with a personality which, if inserted into certain contexts, becomes an active principle of decay, capable of transforming human relationships into instruments of domination and destruction. It is the most degenerative form of narcissism, but above all more dangerous.

The famous Italian criminologist and psychologist Roberta Bruzzone has explored this complex figure in the scientific field, until it itself becomes the object of disturbing actions and polemical expositions, also accompanied by the presentation of complaints against him to the Order of Psychologists (cf.. who), all as happened previously for the psychologist Amedeo Cencini, priest of the Canossian Congregation, in turn the subject of similar initiatives deemed totally groundless by the competent disciplinary body (cf.. who).

In that configuration a particularly relevant dimension emerges: the systematic use of language as a tool of aggression and control. The malignant narcissist does more than just make judgments, but it builds repeated interventions, through writings and public positions, characterized by a polemical tone, delegitimizing and offensive. Verbal aggression is not occasional, but reiterated; it's not a reaction, but a method inserted within an aggressive-destructive personality combined with an implicit belief: believes he enjoys the unilateral right to offend. Just a few examples among many: he can afford to call the national President of the Journalists' Association a "rude longshoreman" and an "arrogant bastard" (cf.. who), can accuse the vicegerent archbishop of the Diocese of Rome of being a "failure in life, an incompetent and an ignorant" (cf.. who), he can write dozens of articles to insolent a cardinal to the point of accusing him of being a "liar" who "abuses consciences" (cf.. who), can be called a "village hag", of the "illiterate" and the "licker" to the director of the Vatican Media (cf.. who). However, the moment he is the object of criticism or denial - without anyone hurling the insults he usually hurls at others -, here it activates an opposite and mirror reaction: he perceives himself as a victim and declares and presents himself as such, he interprets the refutation as aggression and claims for himself a protection that he himself systematically denies to others. Reality is thus reorganized according to a scheme in which the subject, despite being the agent of the attack, represents himself as the recipient of an injustice, or discrimination. From here a reactive dynamic begins which can progressively take on increasingly invasive and violent forms.

With the construction of reiterated narratives, the repetition of accusations, insinuations and distorted readings of the facts, the malignant narcissist creates a climate of suspicion over time around the identified targets. He even uses judicial instruments, not to protect a right, but as means of pressure to try to hit and wear down the other with actions of disturbance and intimidation. For this purpose, he is able to identify and involve professionals who, far from being alpha males, due to weakness and lack of critical clarity they end up supporting its dynamics, giving rise to legal actions without real consistency, bending the exercise of the profession to a function of indirect aggression through reckless complaints and summonses which do not even pass the preliminary stages of judicial scrutiny, but they still produce wear and tear, waste of resources and continuous pressure. In this way, even law is transformed into an instrument of violence. The malignant narcissist does not need to win: he just needs to activate the mechanism. For him, disturbing is already hitting and hitting is already a form of self-affirmation for him (cf.. who).

The destruction of the other thus it occurs mainly through erosion. We don't necessarily see a direct attack, but to a progressive emptying of authority: allusions, combinations, insinuations, malicious readings of the facts end up creating a negative perception that precedes and replaces the judgment on reality. Added to this is the absence of limits, given by the fact that you are not faced with occasional deviations, but to a configuration in which the lie, manipulation, delegitimization and destruction of other people's reputations become ordinary tools. In this perspective, sexuality also loses its human and relational meaning by being reduced to a means. It is no longer a disordered expression of fragility, but a tool used consciously to obtain consensus, exert influence, create bonds of dependence or consolidate acquired positions. The relationship with the body and with others is thus deformed in a functional sense: there is no more meeting, but I use; there is no longer a relationship, but I check.

In this reduction of sexuality to an instrument a further step appears. Where the possibility of an authentic relationship is lost, the need for affirmation and domination does not disappear. The other, already deprived of his personal consistency, it is no longer just used, but progressively subjugated. The relationship, emptied from the inside, leaves room for a dynamic in which control replaces meeting. It is in this context that the sadistic component also emerges. The malignant narcissist not only feels no remorse for the harm done, but comes to derive a form of pleasure in seeing the other humiliated, isolated, destroyed. The suffering of others no longer represents a limit, but it becomes confirmation of one's dominion. This is also why it is difficult to fight the malignant narcissist, because whoever does it is internally endowed with scruples, of an ethical sense, but above all of limits. With the malignant narcissist the fight is unequal and very difficult, because for his part he is devoid of scruples and ethical sense, but above all it knows no limits.

The very place of pleasure, in the malignant narcissist is progressively transferred. That which in the human order finds its fulfillment in eros, in the relationship and in the gift, it is emptied and relocated elsewhere. Where the affective dimension is compromised, he never stops seeking pleasure, but it alters its location and structure. It is no longer the encounter with the other that generates it, but his subjugation; it is no longer reciprocity, but the dominion; it is no longer communion, but destruction. In this sense, sadism is not a secondary addition, but the very place in which pleasure is relocated. The pain inflicted on another is not a side effect, but it becomes a principle of gratification. It is in this way that a radical overturning of the human order is achieved: what should constitute a limit - the harm caused - is internally taken as a criterion of confirmation and as a source of pleasure.

Added to this is a further element, often overlooked: the malignant narcissist, despite being an active subject of destructive dynamics, it can be used by more lucid and unscrupulous subjects, who operate within the same ecclesial bodies, becoming an operational tool for strategies that are suggested to him. Its psychological structure makes it particularly predisposed to being activated through flattery and confirmation dynamics: it is enough to make them believe that they are exercising a decisive role or acting in the name of a superior interest. In tal modo, he lends himself to carrying out attack functions, of disturbance and delegitimization. What makes this dynamic insidious is the dissociation between those who act and those who direct the action in an indirect and often anonymous way, avoiding personal exposure; while the malignant narcissist, having nothing to lose on the ecclesial level, professional and patrimonial, takes on the visible action, becoming the exposed face, your blog and social, of other people's initiatives. What in the language of political science is known as a “useful idiot”: he who supports an ideology without understanding its real aims and ends up causing harm to himself.

The most revealing trait remains the response to criticism. Any attempt to bring the facts back to their truth is experienced as a threat. From here arises a reaction that does not aim at clarification, but to the neutralization of the interlocutor. In that process, truth ceases to be a criterion and becomes variable. What matters is not what is, but what can be imposed as such. And if what he said is denied and proven to be false (cf.. who), his reactions will take the form of furious destructive violence. Because of this, Such personalities who take root in the Church do not represent just an individual problem, but a factor of structural alteration. The most serious damage is not only that caused to individual people, but the one inflicted on ecclesial credibility itself.

The responsibilities of the Ecclesiastical Authorities are serious who have omitted any intervention to protect the image of the Church, of the Holy See and its repeatedly insolent servants. Certain formulas typical of improvident clericalism, such as "ignore it", «don't stoop to his level», "let him talk", "in a month they will have forgotten about it" ... they produced no results and what should have been nipped in the bud was left to grow. Outcome: the silence, instead of a condemnation to oblivion it has bestowed the most effective of legitimisations, because those who act systematically through these channels social it draws strength precisely from the absence of a response which ends up conferring a license of impunity, giving the person the belief that they can act without consequences and raising the level of the offense from time to time.

And let's not overlook the serious damage produced more subtly and dangerously within the clergy. It is in fact in the ordinary fabric of ecclesial life, between canons, sacristy, rainbow aesthetic monasteries and daily conversations, that a simple and devastating belief took shape: if that blogger continues to attack and insolent ecclesiastics, prelates and departments of the Holy See without anyone intervening, then what he says must be true, especially considering how confidently he states in his videos: «we in the Vatican … here in the Vatican … here in the Vatican …». In fact, it should not be forgotten that even among the clergy there are simple and fragile men, Perhaps now more than ever. He therefore would not have the duty, Authority Ecclesiastica, folded in its own omissive silence generated by a sense of superiority, to protect them and protect them from the poison of false and misleading news?

Especially after particularly offensive attacks, the person in question claims that no one has ever reported him and his blog, Why, according to him, spreads incontrovertible truths, blankets — no less! — from evidentiary documents that he is ready to bring out if anyone dares to deny him. This is how silence and clerical inaction are overturned and transformed into elements of legitimation. The whole, thanks to a self-absolutizing clericalism, marked by a sense of sterile superiority and, because of this, profoundly self-defeating. Because, as the facts show, many priests don't read Future but they read that blog of poisonous and poisonous gossip.

Congratulations to the beautiful clerical silence which he ignores and would never stoop to certain levels, by virtue of his presumed superiority which leads him not to see and not to hear; so, to remain silent and not defend, from the false and the violent, the priests and the People of God, who no longer even know the existence of The Osservatore Romano, but on the other hand they know that Lord who confidently states «we are in the Vatican … here in the Vatican … here in the Vatican …».

Congratulations to the beautiful clerical silence!

From the island of Patmos, 31 March 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

.

______________________

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

The genius of Vauro: the Israeli-Palestinian tragedy all in one cartoon

THE GENIUS OF VAURO: THE ISREAEL-PALESTINIAN TRAGEDY ALL IN ONE CARTOON

Eras now gone, When, despite all the differences involved, sometimes even abysmal, the highest level cultural pages could be read on The Manifesto, The Unity, The Osservatore Romano e La Civiltà Cattolica.

– The briefs of the Fathers of the Isle of Patmos –

Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos

.

To the question: what genius consists of? We could respond in various ways: Brilliant is the one who manages to express everything with a single brushstroke: a phrase, an image, in this case an apparently satirical cartoon.

– © Il Fatto Quotidiano –

The author is Vauro Senesi, historic newspaper cartoonist The Manifesto, where he worked for many years alongside editorialists of great cultural and political importance such as Luigi Pintor and Rossana Rossanda. Eras now gone, When, despite all the differences involved, sometimes even abysmal, the highest level cultural pages could be read on The Manifesto, The Unity, The Osservatore Romano e La Civiltà Cattolica.

His friend Vauro Senesi witnessed that great season, passed, but remained indelible in the history of the country.

From the island of Patmos, 31 March 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 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

.

.

Monte Carlo and the young Pope cooked by the nun – Montecarlo and the young Pope cooked by the nun – Monte Carlo and the young Pope cooked by the nun

Italian, english, español

 

MONTECARLO AND THE YOUNG POPE COOKED BY THE NUN

The Principality of Monaco, which has always had a privileged relationship with the Holy See, has a seat at the UN, while the Vatican is only an observer. Perhaps certain dialogues or meetings are held because they can have them, albeit silently and with soft feet, even other implications that do not tickle populism? Go and explain it to those who comment easily on social media.

.

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

 

.

When I was a young man with high hopes the only one who noticed it was a very good nun who spent much of her religious life feeding philosophy and theology students, with its kitchen. The nun envisaged a future for me as Pope. Not just a remote eventuality, but belonging to the realm of the impossible. For more, if we see what it means to be the Pope today in the time of the internet and gods social media, a career of that kind would rather be discouraged than hoped for. Newspapers or agencies give news of something the Pope has said or done? Open up heaven. Comments rain immediately, criticism and comparisons. There is someone who takes care to verify the news or evaluate it? Let's imagine. If it has already been ruminated on and prepared to be read, in case anticipated by some little title that gets likes, how do you say, the game is done. Tomorrow is another day anyway and that will be old news by now. Meantime, the flow of illiteracy that leaves no one behind continues unstoppable, even a successor of Saint Peter.

Take for example the recent trip of the Holy Father in the Principality of Monaco, The second one. But how, a Pope who goes to the kingdom of the rich, of ostentatious luxury and tax evasion? With the jarring confrontation with Francesco just around the corner, his first trip, instead he did it in Lampedusa. But if you think that even that trip was not free from criticism, you are wrong. Only now the comparison becomes useful and even good Christians fall for it, forget about that guy who was once called a glutton and a drunkard, friend of prostitutes and publicans, who didn't disdain getting help from Giovanna, wife of Cuza, Director of Herod (Mt 11,18-19; LC 8,3).

What if the Pope had gone to Munich on purpose precisely to remember what the Gospel says to those who have more than others? Easy to say in Lampedusa, try saying it in front of those who have the money, and how; with the risk of being told what the Athenians said to Paul by patting him on the shoulder: «We'll hear from you another time about this» (At 17, 32). Without the fact, not secondary, that in the Principality of Monaco there is a Catholic community which has always had a privileged relationship with the Holy See, has a seat at the UN, while the Vatican is only an observer. Perhaps certain dialogues or meetings are held because they can have them, albeit silently and with soft feet, even other implications that do not tickle populism? Go and explain it to those who comment easily on social media. They don't have time to read what the Pope said to Prince Albert II in Monaco, when he recalled that the countries of the «Mediterranean (I'm) today threatened by a widespread climate of closure and self-sufficiency". Than living in an elite place, although composite «it represents for some a privilege and for all a specific call to question their place in the world. In the eyes of God, nothing is received in vain! As Jesus suggests in the parable of the talents, what has been entrusted to us should not be buried underground, but put into circulation and multiplied in the horizon of the Kingdom of God.

This horizon is broader than the private one and it is not about a utopian world: God's Kingdom, to which Jesus consecrated his life, it's close, because he comes among us and shakes up the unjust configurations of power, the structures of sin that dig chasms between the poor and the rich, between the privileged and the discarded, between friends and enemies. Every talent, every opportunity, every good placed in our hands has a universal destination, an intrinsic need to be unrestrained, but redistributed, so that everyone's life is better. This is why Jesus taught us to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Mt 6,11); and at the same time he says: «Search, first of all, the kingdom of God and his justice" (Mt 6,33). This logic of freedom and sharing is at the foundation of the parable of the Last Judgment, which has the poor at its centre: Christ the judge, who sits on the throne, he identifies with each of them (cf. Mt 25,31-46). Anyone who wants to understand should not have much effort. He reminded the Catholic community:

«Cristo […] dynamic center, heart of our faith […] His compassionate and merciful trait makes him an "advocate" in defense of the poor and sinners, certainly not to indulge evil, but to free them from oppression and slavery and make them children of God and brothers among themselves. It is no coincidence that the gestures performed by Jesus are not limited to the physical or spiritual healing of the person, but they also include an important social and political dimension: the healed person is reinstated, in all its dignity, in the human and religious community from which, often precisely because of his condition of illness or sin, had been excluded. This communion is the sign par excellence of the Church, called to be in the world a reflection of the love of God who does not show preference for people (cf. At 10,34). In this sense, I would like to say that your Church, here in the Principality of Monaco, possesses great wealth: be a place, a reality in which everyone finds welcome and hospitality, in that social and cultural mix that is your typical trait. The Principality of Monaco, indeed, it is a small state inhabited in a varied way by Monegasques, French, Italians and people of many other nationalities. A small cosmopolitan state, in which the variety of origins is also associated with other socioeconomic differences. In the Church, these differences never become an occasion for division into social classes but, on the contrary, everyone is welcomed as people and children of God, and all are recipients of a gift of grace that encourages communion, brotherhood and mutual love. This is the gift that comes from Christ, our advocate with the Father. Indeed, we have all been baptized in Him and, therefore, says Saint Paul, “there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is no slave nor free; there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus". (Gal 3,28) (cf.. official speech in the video, who).

Then there was also the meeting with the young people which I omit because what I have reported is enough for me to underline that even the Petrine ministry is going through the crisis that envelops today's communication and that those who rely on the titles already set, they leave out the effort, although beautiful, to delve deeper and know.

Then there is one last aspect. Words are like seeds, they need time to germinate. In the Church quite a lot. When Benedict XV, in the midst of the First World War, defined that war: "useless massacre"; that expression, as one historian put it, «he stayed, and raised a storm". It was opposed by everyone, received with indifference by the press, by politicians and even accused of weakening the troops at the front. Today we recognize it as the most fitting definition of a tragic event and rightly consigned to history. Without that statement another Pope, Paul VI, he could not have uttered the equally famous cry in the UN assembly: «Never again war, never again war!». Today it is normal to think of popes as men of peace.

I started by mentioning the good cooking of a nun. In the same period, a few days before the conclave that would elect him began, I was mandated - I confess, without much desire - to serve Mass to Cardinal Albino Luciani, at the Church of San Marco in Piazza Venezia in Rome. We were two acolytes, the rector of the church and four cats of believers. After Mass, in the sacristy, not knowing what to say I left: "Eminence, congratulations". He looked at me good-naturedly and then said: «You know what they say in my country?». the: «no…». And he told me it in dialect and then translated it for me: «You can't make gnocchi with this pasta».

You can see that from up there someone knows how to cook better than us. It's that in the Church words are like some foods: they prefer slow and prolonged cooking, so that they can then be enjoyed in all their aromatic ranges. Today we feed on fast food, even in the news we scroll through on our smartphones. It's our time and nothing can be done about it. Maybe just remember that Guy I mentioned earlier, the one who asked for financial help from women. He once said that the Word of the Kingdom of God is like a seed that falls on different soils, some quite refractory, others more well disposed. And there it bears fruit. The divine Sower doesn't care much about the soil, but of the fruit yes, if necessary, good food too.

From the Hermitage, 30 March 2026

.

MONTECARLO AND THE YOUNG POPE COOKED BY THE NUN

The Principality of Monaco, which has always maintained a privileged relationship with the Holy See, holds a seat at the United Nations, while the Vatican is only an observer. Perhaps certain dialogues or meetings take place because they may have, even if silently and with soft steps, further implications that do not lend themselves to populist appeal? Try explaining that to those who are quick to comment on social media.

.

When I was a young man full of promise, the only one who seemed to notice was a very good nun who spent a large part of her religious life feeding students of philosophy and theology with her cooking. The religious sister envisaged for me a future as Pope. An eventuality not only remote, but belonging to the realm of the impossible. Moreover, if we consider what it means today to be Pope in the age of the internet and social media, such a career would be more to be discouraged than desired. Do newspapers or agencies report something that the Pope has said or done? All hell breaks loose. Comments, criticisms, and comparisons immediately pour down. Is there anyone who takes the trouble to verify the news or to examine it? Hardly. If it has already been chewed over and prepared so that it can be read, perhaps preceded by some catchy headline designed to attract likes, as they say, the game is done. After all, tomorrow is another day and that will already be old news. Meanwhile, the relentless flow of an illiteracy that spares no one continues, not even a successor of Saint Peter.

Let us take as an example the recent journey of the Holy Father to the Principality of Monaco, the second. What then, a Pope who goes to the realm of the rich, of ostentatious luxury and of tax evasion? With, just around the corner, the striking comparison with Francis who, on his first journey, went instead to Lampedusa. But if you think that even that journey was not without criticism, you are mistaken. It is only that now the comparison proves useful, and even good Christians fall into it, forgetful of that One who was once called a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of prostitutes and tax collectors, who did not disdain to be assisted by Joanna, the wife of Chuza, steward of Herod (Mt 11:18–19; Page 8:3).

What if the Pope had gone to Monaco precisely to remind those who have more than others of what the Gospel says to them? It is easy to say it in Lampedusa; try saying it in front of those who truly have money, and plenty of it, at the risk of hearing the very words that the Athenians addressed to Paul, patting him on the shoulder: “We will hear you again about this” (Acts 17:32). Leaving aside the not insignificant fact that in the Principality of Monaco there exists a Catholic community which has always maintained a privileged relationship with the Holy See, it holds a seat at the United Nations, while the Vatican is only an observer. Perhaps certain dialogues or meetings take place because they may have, even if silently and with soft steps, further implications that do not lend themselves to populist appeal? Try explaining that to those who are quick to comment on social media. They do not have the time to read what the Pope said in Monaco to Prince Albert II, when he recalled that the countries of the “Mediterranean (are) today threatened by a widespread climate of closure and self-sufficiency”. That living in an elite place, albeit a composite one, “represents for some a privilege and for all a specific calling to question their place in the world. In the eyes of God, nothing is received in vain! As Jesus suggests in the parable of the talents, what has been entrusted to us must not be buried underground, but set in motion and multiplied within the horizon of the Kingdom of God.”

That horizon is broader than the private one and does not concern a utopian world: the Kingdom of God, to which Jesus devoted his life, is near, because it comes among us and shakes the unjust configurations of power, the structures of sin that dig abysses between the poor and the rich, between the privileged and the discarded, between friends and enemies. Every talent, every opportunity, every good placed in our hands has a universal destination, an intrinsic requirement not to be withheld, but to be redistributed, so that the life of all may be better. For this reason Jesus taught us to pray: “Give us this day our daily bread” (Mt 6:11); and at the same time he says: “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Mt 6:33). This logic of freedom and sharing is at the foundation of the parable of the Last Judgment, which places the poor at the center: Christ the judge, who sits on the throne, identifies himself with each one of them (cf. Mt 25:31–46). Whoever wishes to understand should not find it too difficult. To the Catholic community he recalled:

“Christ […] the dynamic center, the heart of our faith […] His compassionate and merciful disposition makes him an ‘advocate’ in defense of the poor and of sinners, certainly not in order to condone evil, but to free them from oppression and slavery and to make them children of God and brothers and sisters among themselves. It is no coincidence that the actions performed by Jesus are not limited to the physical or spiritual healing of the person, but also include an important social and political dimension: the person who is healed is reintegrated, in all his dignity, into the human and religious community from which, often precisely because of his condition of illness or sin, he had been excluded. This communion is the preeminent sign of the Church, which is called to be in the world a reflection of the love of God who shows no partiality (cf. Acts 10:34). In this sense, I would like to say that your Church, here in the Principality of Monaco, possesses a great richness: being a place, a reality in which all find welcome and hospitality, in that social and cultural mixture which is a characteristic of yours. The Principality of Monaco, in fact, is a small State, yet inhabited in a varied way by Monegasques, French, Italians and people of many other nationalities. A small cosmopolitan State, in which to the variety of origins are also joined other differences of a socio-economic kind. In the Church, such differences never become an occasion for division into social classes; on the contrary, all are welcomed as persons and as children of God, and all are recipients of a gift of grace that fosters communion, fraternity and mutual love. This is the gift that comes from Christ, our advocate before the Father. Indeed, we have all been baptized in Him and therefore, as Saint Paul affirms, ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’” (Gal 3:28) (cf. official address in the video by Vatican News, here).

Then there was also the meeting with the young people, which I omit because what I have reported is enough for me to underline that even the Petrine ministry is traversed by the crisis that envelops contemporary communication, and that those who rely on pre-packaged headlines neglect the effort — though a beautiful one — of going deeper and of knowing.

There is then one last aspect. Words are like seeds; in order to germinate they need time. In the Church, quite a lot of it. When Benedict XV, in the midst of the First World War, defined that war as an “useless slaughter”, that expression, as a historian put it, “remained, and stirred up a storm”. It was opposed by everyone, received with indifference by the press and by politicians, and even accused of weakening the troops at the front. Today we recognize it as the most fitting definition of a tragic event, rightly consigned to history. Without that statement, another Pope, Paul VI, would not have been able to pronounce, in the assembly of the United Nations, the equally famous cry: “No more war, never again war!”. Today it is normal to think of the pontiffs as men of peace.

I began by mentioning the good cooking of a nun. In that same period, a few days before the conclave that would elect him began, I was sent — I confess, not very willingly — to serve Mass for Cardinal Albino Luciani at the Church of San Marco in Piazza Venezia in Rome. There were two of us altar servers, the rector of the church, and a mere handful of faithful. After Mass, in the sacristy, not knowing what to say, I blurted out: “Your Eminence, my best wishes.” He looked at me kindly and then said: “Do you know how we say it in my village?” I replied: “No…”. And he told me in dialect and then translated it: “With this dough, you can’t make gnocchi.”

It would seem that someone up there knows how to cook better than we do. The point is that in the Church words are like certain foods: they prefer slow and prolonged cooking, so that they may then be savored in all their aromatic layers. Today we feed on fast food, even in the news we scroll through on our smartphones. It is our time, and there is nothing to be done about it. Perhaps only to recall that One I mentioned earlier, the one who allowed himself to be supported financially by women. Once he said that the Word of the Kingdom of God is like a seed that falls on different kinds of soil, some rather resistant, others more receptive. And there it bears fruit. The divine Sower is not so concerned with the soil, but with the fruit — and, when needed, with good cooking as well.

From the Hermitage, 30 March 2026

.

MONTECARLO AND THE YOUNG POPE COOKED BY THE NUN

The Principality of Monaco, which has always maintained a privileged relationship with the Holy See, has a seat in the UN, while the Vatican is just an observer. Perhaps certain dialogues or meetings are carried out because they may have, even if it is silently and with plush steps, even other reaches that do not flatter populism? Go explain it to those who comment easily on social media

.

When I was a young man full of hope, The only one who seemed to notice was a very good nun who spent much of her religious life feeding philosophy and theology students with her cooking.. The nun predicted a future for me as Pope. An eventuality not only remote, but belonging to the realm of the impossible. Besides, if we consider what it means to be Pope today in times of the internet and social networks, a race of that type would be more to advise against than to wish. Do newspapers or news agencies report anything the Pope has said or done?? The sky is armed. Comments immediately rain, reviews and comparisons. Is there anyone who takes the trouble to verify the news or examine it? Don't even think about it. If it has already been ruminated and prepared to be read, perhaps preceded by some like-catching headline, as they say, the game is done. Total, Tomorrow is another day and that will be old news. Meanwhile, The flow of illiteracy that leaves no one out continues unstoppable., not even a successor of Saint Peter.

Let's take as an example the recent trip of the Holy Father to the Principality of Monaco, the second. But how is it possible?, A Pope who goes to the kingdom of the rich, of ostentatious luxury and tax evasion? With, immediately around the corner, the strident comparison with Francisco, who, on his first trip, went instead to Lampedusa. But if you think that that trip was not without criticism either, you are mistaken. Only now the comparison is useful, and even good Christians fall into it, forgetful of Him who was once called a glutton and a drinker, friend of prostitutes and publicans, who did not disdain to let Juana help, woman of Cusa, Herod's administrator (Mt 11,18-19; LC 8,3).

What would happen if the Pope had gone to Monaco? to remember what the Gospel says to those who have more than others? Easy to say in Lampedusa; try to say it in front of those who have money, and a lot; with the risk of hearing himself answer the same thing that the Athenians said to Paul, patting him on the shoulder: «We will hear from you again about this» (Hch 17,32). Leaving aside the fact, not secondary, that in the Principality of Monaco there is a Catholic community that has always maintained a privileged relationship with the Holy See, has a seat in the UN, while the Vatican is just an observer. Perhaps certain dialogues or meetings are carried out because they may have, even if it is silently and with plush steps, even other reaches that do not flatter populism? Go explain it to those who comment easily on social media. They do not have time to read what the Pope said in Monaco to Prince Albert II, when he recalled that the countries of the «Mediterranean (are) today threatened by a general climate of closure and self-sufficiency". Than living in an elite place, although composed, «represents for some a privilege and for everyone a specific call to question their own place in the world. In the eyes of God, nothing is received in vain. How Jesus makes us understand in the parable of the talents, what has been entrusted to us should not be buried underground, but put into circulation and multiplied on the horizon of the Kingdom of God.

That horizon is broader than the private one and it does not refer to a utopian world: the Kingdom of God, to whom Jesus has consecrated his life, is about, because he comes among us and shakes the unjust configurations of power, the structures of sin that open chasms between the poor and the rich, between privileged and discarded, between friends and enemies. every talent, every opportunity, Every good placed in our hands has a universal destiny, an intrinsic demand not to be held back, but redistributed, so that everyone's life is better. That is why Jesus has taught us to pray: "Give us today our daily bread" (Mt 6,11); and at the same time says: «Seek, first of all, the Kingdom of God and his justice" (Mt 6,33). This logic of freedom and sharing is at the base of the parable of universal judgment, that has the poor at the center: Christ judge, who sits on the throne, identifies with each one of them (cf. Mt 25,31-46). Whoever wants to understand should not find much difficulty. He reminded the Catholic community:

«Cristo […] dynamic center, heart of our faith […] His compassionate and merciful trait makes him a “lawyer” in defense of the poor and sinners., certainly not to support evil, but to free them from oppression and slavery and make them children of God and brothers among themselves. It is no coincidence that the gestures performed by Jesus are not limited to the physical or spiritual healing of the person., but also include an important social and political dimension: the cured person is reinstated, in all its dignity, in the human and religious community of which, often precisely because of their condition of illness or sin, had been excluded. This communion is the sign par excellence of the Church, called to be in the world a reflection of the love of God who is no respecter of persons (cf. Hch 10,34). In this sense, I would like to say that your Church, here in the Principality of Monaco, has great wealth: be a place, a reality in which everyone finds welcome and hospitality, in that social and cultural mix that is a typical feature of yours. The Principality of Monaco, indeed, It is a small inhabited state, however, variously by Monegasques, French, Italians and people of many other nationalities. A small cosmopolitan state, in which other socioeconomic differences are also added to the variety of origins. In the Church, Such differences never become an occasion for division into social classes., but, on the contrary, all are welcomed as people and children of God, and all are recipients of a gift of grace that fosters communion, brotherhood and mutual love. This is the gift that comes from Christ, our lawyer before the Father. Indeed, We have all been baptized into Him and, therefore, Saint Paul affirms, “there is no Jew or Greek; there is no slave nor free; there is no man or woman, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.". (Gal 3,28) (cf. official speech in the video, here).

Then there was also the meeting with the young people, which I omit because what I have mentioned is enough for me to emphasize that even the Petrine ministry is going through the crisis that surrounds current communication and that those who rely on already prefabricated headlines neglect the effort - although beautiful - to go deeper and to know.

There is also one last aspect. Words are like seeds: they need time to germinate. In the Church, quite. When Benedict XV, in the midst of the First World War, He defined that war as "useless slaughter", that expression, as a historian said, "it stood and raised a storm". It was fought by everyone, received with indifference by the press and by politicians, and even accused of weakening the troops on the front. Today we recognize it as the most accurate definition of a tragic event., rightly consigned to history. Without that statement, another Pope, Paul VI, would not have been able to utter the equally famous cry within the UN: «Never again war, never again war!». Today it is normal to think of the pontiffs as men of peace.

I began alluding to the good cooking of a nun. In that same period, a few days before the conclave that would elect him began, I was sent - I confess, without much desire — to serve Mass for Cardinal Albino Luciani, in the church of San Marco in Piazza Venezia, in Rome. We were the acolytes, the rector of the church and four cats of faithful. After Mass, in the sacristy, without knowing what to say, I blurted out: "Eminence, congratulations». He looked at me benevolently and then said: «Do you know how they say in my town?». Yo: «no…». And he told it to me in dialect and then he translated it for me: «Gnocchi is not made with this dough».

It seems that up there someone knows how to cook better than us.. In the Church, words are like certain foods.: They prefer slow and long cooking, so that they can then be savored in all their aromatic notes. Today we eat fast food, also in the news that we scroll through on our smartphones. It's our time and nothing can be done about it. Maybe just remember the One I mentioned before, the one who allowed himself to be helped financially by women. He once said that the Word of the Kingdom of God is like a seed that falls on different soils., some quite refractory, others more willing. And there it bears fruit. The divine Sower does not care so much about the ground, but of the fruit yes, and, when required, also good cuisine.

From the Hermitage, 30 March 2026

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

 

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

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

.

.

.

.

.

But The Holy Father, first among the useless servants, he might even pay me royalties – However, the Holy Father, first among useless servants, could also pay me copyright fees – The Holy Father, first among useless servants, could you also pay me the copyright

Italian, English, Español

 

BUT THE HOLY FATHER, FIRST AMONG THE USELESS SERVANTS, YOU COULD ALSO PAY ME FOR COPYRIGHTS

We have raised generations of priests who, instead of serving the Church to be nothing and nobody, they used it to become and be something and someone. Only God can read consciences and He only knows how many, today, among the marbles of the sacred palaces, they hope to become cardinals at the next consistory rather than saints. but yet, to become saints, we need to make ourselves useless, don't become cardinals: because with a purple obtained badly and used worse you risk arriving in Hell business class.

- Church news -

.

.

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

.

During my useless existence as a priest, it happened several times, with the Holy Father Francis of blessed memory and with the reigning Pontiff Leo XIV, of having expressed concepts - some of which even irritated some candid souls at the time - that later, years or months later, they were developed and inserted in texts of the magisterium or in pontifical speeches. Nothing exceptional: we are and remain "useless servants". This last phrase is taken from the Gospel, on which I based the homily, the 15 September 2025, at the funeral of the Apostolic Nuncio Adriano Bernardini, marking him as a "useless servant" (see who).

The journey of faith unites mystery and paradox together, as summarized by the famous expression contained in the Letter to the Hebrews: "Faith is the foundation of the things that are hoped for and the proof of those that are not seen" (EB 11,1). In this statement, which from a purely rational perspective appears contradictory, the very structure of faith is contained: it is not based on evidence, but on what exceeds the evidence; it doesn't demonstrate what you see, but it makes certain what is not seen. It is perhaps not paradoxical to be called to fulfillment precisely through the awareness of our uselessness? And yet this is precisely the point: faith does not confirm the categories of common logic, but it goes beyond them, introducing man into an order in which what appears nothing becomes the place of God's action:

«when you have done everything you were ordered to do, said: “We are useless servants. We did what we had to do "" (LC 17,10).

The first among us useless servants is Leo XIV, also called Servant of the servants of God (servant of the servants of God). Papal title assumed - we remember it incidentally - by Gregory the Great around 595, purpose, first and certainly not last, to give a thrust to the Patriarch of Constantinople, John IV known as the Faster, who had given himself the title of "ecumenical" (universal), harshly contested by Gregory the Great in his Letters (cf.. Register of Letters, V, 18; V, 20; VII, 33).

In conclusion, what it means to become and be priests? It means being nothing and no one at the service of everyone, to then reach the end of one's existence in the hope of being able to say in conscience: I tried to do my duty. But these things, in the most holy seminaries fragrant sociologisms and psychologisms, Unfortunately they haven't taught them for a long time. This is also why we have raised generations of priests who, instead of serving the Church to be nothing and nobody, they used it to become and be something and someone. Only God can read consciences and He only knows how many, today, among the marbles of the sacred palaces, they hope to become cardinals at the next consistory rather than saints. but yet, to become saints, we need to make ourselves useless, don't become cardinals: because with a purple obtained badly and used worse you risk arriving in Hell business class.

Yesterday's news was that the Useless Servant Leo XIV gave a speech that sounds obvious to me, although today, Unfortunately, it is precisely the most obvious obviousness that is not accepted and understood. The Holy Father reminded the French Bishops gathered in Lourdes of our mandatory obligation to think of the victims of pedophilia but, at the same time, to show mercy to the priests guilty of this terrible crime:

«continue to demonstrate the Church's attention towards the victims and God's mercy towards everyone. It is good that priests guilty of abuse are not excluded from this mercy and are the object of your pastoral reflections" (Vatican News, who).

After my book dedicated to the historical-theological explanation of the profession of faith, I believe to understand – Journey in the profession of faith, released on 15 November 2025, followed, the 29 January, my second book: Freedom denied – Catholic theology and dictatorship of Western conformism. In this second book I also address the delicate topic addressed by the Holy Father, which I then took up in one of my articles in 16 November 2025 (see who). On this very delicate topic I articulated a speech which I report in full below:

Unfortunately, in recent years, even within the Church we have sometimes succumbed to the same worldly logic, taking on expressions and criteria typical of the squares driven by gallows emotion. After the serious scandals that have involved and often overwhelmed various members of our clergy - scandals that canon law properly defines serious offenses — has begun to be used, even at the highest levels, a formula that sounds like an insult to the Christian faith: «zero tolerance». Such a language, borrowed from political and media lexicon, it reveals a mentality foreign to the Gospel and the penitential tradition of the Church. It is obvious that when faced with certain crimes - such as sexual abuse of minors - the perpetrator must be immediately neutralized and placed in a position to no longer harm, therefore subjected to a just punishment, proportionate and, according to canonical doctrine, MEDICAL, that is, oriented towards its recovery and conversion. This is why the expression "zero tolerance" is aberrant on a doctrinal and pastoral level, because it does not belong to the language of the Church, but to that of populist campaigns that focus and play on the belly moods of the masses.

Declaring that those who need a doctor are the sick and not the healthy (cf.. Mt 9, 12), Jesus indicates and entrusts us with a specific mission, does not invite us to "zero tolerance".

Faced with these new trends a paradoxical moral short circuit emerges: the same consciences that for years have hidden the dirt under the carpets with rare and silenced clerical malice, today they are zealous in publicly proclaiming their severity, almost as if to purify themselves before the world. Sometimes innocent people or simply suspects are hit to demonstrate rigor, while the real culprits - in other times protected - often go unpunished and, sometimes, promoted to the highest ecclesial and ecclesiastical leaders, because it is precisely there that we find them all "to judge the living and the dead", almost as if their reign - that of falsehood and hypocrisy - "will never end", in a sort of backwards Creed. All this is presented as evidence of a "new Church" that would finally embrace the politics of firmness. And the much vaunted mercy, where have you been? If we go and see we will discover that in order to benefit from mercy it seems it is necessary to be black who commits violence in the most central areas of cities, including attacks on the police themselves, despite being promptly justified, they do not commit crimes because they are violent and inclined to crime, but due to society being strictly guilty of not having adequately welcomed and integrated them. Let's ask ourselves: what credibility can an evangelical announcement have that preaches mercy only for certain "protected categories" and at the same time adopts the logic of the so-called "zero tolerance" for those, within itself, he was seriously wrong? It is here that the most dramatic outcome of internal secularization manifests itself: the Church that to please the world renounces the language of redemption to take on that of gallows revenge, showing mercy only with what corresponds to the social tendencies of political correctness (previous full article who).

Reasonably, I could also claim the copyright from the Holy Father; but I am modest and settle for much less: it would be enough for me that certain subjects, clerical and lay, both active and uncontrolled, functional to a specific system and tolerated within his own home, leave this useless servant alone, who only wants to be able to say about his existence at the end: I did what I had to do.

From the island of Patmos, 26 March 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

HOWEVER, THE HOLY FATHER, FIRST AMONG USELESS SERVANTS, COULD ALSO PAY ME COPYRIGHT FEES

We have formed generations of priests who, instead of serving the Church in order to be nothing and nobody, have used her in order to become something and someone. Only God can read consciences, and He alone knows how many, today, among the marbles of the sacred palaces, hope to become cardinals at the next consistory rather than saints. Yet, to become saints one must make oneself useless, not become a cardinal: because with a purple obtained badly and used even worse, one risks arriving in Hell in business class.

— Contemporary ecclesial affairs—

.

.

In the course of my useless existence as a priest, it has happened several times, both with the Holy Father Francis of blessed memory and with the reigning Pontiff Leo XIV, that I expressed concepts — some of which initially irritated even certain candid souls — which were later developed and incorporated into magisterial texts or papal discourses. Nothing exceptional: we are and remain «useless servants». This expression is taken from the Gospel, and it was precisely on it that I based my homily on 15 September 2025 at the funeral of the Apostolic Nuncio Adriano Bernardini, referring to him as a «useless servant» (see here).

The journey of faith unites mystery and paradox, as summarized in the well-known expression contained in the Letter to the Hebrews: «Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen» (Heb 11:1). In this affirmation, which appears contradictory to a purely rational gaze, lies the very structure of faith: it is not grounded in evidence, but in what exceeds evidence; it does not demonstrate what is seen, but makes certain what is not seen. Is it not paradoxical to be called to fulfillment precisely through the awareness of our uselessness? And yet this is precisely the point: faith does not confirm the categories of common logic, but surpasses them, introducing man into an order in which what appears to be nothing becomes the place of God’s action:

«when you have done all that you were commanded, say: “We are useless servants; we have done what we were obliged to do”» (Page 17:10).

The first among us useless servants is Leo XIV, also called Servant of the servants of God (servant of the servants of God). This papal title was assumed — let it be recalled in passing — by Gregory the Great around 595, primarily, though not exclusively, as a rebuke to the Patriarch of Constantinople, John IV known as the Faster, who had attributed to himself the title «ecumenical», strongly contested by Gregory the Great in his Letters (cf. Register of Letters, V, 18; V, 20; VII, 33).

Ultimately, what does it mean to become and to be a priest? It means to be nothing and nobody in the service of all, so as to arrive at the end of one’s existence with the hope of being able to say in conscience: I have tried to do my duty. But these things, in the most “holy” seminaries reeking of sociologism and psychologism, have not been taught for a long time. For this reason as well, we have formed generations of priests who, instead of serving the Church in order to be nothing and nobody, have used her in order to become something and someone. Only God can read consciences, and He alone knows how many, today, among the marbles of the sacred palaces, hope to become cardinals at the next consistory rather than saints. Yet, to become saints one must make oneself useless, not become a cardinal: because with a purple obtained badly and used even worse, one risks arriving in Hell in business class.

It is news of yesterday that the Useless Servant Leo XIV delivered a discourse which to me sounds obvious, although today, unfortunately, it is precisely the most evident obviousness that is neither received nor understood. The Holy Father reminded the French bishops gathered in Lourdes of our inescapable duty to think of the victims of pedophilia and, at the same time, to exercise mercy toward priests guilty of this immense crime:

«continue to show the Church’s attention toward the victims and the mercy of God toward all. It is good that priests guilty of abuse are not excluded from this mercy and are the object of your pastoral reflections» (Vatican News, here).

After my book dedicated to the historical-theological explanation of the profession of faith, Credo per capire – Journey into the Profession of Faith, published on 15 November 2025, a second book followed on 29 January: La libertà negata – Catholic Theology and the Dictatorship of Western Conformism. In this second book I also address the delicate topic treated by the Holy Father, which I had already taken up in an article dated 16 November 2025 (see here). On this very delicate subject I developed a reflection which I reproduce here in full:

Unfortunately, in recent years, even within the Church there has at times been a yielding to this same worldly logic, adopting expressions and criteria proper to squares moved by a lynch-mob emotionality. After the grave scandals that have involved — and often overwhelmed various members of our clergy — scandals that canon law properly defines as serious offenses, a formula has begun to be used, even at the highest levels, which sounds like an insult to the Christian faith: “zero tolerance.” Such language, borrowed from the political and media lexicon, reveals a mentality foreign to the Gospel and to the Church’s penitential tradition. It is obvious that in the face of certain crimes — such as sexual abuse of minors — the perpetrator must be immediately neutralised and placed in the condition of no longer being able to cause harm, and therefore subjected to a punishment that is just, proportionate and, according to canonical doctrine, medicinal, that is, directed to his recovery and conversion. For this reason, the expression “zero tolerance” is aberrant on the doctrinal and pastoral plane, because it does not belong to the language of the Church, but to that of populist campaigns that aim at and play upon the gut instincts of the masses.

By declaring that it is the sick and not the healthy who are in need of a physician (cf. Mt 9:12), Jesus indicates and entrusts to us a precise mission; He does not invite us to “zero tolerance.”

Before these new tendencies, a paradoxical moral short circuit emerges: the very same consciences that for years have hidden the filth under the carpets with rare and conspiratorial clerical malice now show themselves zealous in publicly proclaiming their severity, as though purifying themselves before the world. At times the innocent, or the merely suspected, are struck down in order to demonstrate rigour, while the true guilty — once protected — often remain unpunished and, at times, are promoted to the highest ecclesial and ecclesiastical positions, for it is precisely there that we find them all, “to judge the living and the dead,” almost as though their kingdom — the kingdom of falsehood and hypocrisy — “will have no end,” in a kind of inverted Creed. All this is presented as proof of a “new Church” that would at last have embraced the politics of firmness.

And what of the much-vaunted mercy, what has become of it? If we look closely, we shall discover that, in order to be able to benefit from mercy, it seems necessary to be black people who commit acts of violence in the most central areas of the cities, including assaults against the very Forces of Order, yet who are promptly justified, not because they do not commit crimes, but because, being violent and inclined to delinquency, it is said that they act on account of a society strictly guilty of not having adequately welcomed and integrated them.

Let us ask ourselves: what credibility can a Gospel proclamation have that preaches mercy only for certain “protected categories” and at the same time adopts the logic of so-called “zero tolerance” towards those who, within its own ranks, have gravely erred? It is here that the most dramatic outcome of internal secularisation is manifested: the Church which, in order to please the world, renounces the language of redemption to assume that of lynch-mob vengeance, showing herself merciful only with that which corresponds to the social tendencies of political correctness.

Reasonably, I could also claim copyright from the Holy Father; but I am modest and content myself with much less: it would suffice for me that certain subjects, clerical and lay, as active as they are uncontrolled, functional to a precise system and tolerated within his very house, would leave this useless servant in peace, who desires only to be able to say, at the end of his existence: I have done what I had to do.

From the Island of Patmos, 26 March 2026

.

THE HOLY FATHER, FIRST AMONG THE USELESS SERVANTS, YOU COULD ALSO PAY ME THE COPYRIGHTS

We have formed generations of priests who, instead of serving the Church to be nothing and nobody, They have used it to become something and someone. Only God can read consciences, and only He knows how many, hoy, among the marbles of the sacred palaces, They hope to become cardinals in the next consistory instead of saints. Y, however, To become saints it is necessary to become useless, not become cardinals: because with a purple obtained badly and used worse, there is a risk of reaching Hell in business class.

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

Throughout my useless existence as a priest, It has happened on several occasions, both with the Holy Father Francis of blessed memory and with the reigning Pontiff Leo XIV, that I have expressed concepts — some of which irritated even certain candid souls at the time — that have subsequently been developed and incorporated into texts of the magisterium or in pontifical speeches. Nothing extraordinary: We are and continue to be "useless servants". This expression comes from the Gospel, and precisely on it I based my homily of the 15 September of 2025 at the funeral of the Apostolic Nuncio Adriano Bernardini, referring to him as a "useless servant" (see here).

The path of faith unites mystery and paradox, as summarized by the famous expression contained in the Letter to the Hebrews: "Faith is the foundation of things hoped for and proof of things not seen." (Hb 11,1). In this statement, that from a purely rational perspective appears contradictory, the very structure of faith is contained: not based on evidence, but in that which exceeds the evidence; does not show what is seen, but makes certain what is not seen. Is it not paradoxical to be called to fulfillment precisely through the awareness of our uselessness?? Y, however, this is precisely the point: faith does not confirm the categories of common logic, but it surpasses them, introducing man into an order in which what seems like nothing becomes the place of God's action:

«when you have done everything that was commanded you, DECIDED: “We are useless servants; "We have done what we had to do." (LC 17,10).

The first among us useless servants is Leo XIV, also called Servant of the servants of God (servant of the servants of God). This pontifical title was assumed - it is worth remembering - by Gregory the Great around the year 595, mainly, although not exclusively, as a correction addressed to the Patriarch of Constantinople, John IV called the Faster, who had attributed the title of "ecumenical", strongly contested by Gregory the Great in his Letters (cf. Register of Letters, V, 18; V, 20; VII, 33).

deep down, What does it mean to become and be a priest?? It means being nothing and nobody at the service of everyone, to be able to reach the end of one's existence with the hope of being able to say in conscience: I have tried to do my duty. but these things, in the most holy seminaries impregnated with sociologisms and psychologisms, Unfortunately they have not been taught for a long time.. That is why we have also formed generations of priests who, instead of serving the Church to be nothing and nobody, They have used it to become something and someone. Only God can read consciences, and only He knows how many, hoy, among the marbles of the sacred palaces, They hope to become cardinals in the next consistory instead of saints. Y, however, To become saints it is necessary to become useless, not become cardinals: because with a purple obtained badly and used worse, there is a risk of arriving in Hell in business class.
It is yesterday's news that the Useless Servant Leo XIV He has given a speech that is obvious to me, although today, unfortunately, It is precisely the clearest evidence that is not accepted or understood. The Holy Father reminded the French bishops gathered in Lourdes of our unavoidable duty to think about the victims of pedophilia and, at the same time, to exercise mercy towards the priests guilty of this immense crime:

«Continue to express the attention of the Church towards the victims and the mercy of God towards all. "It is good that priests guilty of abuse are not excluded from this mercy and are the object of your pastoral reflections." (Vatican News, here).

after my book dedicated to the historical-theological explanation of the profession of faith, Credo per capire – Journey in the profession of faith, published on 15 November 2025, he 29 January followed by a second book: Freedom Denied – Catholic Theology and the Dictatorship of Western Conformism. In this second book I also address the delicate topic discussed by the Holy Father, which I had already taken up in an article in the 16 November 2025 (see here). On this very delicate topic I developed a reflection that I reproduce below in its entirety.:

Unfortunately, in recent years, even within the Church we have sometimes given in to the same worldly logic, adopting expressions and criteria typical of the squares moved by the emotionality of lynching. Following the serious scandals that have implicated and often devastated several members of our clergy—scandals that canon law properly defines as sERIOUS oFFENSES —, has started to be used, even at the highest levels, a formula that sounds like an insult to the Christian faith: "zero tolerance". A similar language, taken from the political and media lexicon, reveals a mentality alien to the Gospel and the penitential tradition of the Church. It is obvious that in the case of certain crimes - such as sexual abuse of minors - the perpetrator must be immediately neutralized and placed in the condition of not being able to do more harm., and therefore subjected to a just penalty, provided and, according to canonical doctrine, medicinal, that is to say, aimed at recovery and conversion. For this reason, The expression “zero tolerance” is aberrant on a doctrinal and pastoral level., because it does not belong to the language of the Church, but that of populist campaigns that target and play with the viscera of the masses.

By declaring that those who need a doctor They are the sick and not the healthy (cf. Mt 9,12), Jesus tells us and entrusts us with a precise mission, does not invite us to "zero tolerance".

Given these new trends a paradoxical moral short circuit arises: the same consciences that for years have hidden dirt under the rugs with rare and omertous clerical malice today are jealous by publicly proclaiming its severity, almost as if to purify oneself before the world. Sometimes the innocent or the simply suspicious are beaten to demonstrate rigor., while the real culprits - once protected - usually go unpunished and, sometimes, are promoted to the highest ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical positions, because that is precisely where we find them all, "to judge the living and the dead", almost as if his kingdom — that of falsehood and hypocrisy — “had no end”, in a sort of backwards Creed. All this is presented as proof of a "new Church" that would have finally embraced the policy of firmness.

And the mercy so decanted, what has become of her? If we are going to see, We will discover that in order to benefit from mercy it seems necessary to be black people who commit violence in the most central areas of cities., including attacks on the Law Enforcement Forces themselves, and yet readily justified, not because they don't commit crimes, but because, being violent and prone to crime, It is stated that the blame falls on a society rigorously guilty of not having welcomed and integrated them properly.. let's ask ourselves: What credibility can an evangelical advertisement have that preaches mercy only for certain “protected categories” and at the same time adopts the logic of so-called “zero tolerance” for those who, in your own bosom, han seriously wrong? Here the most dramatic result of internal secularization is manifested: the Church that, to please the world, renounces the language of redemption to assume that of revenge for lynchings, showing mercy only with that which corresponds to the social tendencies of political correctness.

Reasonably, You could even claim the copyright from the Holy Father; but I am modest and I settle for much less: It would be enough for me that certain subjects, clerical and lay, as active as uncontrolled, functional to a precise system and tolerated within your own home, They will leave this useless servant alone, you just wish you could say, at the end of its existence: I have done what I had to do.

From the Island of Patmos, 26 March 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

The Abbot of Solesmes and the illusion of liturgical synthesis: between subjectivism and doctrinal confusion – The abbot of Solesmes and the illusion of liturgical synthesis: between subjectivism and doctrinal confusion – The Abbot of Solesmes and the illusion of liturgical synthesis: between subjectivism and doctrinal confusion

Italian, English, Español

 

THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTrinal CONFUSION

It is true that each of us is accountable for what we say, however, the container in which these statements are deposited is not irrelevant, for it too is not devoid of meaning. And maybe, for this, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding the more complex themes of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — like certain blogs — that, by their nature, they are more prone to itching gossip clerical than in search of the truth.

— Theologica —

.

.

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

.

My late friend Paolo Poli, unforgettable theater master, with his usual disarming irony, he loved to say: «Men who declare themselves bisexual are nothing more than gays masquerading as heterosexuals».

And here the reader can legitimately ask himself what does such an approach have to do with the Sacred Liturgy. Nothing in itself; however, on the analogue level, not a little. Because, when an attempt is made to hold together irreconcilable realities through an artifice of synthesis, we often end up producing not one unit, but an ambiguity. This is precisely the impression that the proposal put forward by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, in the interview given to the blog I can not remain silent: an attempt to overcome the liturgical fracture not through theological clarification, but through a practical composition that risks generating further confusion (See. Interview, who).

When Mr. Abate states: «I believe that each of the Catholic sensitivities must agree to take a step towards the other», already introduces a deeply problematic assumption: the one according to which the liturgy is in some way an expression of different "sensibilities"., to be harmonized through compromise. But the Sacred Liturgy is not the place of subjective sensitivities: it is the public act of the Church, in which faith is objectively expressed. The liturgical unity, therefore, it does not arise from a compromise between sensitivity, but from adhesion to it the law of prayer which expresses the law of belief.

Even more serious this is what is proposed on a concrete level: «The priest could simply choose to integrate elements of the ancient missal...». E qHere we reach a decisive point. The priest is not the master of the liturgy, nor is he given the right to select ritual elements according to personal or "enrichment" criteria. The Constitution Holy Council is crystal clear: the government of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church and no one, not even the priest, can add, remove or change anything on your own initiative. This principle was also forcefully reiterated by the Instruction Sacramentum.

The idea of ​​a modular liturgy, in which different elements can be integrated at discretion, it therefore contradicts not only ecclesial discipline, but the very nature of the liturgy as an act received and not constructed. On the other hand - mutatis mutandis — we place ourselves on the same level as the most casual liturgical creativity of certain Neocatechumenal circles: there we dance around the altar to the sound of the bongos, Gregorian chants are sung here in Latin; but the underlying principle remains identical. Change the external form, not the logic that generates it.

No less problematic it is the statement according to which «the liturgy belongs to the Church». Expression that, if not adequately specified, risks being theologically misleading. The liturgy is not the property of the Church, nor any of its productions. It is first and foremost the action of Christ, High Priest, who works in his Body which is the Church. The primary subject of the liturgy is Christ himself, as the Second Vatican Council recalls: it is He who acts in the sacramental signs and makes the paschal mystery present (cf.. Holy Council, n. 7). The Church is not the master of the liturgy, but her guardian and servant, called to receive it faithfully and transmit it without arbitrariness, as clearly reiterated by the magisterium: «The liturgy is never someone's private property, neither of the celebrant nor of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated" (Sacramentum, n. 18).

Then when Mr. Abate calls back the Motu proprio Guardians of tradition claiming that it simply aimed to put an end to divisions, shows that he does not grasp the real scope of the document or, more simply, that I didn't really understand it. That text is not limited to a generic wish for unity, but it intervenes precisely to regulate and limit the use of the so-called The old order, precisely because the previous experience had shown how the coexistence of two ritual forms had become, In many cases, factor of ecclesial division and not of communion, but what is worse - and unfortunately not infrequently - is a pretext for real ideological struggles. So the idea of ​​solving the problem through a fusion of the two orders — inserting elements of one into the other — not only does it not address the root of the issue, but it risks worsening the confusion, introducing a form of “variable composition” liturgy, foreign to the Catholic tradition and explicitly rejected by it in its magisterium: «it is necessary to rebuke the audacity of those who arbitrarily introduce new liturgical customs or revive rites that have already fallen into disuse» (Mediator Dei, n. 58).

In this sense, the reference to Dom Prosper Guéranger it appears not only inappropriate, but paradoxical. The founder of the Benedictine liturgical restoration worked precisely to bring the disorderly plurality of the French diocesan rites back to the unity of the Roman rite. In his Liturgical institutions he strongly defends the idea that the liturgy is not the object of local invention, but an organic expression of the Tradition of the universal Church. His intent was to restore unity, not to build hybrid syntheses.

The real knot, which the interview carefully avoids addressing, it is therefore another: the liturgy is not a field of mediation between sensibilities, but the place where the Church receives and transmits an objective form of faith. As the Magisterium recalls: «the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church» (Holy Council, 22), precisely because it is not available for the free manipulation of subjects. And when this form is transformed into an object of composition, selective adaptation or integration, we inevitably slip into a form of subjectivism that empties the liturgy of its nature. The problem is not legitimate plurality, but the loss of the sense of liturgical normativeness and its theological root.

When the liturgy becomes the result of a constructed synthesis, it ceases to be received as a gift and becomes the product of human mediation. So yes, the risk is that of replacing the real unity of the Church with an apparent unity, obtained not in the truth of faith, but in the negotiation of forms. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote lucidly: «the liturgy does not arise from our imagination, it is not the product of our creativity, but it is something that precedes us and that we must receive" (Introduction to the spirit of the liturgy).

It is then painful that the Most Reverend Abbot - which the interviewer, now short of information, dusts off as if it were one news a letter sent by him to the Supreme Pontiff 25 November 2025 — this far from secondary element also escapes. They, indeed, declares: «My letter to the Pope is evidently only a suggestion. I am well aware that it still needs to be refined and specified. I hope that the bishops continue to reflect on this theme and themselves make proposals so that the Church finds the much desired unity".

The very way in which one addresses the Roman Pontiff is never neutral. In the tradition of the Church, we don't talk to him like an interlocutor between equals, nor are "proposals" submitted to him as if it were a questionable matter entrusted to discussion between specialists, nor are suggestions and advice offered, if they are not expressly requested by him. Rather we address the Holiness of Our Lord with filial respect, humbly exposing observations and desires, in the awareness that the final judgment on what concerns the life of the Church belongs solely to him. That, so, the exponent of an ancient two thousand year old monastic tradition does not even notice the delicacy of this ecclesial register, indeed present publicly as a "suggestion" that which touches the very heart of the liturgical life of the Church, offers a significant — and not a little worrying — index of the level of confusion that is widespread today even in areas that, by their nature, they should be immune to it, nothing else for history, tradition and, not last, also for elementary ecclesial education.

It all proves it to us that when theological competence is replaced by an emotional and conciliatory approach, the liturgy - which is the heart of ecclesial life - ends up being reduced to a field of experimentation. And what begins as an attempt at unity easily transforms into the subtlest form of disorder.

Finally, it is true that each of us is accountable for what we say; however, the container in which these statements are deposited is not irrelevant, for it too is not devoid of meaning. And maybe, for this, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding the more complex themes of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — like certain blogs — that, by their nature, they are more prone to itching gossip clerical than in search of the truth. This should lead to the due virtue of prudence of both the Archbishop H.E. Mons. Renato Boccardo (cf.. Video interview who), as much as the Bishop H.E. Mons. Eduard Profittlich (cf.. Interview who), which, agreeing to intervene in similar contexts, end up - hopefully without full awareness - by implicitly endorsing the method and tone of a blog that daily indulges in invectives against dignitaries and departments of the Holy See, as well as dioceses and ecclesiastics judged not to conform to their subjective satisfaction. But on the other hand: «We in the Vatican … here in the Vatican …».

 

From the island of Patmos, 21 March 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTRINAL CONFUSION

It is ultimately true that each of us is responsible for what he affirms; however, the medium in which such statements are placed is not irrelevant, for it too is not without meaning. And perhaps, precisely for this reason, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding that the most complex themes of sacramental theology be treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — which, by their very nature, are more inclined to the unhealthy fascination with clerical gossip than to the search for truth.

— Theologica —

.

.

My late friend Paolo Poli, an unforgettable master of theatre, with his usual disarming irony, used to say: “Men who declare themselves bisexual are nothing other than homosexuals disguised as heterosexuals.” And here the reader may legitimately ask what such a comparison has to do with Sacred Liturgy. In itself, nothing; yet, on an analogical level, quite a lot. For when one attempts to hold together realities that are not reconcilable through an artificial synthesis, one often ends up producing not unity, but ambiguity. This is precisely the impression conveyed by the proposal advanced by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, in the interview granted to the blog I can not remain silent: an attempt to overcome the liturgical fracture not through theological clarification, but through a practical composition that risks generating further confusion (article, here).

When the Reverend Abbot states: “I believe that each of the Catholic sensibilities should accept taking a step toward the other,” he already introduces a deeply problematic presupposition: namely, that the liturgy is in some way an expression of differing “sensibilities” to be harmonized through compromise. But Sacred Liturgy is not the realm of subjective sensibilities: it is the public act of the Church, in which the faith is expressed objectively. Liturgical unity, therefore, does not arise from compromise between sensibilities, but from adherence to the same the law of prayer which expresses the law of belief.

Even more serious is what is proposed on the practical level: “The priest could simply choose to integrate elements of the ancient missal…” Here we touch upon a decisive point. The priest is not the master of the liturgy, nor is he granted the faculty to select ritual elements according to personal criteria or for the sake of “enrichment.” The Constitution Holy Council is absolutely clear: the regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, and no one, not even the priest, may add, remove, or change anything on his own initiative. This principle has been forcefully reiterated by the Instruction Sacramentum.

The idea of a liturgy assembled at will, in which different elements may be integrated at discretion, therefore contradicts not only ecclesial discipline but the very nature of the liturgy as something received and not constructed. From another perspective — mutatis mutandis — one finds oneself on the same level as the most uninhibited liturgical creativity found in certain Neo-Catechumenal environments: there one dances around the altar to the sound of bongos, here Gregorian chants in Latin are intoned; yet the underlying principle remains identical. The external form changes, not the logic that generates it.

No less problematic is the statement that “the liturgy belongs to the Church.” An expression which, if not properly clarified, risks being theologically misleading. The liturgy is not the property of the Church, nor its production. It is first and foremost the action of Christ, the High Priest, who operates in His Body, which is the Church. The primary subject of the liturgy is Christ Himself, as the Second Vatican Council recalls: it is He who acts in the sacramental signs and makes present the Paschal mystery (cf. Holy Council, 7). The Church is not the master of the liturgy, but its custodian and servant, called to receive it faithfully and to transmit it without arbitrariness, as clearly reaffirmed by the Magisterium: “the liturgy is never anyone’s private property, neither of the celebrant nor of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (Sacramentum, 18).

When the Reverend Abbot then invokes the Motu Proprio Guardians of tradition, claiming that it simply aimed at putting an end to divisions, he shows that he has not grasped the real scope of the document — or, more simply, that he has not understood it at all. That text does not merely express a generic aspiration to unity, but intervenes precisely to regulate and limit the use of the so-called The old order, precisely because previous experience had shown that the coexistence of two ritual forms had, in many cases, become a factor of division rather than communion — and worse still, not infrequently a pretext for genuine ideological conflicts. Thus, the idea of resolving the problem through a fusion of the two ordines — inserting elements of one into the other — not only fails to address the root of the issue but risks aggravating the confusion, introducing a form of a liturgy of variable composition foreign to Catholic tradition and explicitly rejected by its Magisterium: “it is necessary to reprove the temerity of those who arbitrarily introduce new liturgical practices or revive rites already fallen into disuse” (Mediator Dei, 58).

In this sense, the appeal to Prosper Guéranger appears not only inappropriate but paradoxical. The founder of the Benedictine liturgical restoration worked precisely to bring the disordered plurality of French diocesan rites back to the unity of the Roman Rite. In his Liturgical institutions, he strongly defends the idea that the liturgy is not the object of local invention but the organic expression of the Tradition of the universal Church. His aim was to restore unity, not to construct hybrid syntheses.

The real issue, which the interview carefully avoids addressing, is therefore another: the liturgy is not a field for mediation between sensibilities, but the place in which the Church receives and transmits an objective form of the faith. As the Magisterium recalls, “the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church” (Smost holy Council, 22), precisely because it is not available for free manipulation by individuals. And when this form is transformed into an object of composition, adaptation, or selective integration, one inevitably slides into a form of subjectivism that empties the liturgy of its nature. The problem is not legitimate plurality, but the loss of the sense of liturgical normativity and of its theological foundation.

When the liturgy becomes the result of a constructed synthesis, it ceases to be received as a gift and becomes the product of human mediation. And thus, the risk arises of replacing the real unity of the Church with an apparent unity, obtained not in the truth of faith but in the negotiation of forms. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote with clarity: “the liturgy does not arise from our imagination; it is not the product of our creativity, but something that precedes us and that we must receive” (The Spirit of the Liturgy).

It is also regrettable that the Most Reverend Abbot — whose interviewer, now short of news, dusts off as though it were a news item a letter sent by him to the Supreme Pontiff on 25 November 2025 — should fail to grasp this element, which is by no means secondary. He, in fact, declares: “My letter to the Pope is evidently only a suggestion. I am well aware that it still needs to be refined and specified. I hope that the bishops will continue to reflect on this matter and that they themselves will make proposals so that the Church may rediscover the unity so greatly desired”.

The very manner in which one addresses the Roman Pontiff is never neutral. In the tradition of the Church, one does not speak to him as to an interlocutor among equals, nor does one submit “proposals” as though it were a matter open to debate entrusted to specialists, nor does one offer “suggestions” and advice unless they have been expressly requested by him. Rather, one addresses the Holiness of Our Lord with filial respect, presenting with humility observations and desiderata, in the awareness that the final judgment on what concerns the life of the Church belongs to him alone. That, therefore, a representative of an ancient monastic tradition spanning two millennia should fail even to perceive the delicacy of this ecclesial register, and indeed publicly present as a “suggestion” what touches the very heart of the Church’s liturgical life, offers a significant — and by no means reassuring — indication of the level of confusion today widespread even in circles which, by their very nature, ought to be immune to it, if only by reason of history, tradition, and, not least, elementary ecclesial decorum.

It is ultimately true that each of us is responsible for what he affirms; however, the medium in which such statements are placed is not irrelevant, for it too is not without meaning. And perhaps, precisely for this reason, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding that the most complex themes of sacramental theology be treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — which, by their very nature, are more inclined to the unhealthy fascination with clerical gossip than to the search for truth. This should lead to the due virtue of prudence both the Archbishop H.E. Msgr. Renato Boccardo (cf. Here) and the Bishop H.E. Msgr. Eduard Profittlich (cf. Here), who, by agreeing to intervene in such contexts, end up — one hopes without full awareness — implicitly endorsing the method and tone of a blog that daily indulges in invectives against dignitaries and dicasteries of the Holy See, as well as dioceses and ecclesiastics deemed not to conform to its own preferences.

From the Island of Patmos, 21 March 2026

.

THE ABBEY OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTRINAL CONFUSION

Is, In short, It is true that each of us responds for what he affirms; however, The scope in which such statements are deposited is not irrelevant., Well, this is not meaningless either.. and maybe, precisely for this reason, A certain prudence would suggest avoiding the most complex topics of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — that, by its own nature, They are more inclined to the morbid inclination towards clerical gossip than to the search for truth..

— Theologica —

.

.

My late friend Paolo Poli, unforgettable theater master, with his usual disarming irony, I used to say: "Men who declare themselves bisexual are nothing more than homosexuals disguised as heterosexuals". And here the reader may legitimately wonder what such a comparison has to do with the Sacred Liturgy.. in itself, nothing; however, on the analog level, not a little. Why, when an attempt is made to keep together non-reconcilable realities through an artifice of synthesis, often ends up producing not one unit, but an ambiguity. This is precisely the impression aroused by the proposal made by the abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, in the interview given to the blog I can not remain silent: an attempt to overcome the liturgical fracture not through a theological clarification, but through a practical composition that runs the risk of generating further confusion (article, here).

When the Lord Abbot affirms: "I believe that each of the Catholic sensibilities should accept taking a step towards the other", already introduces a deeply problematic budget: that the liturgy would be, somehow, expression of different “sensitivities” that must be harmonized through a commitment. But the Sacred Liturgy is not the place of subjective sensibilities: It is the public act of the Church, in which faith is objectively expressed. The liturgical unity, therefore, It is not born from a compromise between sensibilities, but of the adhesion to it the law of prayer that expresses the lex credendi.

Even more serious is what is proposed on a concrete level.: "The priest could simply choose to integrate elements of the old missal...". Here we touch on a decisive point. The priest is not the owner of the liturgy, nor does it have the power to select ritual elements according to personal or “enrichment” criteria.. The Constitution Holy Council it is very clear: The regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, and nobody, not even the priest, can add, remove or change anything on your own initiative. This principle has also been strongly reaffirmed by the Instruction Sacramentum.

The idea of ​​a composable liturgy, in which diverse elements can be integrated at discretion, contradicts, therefore, not only ecclesial discipline, but the very nature of the liturgy as an act received and not constructed. On the other hand - change of changes — we find ourselves on the same plane as the most uninhibited forms of liturgical creativity in certain neocatechumenal environments: there they dance around the altar to the sound of the bongos, Gregorian chants are sung here in Latin; but the underlying principle is identical. Change the exterior shape, not the logic that generates it.

no less problematic is the statement according to which "the liturgy belongs to the Church". Expression that, if not properly specified, runs the risk of being theologically equivocal. The liturgy is not property of the Church, not even one of his productions. It is above all the action of Christ, High priest, that acts in your Body, what is the Church. The primary subject of the liturgy is Christ himself, as the Second Vatican Council recalls: It is He who acts in the sacramental signs and makes the paschal mystery present (cf. Holy Council, n. 7). The Church is not the owner of the liturgy, but your custodian and servant, called to receive it faithfully and to transmit it without arbitrariness, as the Magisterium has clearly reiterated: «the liturgy is never someone's private property, neither of the celebrant nor of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated" (Sacramentum, n. 18).

When the Lord Abbot later invokes the Motu proprio Guardians of tradition, maintaining that this was simply intended to end the divisions, demonstrates not having grasped the real scope of the document or, more simply, not having understood. This text is not limited to a generic desire for unity, but intervenes precisely to regulate and limit the use of the so-called The old order, because previous experience had shown that the coexistence of two ritual forms had become, in many cases, a factor of ecclesial division and not of communion, and - what is worse - not infrequently as a pretext for real ideological struggles. So, the idea of ​​solving the problem through a fusion of the two orders — inserting elements of one into the other — not only does it not address the root of the issue, but it runs the risk of aggravating the confusion, introducing a form of liturgy “of variable composition”, alien to Catholic tradition and explicitly rejected by its Magisterium: "it is necessary to condemn the audacity of those who arbitrarily introduce new liturgical customs or revive rites that have already fallen into disuse" (Mediator Dei, n. 58).

In this sense, The reference to Dom Prosper Guéranger is not only inappropriate, but paradoxical. The founder of the Benedictine liturgical restoration worked precisely to redirect the disorderly plurality of French diocesan rites to the unity of the Roman rite.. In their Liturgical institutions strongly defends the idea that the liturgy is not an object of local invention, but organic expression of the Tradition of the universal Church. Its purpose was to restore unity, do not build hybrid syntheses.

The real knot, that the interview carefully avoids facing, is therefore another: The liturgy is not a field of mediation between sensibilities, but the place in which the Church receives and transmits an objective form of the faith. As the Magisterium remembers, "The regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church" (Holy Council, n. 22), precisely because it is not available for the free manipulation of the subjects. And when this form becomes an object of composition, selective adaptation or integration, inevitably falls into a form of subjectivism that empties the liturgy of its nature. The problem is not legitimate plurality, but the loss of the sense of liturgical normativity and its theological root.

When the liturgy becomes the result of a constructed synthesis, It stops being received as a gift and becomes a product of human mediation.. And then yes, The risk is to replace the real unity of the Church with an apparent unity, obtained not in the truth of faith, but in the negotiation of the forms. As Joseph Ratzinger lucidly wrote:: «the liturgy is not born from our fantasy, It is not the product of our creativity, but something that precedes us and that we must receive" (The spirit of the liturgy).

It also hurts that the Most Reverend Abbot —whose interviewer, already lacking in news, dusts off as if it were news a letter sent by himself to the Supreme Pontiff on 25 November 2025 — you also miss this non-secondary element: The very way in which one addresses the Roman Pontiff is never neutral. In the tradition of the Church, you are not spoken to as an interlocutor among equals, nor are “proposals” presented to it as if it were an opinionable matter entrusted to debate among specialists., nor are suggestions and advice offered, if they have not been expressly requested by him. Rather, one goes to the Holiness of Our Lord with filial respect, humbly exposing observations and wishes, in the awareness that the final judgment on what concerns the life of the Church corresponds solely to him. What, therefore, the representative of an ancient two-thousand-year-old monastic tradition does not even perceive the delicacy of this ecclesial record and, even more, publicly present as a "suggestion" that which touches the very heart of the liturgical life of the Church, constitutes a significant – and not a little worrying – indication of the level of confusion today widespread even in areas that, by its own nature, They should be immune to it., not only for history and tradition, but also, and not last, for an elementary ecclesial education.

All this confirms us what, when theological competence is replaced by an emotional and conciliatory approach, the liturgy – which is the heart of ecclesial life – ends up reduced to a field of experimentation. And what is born as an attempt at unity easily transforms into the most subtle form of disorder..

Is, In short, It is true that each of us responds for what he affirms; however, The scope in which such statements are deposited is not irrelevant., Well, this is not meaningless either.. and maybe, precisely for this reason, A certain prudence would suggest avoiding the most complex topics of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — that, by its own nature, They are more inclined to the morbid inclination towards clerical gossip than to the search for truth.. This should induce the due virtue of prudence both to Archbishop H.E.. Mons. Renato Boccardo (cf. Video-interview here), as at Obispo S.E. Mons. Eduard Profittlich (cf. Interview here), who, by agreeing to intervene in such contexts, They end up — hopefully without full awareness — implicitly endorsing the method and tone of a blog that daily indulges in invective against dignitaries and dicasteries of the Holy See., as well as against dioceses and ecclesiastics considered not to conform to their own subjective criteria.

From the Island of Patmos, 21 March 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

The various facets of the relics of the Saints – The various facets of the relics of the Saints – The various facets of the relics of Saints

Italian, english, español

 

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE RELICS OF THE SAINTS

Even today it is not difficult to come across situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate display cases, it becomes the object of attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloristic, Unfortunately we are experiencing it these days with the display of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, in front of which there are more cell phone photographs than prayers.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

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

.

.

When it comes to relics, an area of ​​the life of the Church is touched upon which, more than others, today risks being misunderstood: on the one hand reduced to superficial devotional practice, on the other rejected as a residue of an archaic or superstitious mentality. To avoid both extremes, it is necessary to return to the theological foundation that makes the veneration of relics in the Catholic tradition understandable and justifiable.

The relics, in their most proper form, they are made up of the body or parts of the body of the Saints. Alongside these are the so-called "second class" relics, that is, objects belonging to the Saints, and those "by contact", that is, objects that have been placed in physical relationship with their body or with their grave. This distinction, far from being a merely technical classification, reflects a precise theological vision: holiness does not only concern the soul, but it involves the whole person, in his unity of body and spirit.

The decisive point, often forgotten, is that the veneration of relics is rooted in faith in the Incarnation and in the resurrection of the flesh. The body of the Saint is not a simple biological remains, but a body that was the temple of the Holy Spirit and which is destined for definitive transfiguration. This is why it is guarded, honored and venerated: not as such, but as a concrete sign of the work of God's grace in history.

Already the Holy Scripture attests that God can operate through the mediation of matter. Just think of the Old Testament story in which a dead man comes back to life upon contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (cf.. 2Re 13,21), or to the handkerchiefs and aprons that had been in contact with the apostle Paul and which were brought to the sick (cf.. At 19,11-12). It's not about attributing magical power to objects, but to recognize that divine grace can make use of concrete mediations.

Already in medieval times there was no shortage of severe warnings against the degenerations of certain devotional practices. If literature has fixed the figure of Friar Cipolla in the common memory, made famous by the skilful irony of Giovanni Boccaccio, on the level of real preaching no less energetic was Saint Bernardino of Siena, who in a well-known sermon condemned in no uncertain terms the proliferation of dubious relics, like that of the ampoule containing the milk of the Virgin Mary (cf.. Hypocritical devotions, in: Baldi, Novels and moral examples of S. Bernardino of Siena, Florence 1916). This is a topic on which Father Ariel S. wrote a few years ago in these columns. Levi di Gualdo, which he took up in a deliberately colorful — and not always understood — form, especially by those who do not want to understand - the same question, highlighting how certain devotional tendencies are not a modern invention at all, but an ever-present risk in the life of the Church (cf.. Who).

In this context the use of relics "by contact" was also born, like the so-called brandea, that is, cloths placed in contact with the tombs of the martyrs, which were then distributed to the faithful. This practice, far from being an arbitrary invention, expressed the desire to make the memory of the saints accessible without compromising the integrity of their bodies. However, it is necessary to make it clear that the relic is not a fetish. Fetishism attributes a power in itself to the object, almost automatic; Christian veneration, instead, he recognizes in the relic a sign that refers to God and his action. Grace does not reside in matter as in an autonomous force, but it is always a gift from God, which can also use sensitive signs to reach man.

Over the centuries, the relationship with the relics has seen different developments, not always free from ambiguity. In some eras there has been a certain spectacularization, with exhibitions that risk attracting curiosity rather than devotion. Even today it is not difficult to come across situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate display cases, it becomes the object of attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloristic, Unfortunately we are experiencing it these days with the display of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, in front of which there are more cell phone photographs than prayers. And this is where serious discernment is required. If the relic loses its reference to holiness and the life of grace, if it is not inserted in a context of faith and catechesis, it risks becoming an object of purely aesthetic or cultural interest. From a sign of future glory it can be transformed into a simple relic of the past.

We must then ask ourselves what meaning can the veneration of relics have today?, especially those consisting of bodily remains. The answer can only be the same as the tradition of the Church has always given: they make sense to the extent that they refer to Christ and his work of salvation. The saint is not venerated for himself, but because the grace of God was manifested in him. The relic, so, it is a concrete memory of holiness, testimony of the Incarnation and reminder of the resurrection of the flesh. It speaks to the believer not about death, but of life; not of a closed past, but of a promised future. For this reason the Church, while carefully guarding these testimonies, it is also called to educate the faithful on their correct meaning. Without adequate training, the risk of misunderstanding is always present.

Venerate the relics it means, ultimately, recognize that the salvation brought about by Christ concerns man in his entirety and that matter itself is called to participate in the glory of God. In this sense they can be understood as a concrete extension of the logic of the Incarnation in the history of the Church. Only under this condition does their presence retain an authentic spiritual value; otherwise, the relics emptied of their meaning and reduced to objects of curiosity or misunderstood devotion, they risk giving life to the correct and realistic sketch of Friar Cipolla created by Giovanni Boccaccio.

Florence, 20 March 2026

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE RELICS OF THE SAINTS

Even today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of a saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate reliquaries, becomes the object of an attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately witnessing this in these very days with the exposition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than prayers.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

When speaking of relics, one touches upon an area of the Church’s life which, more than others, risks today being misunderstood: on the one hand reduced to a superficial devotional practice, on the other rejected as a remnant of an archaic or superstitious mentality. To avoid both extremes, it is necessary to return to the theological foundation that renders the veneration of relics intelligible and justifiable within the Catholic tradition.

Relics, in their most proper form, consist of the body or parts of the body of the Saints. Alongside these are the so-called “second-class” relics, that is, objects belonging to the Saints, and those “by contact,” namely objects that have been placed in physical relation with their body or their tomb. This distinction, far from being a merely technical classification, reflects a precise theological vision: holiness does not concern the soul alone, but involves the entire person, in the unity of body and spirit.

The decisive point, often forgotten, is that the veneration of relics is rooted in the faith in the Incarnation and in the resurrection of the flesh. The body of the Saint is not a mere biological remnant, but a body that has been a temple of the Holy Spirit and that is destined for definitive transfiguration. For this reason it is preserved, honored and venerated: not in itself, but as a concrete sign of the work of God’s grace in history.

Sacred Scripture itself attests that God can act through the mediation of matter. Suffice it to recall the account in the Old Testament in which a dead man returns to life upon contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha (cf. 2 Kgs 13:21), or the handkerchiefs and aprons that had been in contact with the Apostle Paul and were brought to the sick (cf. Acts 19:11–12). This is not a matter of attributing magical power to objects, but of recognizing that divine grace can make use of concrete mediations.

Already in the medieval period there were no lack of severe warnings against the degeneration of certain devotional practices. If literature has fixed in the common imagination the figure of Friar Cipolla, made famous by the refined irony of Giovanni Boccaccio, on the level of real preaching no less forceful was Saint Bernardino of Siena, who in a well-known sermon sharply denounced the proliferation of dubious relics, such as the vial said to contain the milk of the Virgin Mary (cf. Hypocritical devotionse, in: Baldi, Novels and moral examples of S. Bernardino of Siena, Florence 1916). On this subject, Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo wrote some years ago in these very pages, taking up the same question in deliberately vivid — and not always understood by those who simply do not wish to understand — terms, showing how such devotional deviations are by no means a modern invention, but a perennial risk within the life of the Church (cf. Here).

Within this context also arose the use of relics “by contact,” such as the so-called brandea, that is, cloths placed in contact with the tombs of the martyrs and then distributed to the faithful. This practice, far from being an arbitrary invention, expressed the desire to make the memory of the saints accessible without compromising the integrity of their bodies. It is nevertheless necessary to state clearly that the relic is not a fetish. Fetishism attributes to the object a power in itself, almost automatic; Christian veneration, instead, recognizes in the relic a sign that refers to God and to His action. Grace does not reside in matter as an autonomous force, but is always the gift of God, who may also make use of sensible signs to reach man.

Over the centuries, the relationship with relics has undergone different developments, not always free from ambiguity. In certain periods there has been a degree of theatricalization, with displays that risk attracting curiosity more than devotion. Even today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of a saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate cases, becomes the object of an attention that can easily slip into the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately witnessing this in these very days with the exposition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than prayers. Here a serious discernment becomes necessary. If the relic loses its reference to holiness and to the life of grace, if it is not inserted within a context of faith and catechesis, it risks becoming an object of purely aesthetic or cultural interest. From a sign of future glory it can be reduced to a mere relic of the past.

One must then ask what meaning the veneration of relics can have today, especially those consisting of bodily remains. The answer can only be the same that the Church’s tradition has always given: they have meaning insofar as they refer to Christ and to His work of salvation. The saint is not venerated for himself, but because in him the grace of God has been manifested. The relic, therefore, is a concrete memory of holiness, a testimony of the Incarnation and a reminder of the resurrection of the flesh. It speaks to the believer not of death, but of life; not of a closed past, but of a promised future. For this reason the Church, while carefully safeguarding these testimonies, is also called to educate the faithful to their proper meaning. Without adequate formation, the risk of misunderstanding is always present.

To venerate relics ultimately means to recognize that the salvation accomplished by Christ concerns the human person in his entirety and that matter itself is called to participate in the glory of God. In this sense they may be understood as a concrete prolongation of the logic of the Incarnation within the history of the Church. Only under this condition does their presence retain an authentic spiritual value; otherwise, relics emptied of their meaning and reduced to objects of curiosity or misunderstood devotion risk giving rise to the very real and fitting caricature of Friar Cipolla imagined by Giovanni Boccaccio¹.

Florence, March 20, 2026

.

¹Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375) was an Italian writer of the fourteenth century and a central figure of late medieval and early humanist culture. His most famous work, the Decameron, is a collection of one hundred novellas. Among them, the story of Friar Cipolla humorously portrays the abuse of false relics, offering a satirical critique of certain late medieval devotional practices.

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE RELICS OF THE SAINTS

Even today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate urns, becomes the object of attention that can easily slide towards the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately experiencing it these days with the exhibition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than sentences.

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

When talking about relics, It touches on an area of ​​the life of the Church that, more than others, today runs the risk of being misunderstood: on the one hand reduced to superficial devotional practice, on the other hand rejected as a residue of an archaic or superstitious mentality. To avoid both extremes, It is necessary to return to the theological foundation that makes the veneration of relics understandable and justifiable in the Catholic tradition..

The relics, in its most proper form, They are made up of the body or parts of the body of the Saints. To these are added the so-called “second class” relics., that is to say, objects belonging to the Saints, and “by contact”, that is to say, objects that have been placed in physical relationship with your body or with your grave. This distinction, far from being a merely technical classification, reflects a precise theological vision: holiness does not only affect the soul, but it involves the whole person, in the unity of body and spirit.

The decisive point, often forgotten, is that the veneration of relics is based on faith in the Incarnation and the resurrection of the flesh. The Saint's body is not a simple biological remains, but a body that has been a temple of the Holy Spirit and that is destined for definitive transfiguration. That is why it is guarded, honored and revered: not in itself, but as a concrete sign of the work of God's grace in history.

The Holy Scripture itself attests that God can work through the mediation of matter. Just think of the Old Testament story in which a dead man comes back to life when he comes into contact with the bones of the prophet Elisha. (cf. 2 Re 13,21), or in the handkerchiefs and aprons that had been in contact with the apostle Paul and that were taken to the sick (cf. Hch 19,11-12). It is not about attributing magical power to objects, but to recognize that divine grace can use concrete mediations.

Already in medieval times There was no lack of severe warnings against the degenerations of certain devotional practices.. If literature has fixed the figure of Brother Cipolla in common memory, made famous by the refined irony of Giovanni Boccaccio, On the level of royal preaching, Saint Bernardine of Siena was no less energetic., who in a famous sermon bluntly denounced the proliferation of dubious relics, like the vial that supposedly contained the milk of the Virgin Mary (cf. Hypocritical devotions, in: Baldi, Novels and moral examples of S. Bernardino of Siena, Florence 1916). Father Ariel S. wrote about this topic some years ago in these same pages.. Levi di Gualdo, taking up the question in deliberately vivid terms - and not always understood by those who do not want to understand - showing how these devotional drifts are not at all a modern invention, but a constant risk in the life of the Church (cf. Herein).

In this context The use of relics “by contact” also emerged, like the calls brandea, that is to say, cloths placed in contact with the tombs of the martyrs and then distributed to the faithful. This practice, far from being an arbitrary invention, expressed the desire to make the memory of the saints accessible without compromising the integrity of their bodies. However, It is necessary to clearly state that the relic is not a fetish. Fetishism attributes power in itself to the object., almost automatic; Christian veneration, instead, recognizes in the relic a sign that refers to God and his action. Grace does not reside in matter as in an autonomous force, but it is always a gift from God, which can also use sensitive signs to reach man.

throughout the centuries, The relationship with relics has seen various developments, not always free of ambiguity. In some periods there has been a certain spectacularization, with exhibitions that risk attracting curiosity more than devotion. Also today it is not difficult to encounter situations in which the body of the saint, reduced to a skeleton displayed in elaborate urns, becomes the object of attention that can easily slide towards the morbid or the folkloric. We are unfortunately experiencing it these days with the exhibition of the bones of Saint Francis of Assisi, before which there are more photographs taken with mobile phones than sentences. Serious discernment is required here.. If the relic loses its reference to holiness and the life of grace, if it is not inserted in a context of faith and catechesis, runs the risk of becoming an object of purely aesthetic or cultural interest. From a sign of future glory it can become a simple vestige of the past.

It fits then ask what meaning the veneration of relics can have today, especially those consisting of bodily remains. The answer cannot be other than what the tradition of the Church has always given.: They make sense to the extent that they refer to Christ and his work of salvation. The saint is not venerated for himself, but because the grace of God has been manifested in him. The relic is, therefore, concrete memory of holiness, testimony of the Incarnation and reminder of the resurrection of the flesh. Speak to the believer not of death, but of life; not from a closed past, but of a promised future. For this reason the Church, while carefully guarding these testimonies, is also called to educate the faithful in its authentic meaning. Without proper training, the risk of misunderstanding is always present.

Venerating relics means, ultimately, recognize that the salvation accomplished by Christ concerns man as a whole and that matter itself is called to participate in the glory of God. In this sense they can be understood as a concrete extension of the logic of the Incarnation in the history of the Church.. Only under this condition does its presence retain authentic spiritual value.; otherwise, relics emptied of their meaning and reduced to objects of curiosity or misunderstood devotion risk giving life to the fair and realistic caricature of Brother Cipolla imagined by Giovanni Boccaccio¹.

Florence, 20 March 2026

.

¹ Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–1375) He was an Italian writer of the 14th century and a central figure of late medieval and prehumanist culture.. His best known work, he Decameron, It is a collection of one hundred stories. Among them, The story of Brother Cipolla ironically presents the abuse of false relics, offering a satirical critique of certain devotional practices of the late Middle Ages.

.

.

______________________

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

.

.

.

The various facets of blessing – The various facets of blessing – The various facets of blessing

Italian, english, español

 

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF BLESSING

The Church can give the blessing, even among a thousand distinctions, also to those experiencing exceptional situations, particular or irregular. Particularly if these people are baptized in communion with the Church, even if they live in a vital situation that the Church considers wrong.

.

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

 

.

The statement Begging for Confidence, dating back to December 2023, it concerned the possibility of blessing irregular and even same-sex couples.

Monica Bellucci in the role of Maddalena (The Passion, 2004)

The receipt thereof, immediately, must have elicited conflicting responses from the episcopate if already in January of the following year the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith felt the need to issue a press release with clarifications regarding the simple nature, informal and pastoral of the aforementioned blessings, without creating confusion with the doctrine regarding marriage and normal ritualized liturgical blessings. In the same context, mention was made of the possibility of a gradual acceptance of the Declaration or even its non-reception in the most delicate and difficult cases. However, its value was advocated, as an opportunity to listen to the requests that arise from the faithful and to offer them appropriate catechesis in this regard.

At the end of an article that appeared in this magazine of ours, in which the topic of homosexuality and the Bible was discussed (Who), it was hoped that the path of reflection on these issues would not be abandoned. With this writing, despite its brevity and inadequacy of the author, I would like to continue the task, answering the question whether it is right to give a spiritual good of the Church, how can it be a blessing, also to those who live in situations that we could define as particular, which constitutes an exception, if you really want to avoid the recurring term that refers to irregularity, starting from or extending what the Church already does in other situations.

In the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church we talk about the theme of intercommunion with separated brothers, especially the fee 844 addresses the topic concerning the administration of the Sacraments by a minister of the Church to the faithful who do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, the so-called Communication in the sacred. The text takes into consideration two categories of non-Catholic Christians: the «members of the Eastern Churches» (§ 3) and the "other Christians", that is, those belonging to Western Christian confessions, that is, those that have existed in the West since the time of the Reformation (§ 4). For both categories of Christians the text of the code states that «Catholic ministers lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, of the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick" (§§ 3-4). The same canon reiterates that both categories of Christians "do not have full communion with the Catholic Church" (§§ 3-4); which means - said positively - that these Christians are in true communion with the Catholic Church, even if not full (cf.. above all The light, n. 15; Reintegratio, NN. 3,1; 22,2).

More specifically the fee 844, § 4 demands that there must be a serious and urgent need for the administration of the Sacraments by the Catholic Church to non-Catholic Christians belonging to Western Confessions. However, the encyclical To be one, to the number 46 he also speaks of the existence of "special cases" e Church of the Eucharist, to the number 45, also mentions "special circumstances". Since the Code of Canon Law depends essentially on the Second Vatican Council, one cannot fail to mention what is the most important text on this topic, that is Reintegratio, all no. 8, which is thus expressed: «Intercommunion (in the Sacraments, n.d.r.) It depends above all on two principles: from the manifestation of the unity of the Church and from participation in the means of grace". The manifestation of unity mostly prohibits intercommunion. The participation of grace, the grace to be procured, sometimes he recommends it. Naturally the first principle serves to safeguard ecclesial communion and therefore the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, as if administering the Sacraments to Catholics and to those who are not were the same thing, because such is not, without penalty of misunderstanding. Therefore, believing that there is no difference between being or not being in communion with the Catholic Church would lead to disorientation and scandal.. On the other hand - and I recall here the words of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legal Texts —:

«The second principle recalls the need to confer grace on the part of the Catholic Church and not in just any way, but rather specifically through the administration of the Sacraments. And this applies not only to Catholic Christians, but for all the baptized, even for non-Catholics. This is the great teaching stated with clarity and conviction by the great text of Vatican II. Let's realize this carefully: Non-Catholic Christians have a spiritual need to receive the conferral of grace through the administration of the Sacraments. They therefore have the spiritual need to receive the Sacraments. We can also say that non-Catholic Christians have the right to receive the Sacraments. And the Catholic Church has the duty to administer the Sacraments to these Christians. We can consider all this as a simple determination of the principle of grace to be procured, where the gerund is noted as a sign of necessity" (edited by Andrea Tornielli, Who).

Taking the reasoning to the end, when asked if a married couple, one Catholic and the other not in full communion with the Church, by participating together in the Holy Mass they also wish to receive the Eucharist, this can be considered an exceptionality, if this corresponds to a spiritual need of the spouses who would otherwise experience that moment separately or not at all, abstaining from it; the expert Prelate responds thus:

«If the Catholic minister administered Holy Communion to the non-Catholic spouse, everyone could reasonably believe that this concession is determined by the just need not to separate a married couple, especially in such a special moment as participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. All this can, Anyway, always be recalled through an explanatory catechesis given to the community of the faithful even on a recurring basis".

I don't want to dwell too much on this topic any longer, also because the focus, as mentioned initially, it's another. Many other things could be said because the topic is still studied and explored and I haven't mentioned it, just so I don't get too long, to the previous conditions or spiritual and mental dispositions that must be present in someone, even if not in full communion, the Church can, in specific and exceptional cases, receive the sacraments of grace from a Catholic minister. It is also clear that all this belongs to an area strictly regulated by Church law and cannot in any way be confused with forms of indiscriminate intercommunion or, worse, with Eucharistic celebrations that ignore full ecclesial communion and the validity of the priestly ministry. Precisely because it is a delicate matter, the reference to exceptional cases must never be taken as an ordinary criterion, but as confirmation of the fact that the Church, while firmly guarding the meaning of its spiritual goods, he never ceases to wonder how to obtain them, in permitted cases, for the salvation of all souls.

As you can imagine, all this reasoning that from the Council then landed in the Code, arises both from theological reflection on the spiritual goods of the Church which in themselves want to be lavished in abundance and can hardly be denied to those who trust, he asks for respect and good disposition, both from not being able to deny that the human situations that people experience in this world are multiple and varied. And the Church, which guards the treasures of divine grace, he can only wonder about this.

Returning then to the topic that started this writing, the answer can only be positive. The Church can give the blessing, even among a thousand distinctions, also to those experiencing exceptional situations, particular or irregular. Particularly if these people are baptized in communion with the Church, even if they live in a vital situation that the Church considers wrong. If they can, under the appropriate conditions, receive the Sacraments like all other baptized people e, we saw it, even those who belong to another confession and are unable to contact their ministers can do so, why not even a simple blessing that would only serve to reiterate what the Church has always done: reject sin, but to welcome and love the sinner, as the Lord taught? However, it remains necessary to clarify that such a blessing could never be correctly understood as confirmation, ratification or legitimization of the objective condition in which these people find themselves. If so, both the meaning of the blessing and the very truth of ecclesial pastoral care would be betrayed. The church, indeed, can bless the person who asks God for help, not sin as such, nor the claim that a situation contrary to his doctrine is thereby recognized as morally good or ecclesially legitimate. Precisely for this reason the blessing, if requested with faith and humility, it retains its meaning only if it remains a gesture of invocation, of trust and accompaniment, never of implicit consecration of a condition of life.

As the prefect of the Dicastery specified at the time for the Doctrine of the Faith in the press release referred to above, the purpose of the Declaration that, it must be admitted, someone had a bad stomach, was to highlight the value of the blessing for the Church, in order to arrive at a "broader understanding of the blessings and the proposal to increase pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context".

No longer living in a Christianized context for a long time, the Church will increasingly encounter situations that are not regular according to doctrine. It will be able to entrench itself in a defensive position and simply take refuge behind the doctrine that recognizes the illicit nature of some human conditions, but that wouldn't say anything new about it. Or, following the example of his Master, will be able to recognize that a relationship is wrong, yet it preserves within it positive elements that cannot be denied and therefore why not pour on these situations "the oil of consolation and the wine of hope", even a simple informal blessing where requested with confidence? Also here, however, discernment remains decisive: it is one thing to pastorally help people who, even in an objectively disordered or irregular condition, they ask for spiritual help without claiming any legitimacy; it would be another thing to endorse, even if only indirectly, the claim that ecclesial welcome coincides with the recognition of their status as compliant with the Gospel. The mercy of the Church does not consist in obscuring the truth, but in accompanying people towards it with patience, without rejecting and humiliating anyone, but at the same time without distorting anything.

here it is, so, a small contribution to the reflection which has no pretensions, moved only by that spirit that lies behind Jesus' invitation to be a disciple "similar to a householder who extracts new and old things from his treasure" (Mt 13,52). For this, the Church's task is neither to close the door of grace to those who ask for it with sincere trust, nor confuse mercy with the legitimation of what remains contrary to the Gospel, but to safeguard truth and charity together, so that every pastoral gesture is an authentic help for people and never an occasion for misunderstanding regarding doctrine. All of this, without ever losing sight of the very essence of the mission entrusted to us by Christ with precise words:

«It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners " (Mt 9, 12-13).

From the Hermitage, 19 March 2026

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF BLESSING

The Church can grant a blessing, albeit with many distinctions, even to those who live in exceptional, particular or irregular situations. Especially if these persons are baptized in communion with the Church, even if they live in a life situation that the Church considers erroneous.

.

The Declaration Begging for Confidence, issued in December 2023, concerned the possibility of blessing irregular couples and even same-sex couples. Its reception, at least initially, must have elicited contrasting responses within the episcopate, if already in January of the following year the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith felt the need to issue a press release with clarifications regarding the simple, informal and pastoral character of such blessings, so as not to create confusion with the doctrine concerning marriage and with the ordinary ritual liturgical blessings. In the same context, reference was made to the possibility of a gradual acceptance of the Declaration or even to its non-reception in the most delicate and difficult cases. Nevertheless, its value was encouraged, as a way of remaining attentive to the requests arising from the faithful and of offering them an appropriate catechesis on the matter.

Toward the end of an article published in this same journal, which dealt with the theme of homosexuality and the Bible (Here), the hope was expressed that the path of reflection on these themes would not be abandoned. With the present text, despite its brevity and the inadequacy of its author, I would like to continue this task by responding to the question of whether it is right to grant a spiritual good of the Church, such as a blessing, even to those who live in a situation that we might define as particular — an exception, if one wishes to avoid the recurring term that refers to irregularity — starting from, or extending, what the Church already does in other situations.

In the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church the question of intercommunion with separated brethren is addressed; in particular, canon 844 deals with the administration of the Sacraments by a minister of the Church to the faithful who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, the so-called Communication in the sacred. The text considers two categories of non-Catholic Christians: the “members of the Eastern Churches” (§ 3) and “other Christians,” that is, those belonging to Western Christian confessions, namely those existing in the West since the time of the Reformation (§ 4). For both categories the canonical text states that “Catholic ministers administer licitly the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick” (§§ 3–4). Concerning both categories the same canon reiterates that they “are not in full communion with the Catholic Church” (§§ 3–4); which means — stated positively — that these Christians are in a true, though not full, communion with the Catholic Church (cf. especially The light, n. 15; Reintegratio, NN. 3,1; 22,2).

More specifically, canon 844 § 4 requires that for the administration of the Sacraments by the Catholic Church to non-Catholic Christians belonging to Western confessions there must be a grave and urgent necessity. However, the encyclical To be one, in no. 46, also speaks of the existence of “particular cases,” and Church of the Eucharist, in no. 45, likewise refers to “special circumstances.” Since the Code of Canon Law depends essentially on the Second Vatican Council, one cannot fail to mention what is the most important text on this subject, namely Reintegratio, no. 8, which states: “The sharing in the Sacraments (Communication in the sacred) depends chiefly on two principles: the manifestation of the unity of the Church and the sharing in the means of grace.” The manifestation of unity generally forbids intercommunion. The sharing in grace, the they procure graceit gives, sometimes recommends it. Naturally, the first principle serves to safeguard ecclesial communion and to avoid the danger of error or indifferentism, as if administering the Sacraments to Catholics and to those who are not were the same thing, which it is not, without giving rise to misunderstanding. To maintain that there is no difference between being or not being in communion with the Catholic Church would lead to confusion and scandal. On the other hand — and I recall here the words of Cardinal Coccopalmerio, emeritus president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts —:

“The second principle recalls the necessity for the Catholic Church to confer grace not in just any way, but in a specific way through the administration of the Sacraments. And this applies not only to Catholic Christians, but to all the baptized, including non-Catholics. This is the great teaching affirmed with clarity and conviction by the great texts of Vatican II. Let us be fully aware: non-Catholic Christians have a spiritual need to receive the conferral of grace through the administration of the Sacraments. They therefore have a spiritual need to receive the Sacraments. We can also say that non-Catholic Christians have the right to receive the Sacraments. And the Catholic Church has the duty to administer the Sacraments to these Christians. All this can be understood as a concrete application of the principle of grace to be procured, note the gerund, which indicates necessity” (edited by Andrea Tornielli, here).

Carrying the reasoning through to its conclusion, one may ask whether a married couple, one Catholic and the other not in full communion with the Church, participating together in Holy Mass and desiring also to receive the Eucharist, might constitute an exceptional case — if this corresponds to a spiritual need of the spouses, who would otherwise experience that moment as separated or would not experience it at all, abstaining from it. The expert prelate responds as follows:

“If the Catholic minister were to administer Holy Communion to the non-Catholic spouse, everyone could reasonably consider that such a concession is determined by the just necessity of not separating a married couple, especially at such a special moment as participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. All this can, in any case, always be clarified through an explanatory catechesis offered to the community of the faithful, even on a recurring basis.”

I do not wish to dwell too long on this topic, also because the focus, as mentioned at the beginning, is another. Much more could be said, since the matter is still being studied and deepened, and I have not mentioned — precisely in order not to prolong the discussion — the prior conditions or the spiritual dispositions that must be present in those who, although not in full communion with the Church, may in specific and exceptional cases receive from a Catholic minister the sacraments of grace. It is also evident that all this belongs to a sphere rigorously regulated by the law of the Church and cannot in any way be confused with forms of indiscriminate intercommunion or, worse, with Eucharistic celebrations that disregard full ecclesial communion and the validity of the priestly ministry. Precisely because this is a delicate matter, reference to exceptional cases must never be taken as an ordinary criterion, but as confirmation that the Church, while firmly safeguarding the meaning of her spiritual goods, does not cease to question how to provide them, where permitted, for the salvation of all souls.

As one can imagine, all this reasoning — which from the Council has found its way into the Code — arises both from theological reflection on the spiritual goods of the Church, which by their nature are meant to be poured out abundantly and can hardly be denied to those who request them with trust, respect and proper disposition, and from the recognition that the human situations people experience in this world are manifold and varied. And the Church, which safeguards the treasures of divine grace, cannot but reflect on this.

Returning therefore to the question that gave rise to this text, the answer can only be affirmative. The Church can grant a blessing, albeit with many distinctions, even to those who live in exceptional, particular or irregular situations. Especially if these persons are baptized in communion with the Church, even if they live in a life situation that the Church considers erroneous. If they can, under the proper conditions, receive the Sacraments like all the other baptized — and, as we have seen, even those belonging to another confession can do so when they are unable to turn to their own ministers — why not also a simple blessing, which would serve only to reaffirm what the Church has always done: reject sin but welcome and love the sinner, as the Lord has taught?

It remains necessary, however, to clarify that such a blessing could never rightly be understood as a confirmation, ratification or legitimation of the objective condition in which such persons find themselves. If that were the case, both the meaning of the blessing and the truth of ecclesial pastoral care would be betrayed. The Church, in fact, can bless the person who asks God for help, not sin as such, nor the claim that a situation contrary to her doctrine should thereby be recognized as morally good or ecclesially legitimate. Precisely for this reason the blessing, if requested with faith and humility, preserves its meaning only if it remains an act of invocation, of entrustment and of accompaniment, never of implicit consecration of a state of life.

As was specified at the time by the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in the above-mentioned press release, the purpose of the Declaration — which, it must be admitted, some have found difficult to accept — was to highlight the value of blessing for the Church, in order to arrive at “a broader understanding of blessings and the proposal to increase pastoral blessings, which do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context.”

Since we no longer live in a Christianized context, the Church will increasingly encounter situations that are not regular according to doctrine. She may take refuge in a defensive position and simply entrench herself behind doctrine, which recognizes the unlawfulness of certain human conditions, but this would say nothing new. Or, following the example of her Master, she may acknowledge that a relationship is erroneous and yet contains within itself positive elements that cannot be denied, and therefore why not pour upon these situations “the oil of consolation and the wine of hope,” even a simple informal blessing when requested with trust?

Here too, however, discernment remains decisive: one thing is to offer pastoral assistance to persons who, though in an objectively disordered or irregular condition, ask for spiritual help without claiming any form of legitimation; another would be to endorse, even indirectly, the claim that ecclesial welcome coincides with recognizing their condition as in conformity with the Gospel. The Church’s mercy does not consist in obscuring the truth, but in accompanying persons toward it with patience, without rejecting or humiliating anyone, while at the same time falsifying nothing.

Here, then, is a small contribution to a reflection that makes no claim to completeness, moved only by that spirit which lies behind Jesus’ invitation to be a disciple “like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old” (Mt 13:52). Precisely for this reason, the task of the Church is neither to close the door of grace to those who ask for it with sincere trust, nor to confuse mercy with the legitimation of what remains contrary to the Gospel, but to safeguard together truth and charity, so that every pastoral act may be a genuine help to persons and never an occasion for misunderstanding concerning doctrine. All this without ever losing sight of the very essence of the mission entrusted to us by Christ in these precise words:

“Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mt 9:12–13).

From the Hermitage, March 19, 2026

.

THE VARIOUS FACETS OF BLESSING

The Church can give the blessing, although with many distinctions, also to those who live in exceptional situations, private or irregular. Particularly if these people are baptized in communion with the Church, even if they live a life situation that the Church considers erroneous.

.

The Declaration Begging for Confidence, December 2023, It referred to the possibility of blessing irregular couples and even same-sex couples.. Your reception, at first, must have provoked contrasting responses in the episcopate, If already in January of the following year the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith felt the need to issue a statement with details about the simple nature, informal and pastoral of said blessings, without creating confusion with the doctrine regarding marriage or with ritualized liturgical blessings. In the same context, reference was made to the possibility of a gradual acceptance of the Declaration or even its non-reception in the most delicate and difficult cases.. However, its value was emphasized, as the possibility of remaining attentive to the requests that arise from the faithful and of offering them an adequate catechesis in this regard.

Towards the end of an article published in this same magazine, which dealt with the topic of homosexuality and the Bible (Here), The wish was expressed that the path of reflection on these questions would not be abandoned. With this writing, despite its brevity and the insufficiency of its author, I would like to continue this task, answering the question of whether it is fair to grant a spiritual good to the Church, How can the blessing be?, also to those who live in a situation that we could define as particular, which constitutes an exception - if you want to avoid the recurring term that refers to irregularity - starting from what the Church already does in other situations or extending it.

In the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church The issue of intercommunion with separated brothers is discussed; in particular, the canon 844 addresses the question of the administration of the Sacraments by a minister of the Church to the faithful who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, la llamada communion in the sacred. The text considers two categories of non-Catholic Christians: the "members of the Eastern Churches" (§ 3) and "the other Christians", that is to say, those belonging to Western Christian denominations, those that have existed in the West since the time of the Reformation (§ 4). For both categories the canonical text states that "Catholic ministers licitly administer the sacraments of penance.", of the Eucharist and the anointing of the sick" (§§ 3-4). Of both categories, the same canon reaffirms that "they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church." (§§ 3-4); which means — said positively — that these Christians are in true communion with the Catholic Church, although not complete (cf. especially The light, n. 15; Reintegratio, NN. 3,1; 22,2).

More particularly, the canon 844 § 4 demand that, for the administration of the Sacraments by the Catholic Church to non-Catholic Christians belonging to Western confessions, there must be a serious and urgent need. However, the encyclical To be one, in the number 46, also speaks of the existence of "particular cases", and Church of the Eucharist, in the number 45, also refers to "special circumstances". Since the Code of Canon Law essentially depends on the Second Vatican Council, one cannot fail to mention the most important text on this topic, that is to say, Reintegratio, n. 8, that is how it is expressed: «The intercommunion (in the Sacraments) It depends above all on two principles: "of the manifestation of the unity of the Church and of participation in the means of grace". The manifestation of unity usually prohibits intercommunion. Participation in grace, the grace to be procured, sometimes he recommends it.

Naturally, the first principle serves to safeguard ecclesial communion and avoid the danger of error or indifferentism, as if administering the Sacraments to Catholics and those who are not Catholics were the same, which is not, without risk of misunderstanding. Maintaining that there is no difference between being in communion with the Catholic Church or not would lead to disorientation and scandal.. On the other hand - and I return here to the words of Cardinal Coccopalmerio, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts —:

«The second principle recalls the need to confer grace on the part of the Catholic Church not in any way, but specifically through the administration of the Sacraments. And this applies not only to Catholic Christians., but for all the baptized, also for non-Catholics. This is the great teaching affirmed with clarity and conviction by the great text of Vatican II. Let us be fully aware: Non-Catholic Christians have a spiritual need to receive grace through the administration of the Sacraments. Have, therefore, the spiritual need to receive the Sacraments. We can also say that non-Catholic Christians have the right to receive the Sacraments. And the Catholic Church has the duty to administer them to these Christians.. All this can be considered as a concrete determination of the principle of grace to be procured, observe the gerund as a sign of necessity» (edited by Andrea Tornielli, here).

Taking reasoning to its ultimate consequences, When asked if a married couple, one Catholic and the other not in full communion with the Church, participating together in the Holy Mass and also wishing to receive the Eucharist, may constitute an exceptional case - if this responds to a spiritual need of the spouses who would otherwise live that moment apart or would not live it at all -, the expert prelate responds like this:

"If the Catholic minister were to administer Holy Communion to the non-Catholic spouse, everyone could reasonably consider that such a concession is determined by the just need not to separate a married couple, especially in such a special moment as participation in the sacrament of the Eucharist. All this can, in any case, always be clarified through an explanatory catechesis offered to the community of the faithful, even recurrently.

I don't want to go into too much detail on this topic., also because the focus, as indicated at the beginning, is another. Many other things could be said, since the issue continues to be the subject of study and deepening, and I have not mentioned - precisely so as not to lengthen - the preconditions or spiritual dispositions that must be present in whoever, even though they are not in full communion with the Church, can, in specific and exceptional cases, receive the sacraments of grace from a Catholic minister. It is also evident that all this belongs to an area rigorously regulated by the law of the Church and cannot in any way be confused with forms of indiscriminate intercommunion or, even worse, with Eucharistic celebrations that disregard full ecclesial communion and the validity of the priestly ministry. Precisely because it is a delicate matter, The reference to exceptional cases should never be assumed as an ordinary criterion, but as confirmation that the Church, still firmly guarding the meaning of their spiritual goods, You keep wondering how to get them, in permitted cases, for the salvation of all souls.

As you can imagine, All this reasoning - which since the Council has passed into the Code - arises both from theological reflection on the spiritual goods of the Church, who by their very nature want to be poured out in abundance and can hardly refuse those who ask for them with confidence, respect and good disposition, as well as the fact that the human situations that people live in this world are multiple and varied.. and the Church, that guards the treasures of divine grace, You can't help but wonder about it..

coming back, therefore, to the topic that gave rise to this writing, The answer cannot but be affirmative.. The Church can give the blessing, although with many distinctions, also to those who live in exceptional situations, private or irregular. Particularly if these people are baptized in communion with the Church, even if they live a life situation that the Church considers erroneous. If they can, in proper conditions, receive the Sacraments like all other baptized people — and, as we have seen, even those belonging to another denomination can do so when they cannot turn to their own ministers —, why not also a simple blessing, that would only serve to reaffirm what the Church has always done: reject sin, but welcome and love the sinner, as the Lord has taught?

However, It is necessary to specify that a blessing of this type could never be correctly understood as confirmation, ratification or legitimation of the objective condition in which such people find themselves. If so, both the meaning of the blessing and the very truth of ecclesial pastoral care would be betrayed.. The Church can bless the person who asks God for help, not sin as such, nor the claim that a situation contrary to its doctrine be recognized as morally good or ecclesially legitimate. Precisely for this reason, the blessing, if asked with faith and humility, retains its meaning only if it remains as a gesture of invocation, of trust and support, never as an implicit consecration of a condition of life.

As the prefect of the Dicastery specified at the time for the Doctrine of the Faith in the aforementioned statement, the objective of the Declaration — that, you have to admit it, some have digested poorly — was to highlight the value of the blessing for the Church, in order to arrive at a "broader understanding of the blessings and the proposal to increase pastoral blessings, "that do not require the same conditions as blessings in a liturgical or ritual context".

By not living for a long time in a Christianized context, The Church will increasingly encounter situations that do not conform to doctrine. He may entrench himself in a defensive position and limit himself to taking refuge behind the doctrine that recognizes the illegality of certain human conditions., but this wouldn't say anything new. Or, following the example of his Master, You will be able to recognize that a relationship is wrong and, however, It contains positive elements within it that cannot be denied., And then why not pour out “the oil of consolation and the wine of hope” on these situations?, even with a simple informal blessing, if requested with confidence?

Also here, however, discernment remains decisive: It is one thing to pastorally accompany people who, even in an objectively disordered or irregular condition, They ask for spiritual help without seeking any legitimacy; another thing would be to endorse, even indirectly, the claim that ecclesial welcome coincides with the recognition of its state as conforming to the Gospel. The mercy of the Church does not consist in obscuring the truth, but in accompanying people towards it with patience, without rejecting or humiliating anyone, but at the same time without falsifying anything.

Behold, well, a small contribution to reflection that has no pretensions, moved only by that spirit that is behind Jesus' invitation to be a disciple "similar to a householder who brings out of his treasure new things and old things" (Mt 13,52). Precisely for that reason, The task of the Church is not to close the door of grace to those who ask for it with sincere trust., nor confuse mercy with the legitimation of what remains contrary to the Gospel, but to jointly guard truth and charity, so that each pastoral gesture is an authentic help for people and never an occasion for misunderstanding about doctrine. All this, without ever losing sight of the very essence of the mission that Christ has entrusted to us with precise words:

«The healthy have no need of a doctor, but the sick. Id, well, and learn what it means: I want mercy and not sacrifice. Because I have not come to call the righteous, but to sinners" (Mt 9,12-13).

From the Eremo, 19 March 2026

.

.

Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)

 

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

______________________

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

.

.

.

.

.

"Let me cry". The dark night in which God appears far away and is therefore truly close – “Lascia ch’io pianga.” The dark night in which God appears distant and for that very reason is truly near – "Let me cry". The dark night in which God appears far away and for that reason is really close –

Italian, English, Español

 

«LET ME CRY». THE DARK NIGHT IN WHICH GOD APPEARS FAR AWAY AND IS THEREFORE REALLY CLOSE

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. It becomes essential. He does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer tries to “feel” the presence; silence lives. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: it was simply beyond representation. The night, when it is authentic, it does not take away God: it takes away the illusion of possessing it. And in this dispossession a greater freedom than any religious enthusiasm is born; a freedom that is born from the tears of those who have accepted to be freed by the truth.

— Theologica —

.

.

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

 

.

Many saints and mystics they went through that spiritual condition that tradition called "dark night".

Saint John of the Cross gave it its most radical formulation in Climbing Mount Carmel and above all in dark night, where he describes the active and passive purification of the senses and the spirit. Saint Teresa of Avila outlined the progressive purifications in Interior castle, particularly in the fourth and fifth tasks, where the soul experiences the suspension of consolations and entry into a purer mode of union. Saint Teresa of Calcutta experienced its almost absolute silence for years, as emerges from his spiritual letters published in Come Be My Light, in which he confesses that he does not "feel" the presence of God while continuing to believe and act with unshakable fidelity. In all these cases it was not a crisis of faith, but of its maturation. And this is where the most frequent reading error lies: confusing the "dark night" with the loss of faith. The night is not a denial of belief; it is purification of the lower ways in which one believes.

Dire: «I feel God far away, in fact I don't feel it at all", it does not mean affirming an ontological absence of God, but to describe what spiritual masters call sensitive deprivation of presence. God does not fail, what is missing is the usual way in which the soul was used to perceiving it. As long as God is “heard”, it still partly remains within the horizon of experience and often - it must be said clearly - within the horizon of emotional fideism. Faith supported predominantly by feeling is not yet false, but it is fragile: it depends on an internal vibration, from a consolation, by an affective resonance that can easily be mistaken for divine presence. At this stage the risk is subtle: confusing God with what we feel about Him. When instead God is no longer heard but believed in silence, then it becomes absolute. It is no longer an object of consolation, nor emotional support, nor rewarding experience; becomes the foundation of being. It's no longer what comforts, but what it is. And adherence to what is does not arise from enthusiasm, but from the truth.

With the maturation of faith the sense of our nothingness takes over before the mystery. Emotional fideism seeks emotional confirmation; theological faith, on the contrary, accept silence. Think about it, eg, to those who identify the presence of God with the internal warmth felt during a prayer, with the emotion aroused by a song, with the enthusiasm generated by an intense community experience. None of this is in itself negative: it can be an authentic gift. But if faith depends on such resonances, when these fail it seems that God also fails.

It is relatively easy to have "faith" inside the majestic basilicas, among the aromatic fumes of incense, the sounds of the organ, the solemn choirs, the vestments which are authentic works of art and the sacred vases worthy of a goldsmith museum. All of this can elevate, prepare, to help. But try to have it, faith, in a basement in the middle of the night, or in an isolated place in the countryside, where the Eucharist is celebrated in a climate of persecution, with one ear turned to prayers and the other alert for fear that someone might break in. Without devices, without solemnity, without sensible supports. It's there, between strength and fear, that faith is measured in its nakedness. The night intervenes right here: it removes the sensitive support to reveal whether the adhesion was aimed at God or his consolations.

However, the other side of the coin must also be analysed: when the soul enters stably into this more naked form of faith, a subtle risk may arise: a certain severity towards the simplest forms of religiosity, it is comprensible, but this does not necessarily happen out of snobbery or haughtiness, quite the opposite: when one has gone through the purification of the imagination, naive devotions can appear superficial. However, the difference is not between maturity and ridiculousness, but along different paths. Even a simple faith can be authentic, if it is oriented towards truth and not towards subjective suggestion.

Those who go through the night do not experience a nostalgic faith nor does it defend a refined image of God built on elevated categories; lives in the silence of God. And this silence is not a sign of crisis, but of depth. It's not empty; it is space not occupied by the imagination. It's like the silence that envelops a charterhouse: a silence that does not allow half measures. In that context the superficial man does not survive. Or you remain mediocre, incapable of inhabiting the essentials, or we become men who, even with his feet firmly planted in the earth and a fully human body, they already live oriented towards the eternal incorporeal. Silence does not destroy: select.

When the mystery is no longer an object to be understood but a horizon before which to stop, the ego resizes. Thus a new freedom is born. Not the freedom of autonomy, but that of adaptation. We are no longer free because God is far away; we are freer because we have stopped wanting to make him close according to our own measure. The risk to the contrary is subtle and widespread: reduce God to the interlocutor of one's own internal resonances. The religious world is full of people who talk to themselves believing they have spoken to God, to then speak to men as if they were speaking in the name of God. It's not about mysticism, but of projection. When the imagination is not purified, can easily be mistaken for revelation. The night, instead, takes away this claim. It does not authorize one to speak on behalf of God; forces one to remain silent before Him. As long as God is heard, it remains partly within our horizon. When silence is believed, the horizon reverses: he is not God within our space, but we inside His. And there you are left speechless.

In this experience awareness of human limitations emerges. The limit is not frustration; it is truth. The mystery does not humiliate man, places it. And the man placed in the mystery is freer than the man who imagines himself central and builds a God in his own emotional image. The authentic night does not generate cynicism; generates internal precision. Many talk about "night" because they have lost consolations, few recognize it as a place of knowing one's limits. In the first case there is a lack, in the second, maturation. Only those who have gone through this purification can guard without dominating, transmit without imposing, respect the freedom of others, including religious freedom, much debated and misunderstood in certain circles, founded on human dignity and freedom of conscience (cf.. Human Dignity, 2) and its times. Those who have not come to terms with their limits tend to save in order to assert themselves, whoever did it saves because he has received.

God appears far away, but precisely in the subtraction it becomes more radically present. No longer as an object of experience, but as the silent foundation of existence. And in front of this foundation no exaltation is produced, but adoration. The claim to "feel" God as a criterion of his presence is a childish simplification of the relationship with the Eternal. Dire: “I have to hear from God” or: "In that place you truly feel the presence of God" often means confusing emotional intensity with ontological reality. The experience can be intense, but the intensity does not coincide with the truth. God cannot be contained in the resonances of our affective microcosm. He does not increase or decrease based on the vibration of our sensitivity. On the contrary, to the extent that the soul matures, the awareness of the infinite distance that separates the Creator from the creature grows. E, paradoxically, precisely this perception of distance is a sign of greater proximity. We get closer to God by not reducing Him to our own measure, but accepting that He exceeds every measure. When the soul stops demanding sensitive confirmation and accepts to believe without possessing, then enter into a truer relationship. No longer based on the need to perceive, but on the willingness to worship.

The night, so, it does not push God away; removes the illusion of having grasped it. The night is not just about taking away consolations; it is going through pain. There is no spiritual freedom without a form of pain that breaks the internal chains. As long as the soul finds support in its own representations, in their emotions, in one's own reassuring images of God, remains in only apparent freedom. It is the pain that breaks the bonds that hold her back.

Duolo is not a value in itself here, nor an ascetic complacency. It is the inevitable consequence of losing what one had learned to love as support. When God escapes sensitive perception, the soul experiences real deprivation. But this deprivation does not destroy faith; purify it. It doesn't weaken it; it makes it more naked and therefore more real. No one acquires freedom without going through loss. Authentic freedom always arises from detachment, and detachment involves pain. Not because God wants to hurt, but because man must be freed from that which confuses consolation with truth.

The night is therefore an act of severe mercy. Break what binds, not what it constitutes. Destroys images, not reality. He is silent to educate about pure membership. And when the soul stops clinging to what it feels, finally begins to adhere to what is. This night is therefore not an ascetic concept for exceptional souls. It's a real threshold that many cross in silence. There are priests who celebrate every day without feeling anything anymore, who preach without interior consolations, who accompany others while they themselves walk in the dark. They have not lost faith; they have lost the sensitive support of faith. And it is precisely in this nakedness that the quality of adhesion occurs. When all that remains is the pure act of believing, without emotional echo, without spiritual gratification, without emotional return. Then faith is no longer experience: it's loyalty (See. my work I think to understand).

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. It becomes essential. He does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer tries to “feel” the presence; silence lives. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: it was simply beyond representation. The night, when it is authentic, it does not take away God: it takes away the illusion of possessing it. And in this dispossession a greater freedom than any religious enthusiasm is born; a freedom that is born from the tears of those who have accepted to be freed by the truth.

.

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

The duolo breaks

These twists

Of my martyrs

Just out of pity

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

(Let me cry, G. F. Handel).

.

From the island of Patmos, 12 March 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

“LASCIA CH’IO PIANGA.” THE DARK NIGHT IN WHICH GOD APPEARS DISTANT AND FOR THAT VERY REASON IS TRULY NEAR

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. They become essential. They do not despise simple devotion, yet they can no longer confuse consolation with God. They no longer seek to “feel” presence; they inhabit silence. And in silence they discover that God was not absent; He was simply beyond every representation. The night, when authentic, does not remove God: it removes the illusion of possessing Him. And in this stripping there is born a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm — a freedom born of the tears of one who has consented to be liberated by truth.

— Theologica —

.

.

Many saints and mystics have passed through that spiritual condition which the tradition has called the “dark night.” Saint John of the Cross offered its most radical formulation in the Climbing Mount Carmel and above all in the dark night, where he describes the active and passive purification of the senses and of the spirit. Saint Teresa of Ávila outlined its progressive purifications in The Interior Castle, particularly in the fourth and fifth mansions, where the soul experiences the suspension of consolations and enters a more purified mode of union. Saint Teresa of Calcutta lived for years in a near-absolute interior silence, as emerges from her spiritual letters published in Come Be My Light, in which she confesses that she did not “feel” the presence of God while continuing to believe and to act with unshaken fidelity. In none of these cases was this a crisis of faith, but rather its maturation. Here lies the most common misreading: to confuse the “dark night” with the loss of faith. The night is not the negation of belief; it is the purification of the lower modalities by which one believes.

To say, “I feel God distant — indeed, I do not feel Him at all,” does not affirm an ontological absence of God; it describes what the spiritual masters call the sensible deprivation of presence. God does not withdraw; what withdraws is the habitual mode by which the soul had grown accustomed to perceiving Him. As long as God is “felt,” He still remains, in part, within the horizon of experience — and often, it must be said clearly, within the horizon of emotional fideism. A faith sustained primarily by feeling is not yet false, but it is fragile: it depends upon an interior vibration, a consolation, an affective resonance that can easily be mistaken for divine presence. At this stage the risk is subtle: to confuse God with what one feels of Him. When, however, God is no longer felt but believed in silence, He becomes absolute. He is no longer the object of consolation, nor emotional support, nor gratifying experience; He becomes the ground of being. No longer what comforts, but what is. And adhesion to what is does not arise from enthusiasm, but from truth.

With the maturation of faith there emerges a sense of our own nothingness before the mystery. Emotional fideism seeks affective confirmations; theological faith, by contrast, accepts silence. Consider those who identify God’s presence with the interior warmth experienced during prayer, with the emotion stirred by a hymn, with the enthusiasm generated by an intense communal experience. None of this is negative in itself; it may well be an authentic gift. Yet if faith depends upon such resonances, when they fade it seems as though God Himself has faded.

It is relatively easy to have “faith” within majestic basilicas, amid the fragrant clouds of incense, the sound of the organ, solemn choirs, vestments that are works of art and sacred vessels worthy of a goldsmith’s museum. All this can elevate, dispose, assist. But try to have faith in a basement at midnight, or in an isolated countryside setting where the Eucharist is celebrated under threat of persecution, with one ear attentive to the prayers and the other alert in case someone should break in. Without apparatus, without solemnity, without sensible supports. It is there, between strength and fear, that faith is measured in its nakedness. The night intervenes precisely here: it removes sensible support in order to reveal whether adhesion was directed toward God or toward His consolations.

Yet the reverse must also be considered: when the soul enters steadily into this more stripped form of faith, a subtle risk may arise — a certain severity toward simpler forms of religiosity. This is understandable, though it need not stem from snobbery or hauteur. When one has passed through the purification of the imagination, ingenuous devotions may appear superficial. Nevertheless, the distinction is not between maturity and ridicule, but between different paths. A simple faith can also be authentic, if it is oriented toward truth rather than suggestion.

One who traverses the night does not live a nostalgic faith, nor defend a refined image of God constructed upon elevated categories; he inhabits the silence of God. And this silence is not a sign of crisis, but of depth. It is not emptiness; it is space no longer occupied by imagination. It resembles the silence that envelops a Carthusian monastery — a silence that admits no mediocrity. Within such a space the superficial man does not endure. Either one remains mediocre, incapable of inhabiting the essential, or one becomes a man who, though firmly planted on earth and fully embodied, already lives oriented toward the incorporeal eternal. Silence does not destroy; it selects.

When the mystery is no longer an object to be grasped but a horizon before which one must halt, the self is reduced to its true measure. A new freedom is born. Not the freedom of autonomy, but that of conformity. One is not freer because God is distant; one is freer because one has ceased trying to render Him near according to one’s own measure. The opposite risk is subtle and widespread: reducing God to an interlocutor of one’s interior resonances. The religious world is full of people who converse with themselves, convinced that they have spoken with God, and who then speak to others as though in His name. This is not mysticism; it is projection. When imagination is not purified, it can easily be mistaken for revelation. The night, by contrast, removes this presumption. It does not authorise one to speak in God’s name; it compels one to fall silent before Him. As long as God is felt, He remains partly within our horizon. When He is believed in silence, the horizon is reversed: it is no longer God within our space, but we within His. And there, words fall away.

In this experience there emerges an awareness of human limitation. Limitation is not frustration; it is truth. The mystery does not humiliate man; it situates him. And the man situated within the mystery is freer than the one who imagines himself central and fashions a God in his own emotional image. The authentic night does not generate cynicism; it generates interior precision. Many speak of “night” because they have lost consolations; few recognise it as the place where one learns one’s own limit. In the first case there is lack; in the second, maturation. Only one who has undergone this purification can guard without dominating, transmit without imposing, respect the freedom of the other and his time. Those who have not reckoned with their own limit tend to save in order to affirm themselves; those who have, save because they have received.

God appears distant, yet precisely in this withdrawal He becomes more radically present. No longer as an object of experience, but as the silent foundation of existence. And before such a foundation there is no exhilaration, but adoration. The insistence on “feeling” God as the criterion of His presence is an infantile simplification of the relation to the Eternal. To say, “I must feel God,” or “In that place one truly feels God’s presence,” often confuses emotional intensity with ontological reality. Experience may be intense; intensity is not truth. God is not contained within the resonances of our affective microcosm. He does not increase or diminish according to the vibration of our sensibility. On the contrary, as the soul matures, there grows the awareness of the infinite distance separating the Creator from the creature. Paradoxically, this perception of distance is itself a sign of greater proximity. One approaches God not by reducing Him to one’s measure, but by consenting that He exceeds every measure. When the soul ceases to demand sensible confirmations and consents to believe without possessing, it enters a truer relation — one grounded not in perception, but in adoration.

The night, therefore, does not distance God; it distances the illusion of having grasped Him. The night is not only the removal of consolations; it is the passage through sorrow. There is no spiritual freedom without a form of grief that breaks interior chains. As long as the soul leans upon its own representations, emotions, and reassuring images of God, it remains in a merely apparent freedom. It is sorrow that shatters the cords that bind it.

Sorrow here is not a value in itself, nor an ascetical complacency. It is the inevitable consequence of losing what one had learned to love as support. When God withdraws from sensible perception, the soul experiences a real deprivation. Yet this deprivation does not destroy faith; it purifies it. It does not weaken it; it renders it more naked, and therefore more true. No one acquires freedom without passing through a loss. Authentic freedom is always born of detachment, and detachment entails pain. Not because God desires to wound, but because man must be freed from what confuses consolation with truth. The night is thus an act of severe mercy. It breaks what binds, not what constitutes. It destroys images, not reality. It falls silent in order to educate pure adhesion. And when the soul ceases clinging to what it feels, it finally begins to adhere to what is. This night is not an ascetical concept reserved for exceptional souls. It is a real threshold crossed in silence by many. There are priests who celebrate each day without feeling anything, who preach without interior consolation, who accompany others while themselves walking in darkness. They have not lost faith; they have lost the sensible support of faith. And it is precisely in this nakedness that the quality of adhesion is revealed. When nothing remains but the pure act of believing — without emotional echo, without spiritual gratification, without affective return — then faith is no longer experience: it is fidelity.

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. They become essential. They do not despise simple devotion, yet they can no longer confuse consolation with God. They no longer seek to “feel” presence; they inhabit silence. And in silence they discover that God was not absent; He was simply beyond every representation. The night, when authentic, does not remove God: it removes the illusion of possessing Him. And in this stripping there is born a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm — a freedom born of the tears of one who has consented to be liberated by truth.

.

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

The duolo breaks

These twists

Of my martyrs

Just out of pity

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

Let me cry (G. F. Handel).

.

Patmos Island, 12 March 2026

.

«LET ME CRY». THE DARK NIGHT IN WHICH GOD APPEARS FAR AWAY AND WHY HE IS REALLY CLOSE

Whoever has crossed this threshold does not become cynical. It becomes essential. Does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer seeks to "feel" the presence; dwells the silence. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: It was simply beyond all representation. the night, when it's authentic, does not take away God: removes the illusion of owning it. And in this dispossession a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm is born.; a freedom that is born from the cry of those who have accepted to be liberated by the truth.

— Theologica —

.

.

Many saints and mystics They have gone through that spiritual condition that tradition has called "dark night.". Saint John of the Cross offered his most radical formulation in the Climbing the Mounte Carmelo and especially in the dark night, where it describes the active and passive purification of the senses and spirit. Saint Teresa of Ávila outlined her progressive purifications in The Inner Castle, particularly in the fourth and fifth mansions, where the soul experiences the suspension of consolations and entry into a purer mode of union. Saint Teresa of Calcutta lived in almost absolute silence for years, as can be seen from his spiritual letters published in Ven, be my light (Come Be My Light), in which he confesses not "feeling" the presence of God and, however, continue believing and acting with unwavering fidelity. In none of these cases was it a crisis of faith, but of its maturation. Here is the most frequent error of interpretation: confuse the "dark night" with the loss of faith. The night is not a denial of belief; It is purification of the lower modalities with which one believes.

Say: «I feel God far away, I don't even feel it at all.", does not mean affirming an ontological absence of God, but to describe what spiritual teachers call sensible deprivation of the presence. God does not disappear; the habitual modality with which the soul was accustomed to perceive it disappears. While God is "felt", still remains, in part, within the horizon of experience and often – it must be said clearly – within the horizon of emotive fideism. A faith sustained primarily by feeling is not yet false, but it is fragile: depends on an internal vibration, of a consolation, of an affective resonance that can easily be confused with divine presence. In this phase the risk is subtle: confuse God with what is experienced of Him. When, instead, God is no longer felt but believed in silence, then it becomes absolute. No longer an object of consolation, no emotional support, no rewarding experience; becomes the foundation of being. It is no longer what consoles, but what is. And adherence to what is is not born of enthusiasm, but of the truth.

With the maturation of faith, the sense of our nothingness in the face of mystery arises.. Emotional fideism seeks emotional confirmations; theological faith, on the contrary, accept the silence. think, For example, in whom he identifies the presence of God with the inner warmth experienced during a prayer, with the emotion aroused by a song, with the enthusiasm generated by an intense community experience. None of this is negative in itself.: can be a real gift. But if faith depends on such resonances, When these disappear it seems that God also disappears.

It is relatively easy to have "faith" inside majestic basilicas, among the aromas of incense, the sounds of the organ, the solemn choirs, the ornaments that are true works of art and the sacred vessels worthy of a goldsmith's museum. All this can raise, predispose, help. But try to have faith in a basement in the middle of the night, or in an isolated place in the countryside, where the Eucharist is celebrated in a climate of persecution, with one ear attentive to the prayers and the other attentive in case someone breaks in. Without devices, without solemnity, without sensitive supports. It's there, between strength and fear, where faith is measured in its nakedness. The night intervenes precisely here: withdraws sensitive support to reveal whether the adhesion was directed to God or his consolations.

The reverse must also be analyzed: when the soul enters stably into this most naked form of faith, a subtle risk may arise: certain severity towards the simplest forms of religiosity. It's understandable, although not necessarily the result of snobbery or haughtiness. When you have gone through the purification of the imagination, naïve devotions can seem superficial. However, The difference is not between maturity and ridiculousness., but between different paths. A simple faith can also be authentic, if it is oriented towards truth and not suggestion.

Who goes through the night he does not live a nostalgic faith nor defend a refined image of God built on elevated categories; dwell in the silence of God. And that silence is not a sign of crisis, but deep. It is not empty; It is space not occupied by the imagination. It's like the silence that surrounds a monastery: a silence that does not admit half measures. In this context, the superficial man does not survive.. If it remains mediocre, unable to inhabit the essential, or you become a man who, with feet firmly planted on the ground and a fully human body, lives already oriented towards the eternal incorporeal. Silence does not destroy: select.

When the mystery stops being an object to understand and becomes a horizon before which to stop, the self is resized. Then a new freedom is born. Not the freedom of autonomy, but that of adequacy. You are not freer because God is far away; one is freer because one has stopped trying to make it close according to one's own measure. The opposite risk is subtle and widespread: reduce God to the interlocutor of one's own interior resonances. The religious world is full of people who dialogue with themselves, convinced that they have spoken with God., and who then speak to men as if they were speaking in their name. It's not about mystique, but projection. When the imagination is not purified, can be easily confused with revelation. the night, instead, eliminate this claim. Does not authorize speaking on behalf of God; forces to be silent before Him. While God is felt, remains partly within our horizon. When it is believed in silence, the horizon is reversed: It is no longer God within our space, but us within yours. And there the words fade away.

In this experience awareness of the human limit emerges. The limit is not frustration; It's true. Mystery does not humiliate man; places it. And the man located in the mystery is freer than the one who imagines himself central and builds a God in his emotional image.. The authentic night does not generate cynicism; generates internal precision. Many speak of "night" because they have lost consolations; few recognize it as a place of knowledge of one's own limit. In the first case there is a lack; in the second, maturation. Only those who have gone through this purification can guard without dominating, transmit without imposing, respect the freedom of others and their times. He who has not faced his own limit tends to save to assert himself; whoever has done it saves because he has received.

God seems far away, but precisely in its withdrawal it becomes more radically present. No longer as an object of experience, but as the silent foundation of existence. And before that foundation no exaltation arises, but worship. The claim to "feel" God as a criterion of his presence is a childish simplification of the relationship with the Eternal.. Say: "I must feel God" or "In that place the presence of God is truly felt" usually confuses emotional intensity with ontological reality.. The experience can be intense; intensity is not the truth. God is not locked in the resonances of our affective microcosm. It does not grow or decrease according to the vibration of our sensitivity. On the contrary, as the soul matures, awareness grows of the infinite distance that separates the Creator from the creature. And paradoxically, This perception of distance is a sign of greater proximity. One approaches God by not reducing Him to one's own measure., but accepting that He exceeds all measure. When the soul stops demanding sensitive confirmations and accepts believing without possessing, enter a truer relationship: not based on the need to perceive, but in the availability to worship.

the night, therefore, does not distance God; removes the illusion of having held on to it. The night is not just a withdrawal of consolations; is going through the pain. There is no spiritual freedom without a form of mourning that breaks the inner chains. As long as the soul relies on its own representations, calming emotions and images of God, remains in a freedom only apparent. It is the pain that breaks the ties that held her.

Mourning here is neither a value in itself nor an ascetic indulgence.. It is the inevitable consequence of losing what we had learned to love as support.. When God escapes sensitive perception, the soul experiences real deprivation. But this deprivation does not destroy faith; purify it. It doesn't weaken it; makes it more naked and therefore more true. No one acquires freedom without going through loss.. Authentic freedom is always born from detachment, and detachment brings pain. Not because God wants to hurt, but because man must be freed from that which confuses consolation with truth. the night is, therefore, an act of severe mercy. Break what binds, not what constitutes. Destroy images, not reality. Keep quiet to educate in pure adhesion. And when the soul stops clinging to what it feels, finally begins to adhere to what is. This night is not an ascetic concept reserved for exceptional souls. It is a real threshold that many cross in silence. There are priests who celebrate every day without feeling anything, who preach without interior consolations, who accompany others while they themselves walk in the darkness. They have not lost faith; they have lost the sensitive support of faith. And it is precisely in this nakedness where the quality of the adhesion is verified.. When there is nothing left but the pure act of believing — without emotional echo, without spiritual gratification, without emotional return — then faith is no longer experience: it's fidelity.

Whoever has crossed this threshold does not become cynical. It becomes essential. Does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer seeks to "feel" the presence; dwells the silence. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: It was simply beyond all representation. the night, when it's authentic, does not take away God: removes the illusion of owning it. And in this dispossession a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm is born.; a freedom that is born from the cry of those who have accepted to be liberated by the truth.

.

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

The duolo breaks

These twists

Of my martyrs

Just out of pity

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

Let me cry (G. F. Handel).

.

From the Island of Patmos, 12 March 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

The path of the three keys

THE WAY OF THE THREE KEYS

The second edition of this novel is out that passes through time, consciousness and mystery, where reality and vision intertwine, the past returns with its suspended accounts, faith is tested, certainties crack one after the other. Nothing is taken for granted, nothing is ornamental: every meeting, every word, every silence leads deeper

— Books and reviews —

Author:
Jorge Facio Lynx
President of Editions The island of Patmos

.

A recognizable and at the same time disturbing city. A successful man who believes he has everything under control. A set of keys forgotten in a drawer. Sometimes life changes not with a bang, but with one detail: a voice, a memory, a door we never wanted to open.

The second edition of is out The path of the three keys, a novel that spans time, consciousness and mystery, where in the fiction of Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, reality and vision are intertwined, the past returns with its suspended accounts, faith is tested, certainties crack one after the other. Nothing is taken for granted, nothing is ornamental: every meeting, every word, every silence leads deeper.

It is not a narrative that smooths the edges of existence, but a story that passes through them. He leads the reader where every man, sooner or later, is called to stay: within himself, before their own choices, faced with his own omissions. And maybe, this time, the key will weigh more in the hand, because some doors open only once and what is behind them no longer allows you to go back as before.

the Island of Patmos, 8 March 2026

.

LIBRARY STORE – OPEN HERE

.

______________________

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

.

.

.

The desert, the exodus and the stage: young people and Lent with Pope Leo XIV – The desert, the exodus and the stage: young people and Lent with Pope Leo XIV – The desert, the exodus and the setting: young people and Lent with Pope Leo XIV

Italian, English, Español

 

THE DESERT, THE EXODUS AND THE STAGE: YOUNG PEOPLE AND LENT WITH POPE LEO XIV

«How rare it is to find adults who mend their ways, people, companies and institutions that admit they were wrong! Today, from noi, it is precisely this possibility".

— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

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

 

.

«I always imagine all these kids who play a game in that immense rye field etc. etc. Thousands of kids, and there is no one else around, no big ones, I am trying to say, just me. And I'm standing on the edge of a crazy cliff. And all I have to do is catch everyone who's about to fall off the cliff, I am trying to say, if they run without looking where they are going, I have to jump out from somewhere and catch them. I shouldn't have to do anything else all day.".

This famous and poignant confession of the protagonist of Young Holden di J.D. Salinger (1), resonates, decades later, with an impressive prophetic relevance. Holden Caulfield, in his restless and disenchanted wandering, he profoundly despises the falsity of the adult world, empty conformism, what today we could define as the hypertrophy of the ephemeral. He desperately seeks authenticity, a safe place where innocence is not corrupted. Those were other times now gone? We are sure? I do not believe. The youth of today, immersed in our complex and turbulent era change, they're right on that crazy cliff, one step away from the dizzying void of the loss of meaning.

Ours are unprecedented times. The post-pandemic era has left deep scars in the souls of the new generations, scars that add to the anxieties of a society in which artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and the new logic of the global economy risk reducing the human person to a mere data point for consumption and processing. In this scenario, as trainers, theologians and pastors, we clash with two fundamental tensions that run through the hearts of young people. The first is the absence of future and planning: the new generations struggle to imagine their own tomorrow because they are not given the coordinates to trace it; their hopes, too often, they have not been integrated into a journey of faith capable of giving breathing space to existence.

The second tension, even more radical, it is precisely the search for a profound meaning that goes beyond the ephemeral, the urgent need for something, or rather than Someone, that does not fade with changing fashions, of Amazon advertisements and various digital stores. However, at least at our personal level of pastoral and human experience, we can say with certainty that under the ashes of this crisis there is a living fire. The extraordinary experience of the Youth Jubilee of the summer 2025 it wasn't a flash in the pan, an isolated event consumed in the enthusiasm of a few days. Was, on the contrary, an authentic beginning. Many have started walking along that road. We certainly cannot guarantee for all the two million young people present, but the excitement is undeniable. Young people feel increasingly attracted to the sacred. Paradoxically, Precisely the aggressiveness of a secularization that has flattened itself on commercialization and on the hypertrophy of the ego is pushing the new generations to look elsewhere, to escape from a materialism that does not nourish the spirit. They seek the God of Jesus Christ, a God who knows how to value them, that shows them their strengths but also helps them deal with necessary self-denials.

The beginning of this Lent of 2026 it was marked by a beautiful and programmatic homily by the Holy Father Leo XIV, who made his debut as Pontiff for the first time on the penitential path. The Pope grasped this dynamic of youthful research with extraordinary clarity, offering a theological and pastoral reading that shakes us from our laziness. In his message for the Ash Mass, Pope Leo XIV states: opposing idolatry to the living God - Scripture teaches us - means daring freedom and finding it again through an exodus, a path. No longer paralyzed, rigid, secure in their positions, but gathered to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions that admit they were wrong!

"Today, from noi, it is precisely this possibility. And it is no coincidence that numerous young people, even in secularized contexts, feel the call of this day more than in the past, on Ash Wednesday. Are they, indeed, young people, to clearly understand that a more just way of living is possible and that there are responsibilities for what is wrong in the Church and in the world. It should be, so, start where you can and with whoever is there. «Now is the favorable moment, here is now the day of salvation!» (2Color 6,2). We feel, so, the missionary significance of Lent, certainly not to distract us from working on ourselves, as to open it to many restless people of good will, who seek ways to authentic renewal of life, on the horizon of the Kingdom of God and his justice" (Homily in the Holy Mass for the blessing of the ashes, 18 February 2026, text who).

Here is the key: Lent is not an intimate retreat, but an exodus. And who, more than young people, it is structurally ready to hit the road? The Pope acutely observes a dynamic that shames us adults:

«How rare it is to find adults who mend their ways, people, companies and institutions that admit they were wrong! Today, from noi, it is precisely this possibility".

The Church today finds itself in an ambivalent phase: is experiencing an undeniable decadence of its oldest institutional forms, but at the same time experiences a silent and powerful spiritual growth, a return to the essential. In this disorientation, in which as an ecclesial community we are not always able to provide the right answers, young people desperately ask for new ones “fixed points”. Fixed points necessary to decipher reality, so as not to be dragged away by the ideologies of the moment and to resist the spiritual desert.

Pope Leo XIV underlines precisely this aspect: young people. Young people are not looking for a perfect Church, but a credible Church, capable of admitting one's limits and getting back on the path. From here arises the urgency of a new mission, as recalled by the Apostle Paul cited by the Pontiff: «Now is the favorable moment, here is now the day of salvation!» (2Color 6,2). The Pope sends us as missionaries among young people, inviting us to get down from our chairs and seek new pastoral and theological ways to make people understand the beauty of being Christians. It is an invitation to make the desert flourish, offering solid proposals that overcome intimacy and embrace the drama of history.

Let's try to come up with some ways for this research by young people, with young people you become an effective pastoral action and theologically founded in the Theodrama of Christ which generates saving action and Hope. There is a precious interpretation that emerges every year, at the beginning of the penitential time, in conversations with a dear friend, who always reminds me how Lent is her favorite liturgical period. The motivation, translated into theological language, it is enlightening: Lent is the journey into which we are called to enter physically and spiritually drama of Christ, to immerse yourself in His deepest action, taller and more beautiful.

All other liturgical mysteries — Christmas, Ordinary Time, the Marian solemnities - find their center of gravity and their perfect connection only here, in the dramatic and saving action of Jesus. It is here that the thought inevitably refers us to the brilliant intuition of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In its monumental Theodramatic, the great Swiss theologian reminds us that Revelation is not a static picture to witness, but a drama in which God enters personally, compromising with history. He writes:

"It gave […] he is like a poet. From here it is also explained that he finds himself in evil and in all filth… He himself is all over the place, observe, goes on composing, in a certain sense in poetically impersonal ways, pay attention, so to speak, to everything" (2).

Man is then torn from his condition of simple spectator and is drawn to play his part in Christ, so long as:

«This entire existence can be understood – in its relation to the cross and of the cross – as a drama» (3).

This is the heart of the proposal to offer our young people. We must bring them back to live the drama of Christ, to understand that Christianity is the boldest adventure in which the infinite intertwines with the finite. We need to help them insert their action, their failures, their frustrated hopes and their disorientation in the victorious action of Jesus. When a young person understands that his pain and his aspirations have been taken on by the Son of God on the "stage" of the Cross, secularization suddenly loses its deceptive charm.

Let us then look at this Lent, led by the magisterium of Leo XIV, with unshakable optimism and profound hope. Despite the shadows of our era, the Holy Spirit continues to arouse in the hearts of the new generations a hunger and thirst for the Absolute that no human logic will ever be able to satisfy. Accompany young people in this exodus towards freedom, become their traveling companions to help them rediscover the dazzling beauty of faith in Christ, it is the most exciting challenge that the Church today is called to face. And the victory, in the drama of redemption, it has already been assured to us.

Santa Maria Novella, in Florence, 8 March 2026

.

NOTE

(1) (D). SALINGER Young Holden, Torino, Einaudi, 1961, cap. 22.

(2) U. FROM BALTHASAR, TheoDrammatica, Vol. I: Introduction to the drama, Jaca Book, Milan, 1980, 30.

(3) U. FROM BALTHASAR, TheoDrammatica, Vol. IV: The Action, JACA BOOK, MILANO, 1986, 368).

.

.

THE DESERT, THE EXODUS AND THE STAGE: YOUNG PEOPLE AND LENT WITH POPE LEO XIV

«How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions who admit that they have been wrong! Today, among us, this is precisely the possibility».

— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

«I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do is catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going, I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day».

This famous and moving confession of the protagonist of The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger (1) resonates, decades later, with astonishing prophetic relevance. Holden Caulfield, in his restless and disenchanted wandering, profoundly despises the falseness of the adult world, its empty conformism – what today we might define as the hypertrophy of the ephemeral. He desperately seeks authenticity, a safe place where innocence is not corrupted. Were those times long gone? Are we sure? I do not think so. Today’s young people, immersed in our complex and turbulent change of epoch, stand precisely on that crazy cliff, one step away from the vertiginous void of the loss of meaning.

Ours are unprecedented times. The post-pandemic era has left deep scars on the souls of the younger generations, scars that add to the anxieties of a society in which artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and the new logics of the global economy risk reducing the human person to mere data for consumption and processing. In this scenario, as educators, theologians and pastors, we encounter two fundamental tensions that cross the hearts of the young. The first is the absence of a future and of life projects: new generations struggle to imagine their tomorrow because they are not given the coordinates to chart it; their hopes, too often, have not been integrated into a journey of faith capable of giving breath to existence.

The second tension, even more radical, is the search for a profound meaning that surpasses the ephemeral, the pressing need for something — or rather Someone — who does not vanish with changing fashions, Amazon advertisements and the countless digital stores. Yet, at least according to our own pastoral and human experience, we can affirm with certainty that beneath the ashes of this crisis there burns a living fire. The extraordinary experience of the Youth Jubilee in the summer of 2025 was not a flash in the pan, an isolated event consumed in the enthusiasm of a few days. On the contrary, it was an authentic beginning. Many have begun to walk along that road. We cannot guarantee for all the two million young people who were present, but the ferment is undeniable. Young people are increasingly attracted to the sacred. Paradoxically, precisely the aggressiveness of a secularization flattened into commercialization and the hypertrophy of the ego is pushing the new generations to look elsewhere, to flee from a materialism that does not nourish the spirit. They seek the God of Jesus Christ, a God who knows how to value them, who shows them their strengths but also helps them to face the necessary renunciations of self.

The beginning of this Lent of 2026 was marked by a beautiful and programmatic homily by the Holy Father Leo XIV, who for the first time opened the penitential journey as Pontiff. The Pope grasped with extraordinary clarity this dynamic of youthful search, offering a theological and pastoral interpretation that shakes us from our laziness. In his message for the Mass of Ash Wednesday, Pope Leo XIV states: opposing the living God to idolatry – Scripture teaches us – means daring freedom and rediscovering it through an exodus, a journey. No longer paralyzed, rigid, secure in one’s positions, but gathered in order to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions who admit that they have been wrong!

«Today, among us, this very possibility is at stake. And it is no coincidence that many young people, even in secularized contexts, feel more than in the past the appeal of this day, Ash Wednesday. Indeed, it is the young who clearly perceive that a more just way of living is possible and that there are responsibilities for what does not work in the Church and in the world. Therefore we must begin where we can and with those who are willing. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!” (2 Color 6:2). Let us therefore feel the missionary scope of Lent, not in order to distract ourselves from the work on ourselves, but to open it to the many restless people of good will who are seeking paths for an authentic renewal of life, in the horizon of the Kingdom of God and of His justice» (Homily for the blessing of ashes, 18 February 2026).

Here lies the turning point: Lent is not an inward-looking retreat, but an exodus. And who, more than the young, is structurally ready to set out on a journey? The Pope astutely observes a dynamic that exposes us adults:

«How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions who admit that they have been wrong! Today, among us, this is precisely the possibility».

Today the Church finds herself in an ambivalent phase: she experiences an undeniable decline of her most ancient institutional forms, yet at the same time she witnesses a silent and powerful spiritual growth, a return to the essential. In this disorientation, in which we as an ecclesial community are not always able to provide the right answers, young people desperately ask for new “points of reference”. Firm points necessary to decipher reality, to avoid being swept away by the ideologies of the moment and to resist the spiritual desert.

Pope Leo XIV highlights precisely this aspect: young people. Young people do not seek a perfect Church, but a credible Church, capable of admitting its limits and setting out again on the journey. From here springs the urgency of a new mission, as the Apostle Paul – quoted by the Pontiff – reminds us: «Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!» (2 Color 6:2). The Pope sends us as missionaries among the young, inviting us to descend from our chairs and to seek new pastoral and theological paths to make people understand the beauty of being Christians. It is an invitation to make the desert blossom, offering solid proposals that go beyond intimacy and embrace the drama of history.

Let us try to devise some paths so that this search of the young, with the young, may become an effective pastoral action and theologically grounded in the Theo-drama of Christ that generates salvific action and Hope. A precious interpretative key emerges every year, at the beginning of the penitential season, in conversations with a dear friend who always reminds me that Lent is her favourite liturgical season. The reason, translated into theological language, is illuminating: Lent is the journey in which one is called to enter physically and spiritually into the drama of Christ, to immerse oneself in His deepest, highest and most beautiful action.

All the other liturgical mysteries – Christmas, Ordinary Time, the Marian solemnities – find their centre of gravity and their perfect convergence precisely here, in the dramatic and salvific action of Jesus. Here our thought inevitably turns to the brilliant intuition of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In his monumental Theo-Drama, the great Swiss theologian reminds us that Revelation is not a static picture to be observed, but a drama in which God enters personally, committing Himself to history. He writes:

«God […] is like a poet. Hence it is understandable that He finds Himself in evil and in all the filth… He Himself is everywhere on the scene, observing, continuing to compose, in a certain sense with poetically impersonal ways, attentive, so to speak, to everything» (2).

Man is thus torn from the condition of a mere spectator and drawn to play his part in Christ, since:

«This whole existence can be understood – in its relation to the Cross and from the Cross – as a drama» (3).

Here lies the heart of the proposal to offer to our young people. We must bring them back to live the drama of Christ, to understand that Christianity is the boldest adventure in which the infinite intertwines with the finite. We must help them insert their action, their failures, their frustrated hopes and their disorientation into the victorious action of Jesus. When a young person understands that his suffering and aspirations have been taken up by the Son of God on the “stage” of the Cross, secularization suddenly loses its deceptive charm.

Let us therefore look to this Lent, guided by the magisterium of Leo XIV, with unshakeable optimism and deep hope. Despite the shadows of our age, the Holy Spirit continues to awaken in the hearts of the new generations a hunger and thirst for the Absolute that no human logic will ever be able to satisfy. Accompanying young people in this exodus toward freedom, becoming their companions on the journey so that they may rediscover the dazzling beauty of faith in Christ, is the most exciting challenge that the Church of today is called to face. And the victory, in the drama of redemption, has already been assured to us.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 8 March 2026

.

NOTES

(1) J.D.. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye, Boston–Toronto, Little, Brown and Company, 1951, ch. 22.

(2) Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, Vol. I: Prolegomena, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1988, p. 30.

(3) Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, Vol. IV: The Action, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1994, p. 368.

.

.

THE DESERT, THE EXODUS AND THE SCENARIO: YOUNG PEOPLE AND LENT WITH POPE LEO XIV

"How rare it is to find adults who become, personas, companies and institutions that admit to having been wrong! Hoy, among us, It is precisely this possibility.".

— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

«I always imagine all those children playing in that huge rye field… Thousands of children and no one around, no adult, I mean, only me. And I'm standing on the edge of a terrible precipice. And all I have to do is catch everyone who's about to fall off the cliff.; if they run without looking where they are going, I have to come out from somewhere and grab them. "That's the only thing I would have to do all day.".

This famous and moving confession of the protagonist The catcher in the rye by J.D.. Salinger (1) resonates, decades later, with impressive prophetic relevance. Holden Caulfield, in his restless and disenchanted wandering, deeply despises the falsehood of the adult world, empty conformity, what today we could define as the hypertrophy of the ephemeral. Desperately seeking authenticity, a safe place where innocence is not corrupted. Were those times long gone?? Are we sure? I don't believe it. The youth of today, immersed in our complex and turbulent change of era, They find themselves precisely on that terrible precipice, one step away from the dizzying emptiness of the loss of meaning.

We live in unprecedented times. The post-pandemic era has left deep scars in the souls of the new generations, scars that add to the anxieties of a society in which artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and the new logic of the global economy run the risk of reducing the human person to a mere piece of data for consumption and processing.. In this scenario, as trainers, theologians and pastors, we find two fundamental tensions that cross the hearts of young people. The first is the absence of future and projects: The new generations have difficulty imagining their tomorrow because they are not provided with the coordinates to plot it; your hopes, too often, have not been integrated into a path of faith capable of giving breath to existence.

The second tension, even more radical, It is the search for a deep meaning that surpasses the ephemeral, the urgent need for something – or rather Someone – that does not disappear with the change of fashions, of Amazon advertising and the various digital platforms. However, at least according to our pastoral and human experience, We can affirm with certainty that under the ashes of this crisis a live fire burns. The extraordinary experience of the Summer Youth Jubilee 2025 It was not a straw fire, an isolated event consumed in the enthusiasm of a few days. Was, on the contrary, a real beginning. Many have begun to walk down that path. We cannot guarantee it for the two million young people present, but the ferment is undeniable. Young people are increasingly attracted to the sacred. Paradoxically, precisely the aggressiveness of a secularization reduced to commercialization and hypertrophy of the ego is pushing new generations to look elsewhere, to flee from a materialism that does not feed the spirit. They seek the God of Jesus Christ, a God who knows how to value them, that shows them their strengths but also helps them face the necessary renunciations of themselves.

The beginning of this Lent 2026 was marked by a beautiful and programmatic homily by the Holy Father Leo XIV, who for the first time heads as Pontiff on the penitential path. The Pope captured with extraordinary lucidity this dynamic of youthful search, offering a theological and pastoral reading that shakes us from our laziness. In his message for Ash Wednesday Mass, Pope Leo XIV affirms: Opposing the living God against idolatry — Scripture teaches us — means daring freedom and rediscovering it through an exodus, of a path. No longer paralyzed, rigid and secure in our positions, but gathered together to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who become, personas, companies and institutions that admit to having been wrong!

«Hoy, among us, It is precisely this possibility. And it is no coincidence that many young people, even in secularized contexts, perceive the call of this day more than before, Ash Wednesday. are they, the young, who clearly understand that a more just way of living is possible and that there are responsibilities for what does not work in the Church and in the world. It is necessary, therefore, start from where you can and with those who are willing. “Now is the favorable time, “Now is the day of salvation.” (2Color 6,2). Let's feel, therefore, the missionary reach of Lent, not to distract us from working on ourselves, but to open it to so many restless and good-willed people who seek paths for an authentic renewal of life., on the horizon of the Kingdom of God and his justice" (Homily at the Holy Mass for the blessing of the ashes, 18 February 2026).

here is the key: Lent is not an intimate withdrawal, but an exodus. and who, more than the young, is structurally ready to get going? The Pope keenly observes a dynamic that reveals to us adults:

"How rare it is to find adults who become, personas, companies and institutions that admit to having been wrong! Hoy, among us, It is precisely this possibility.".

Today the Church is experiencing an ambivalent phase: experiences an undeniable decline of its oldest institutional forms, but at the same time witness a silent and powerful spiritual growth, a return to essentials. In this confusion, in which we are not always able as an ecclesial community to offer adequate responses, young people desperately ask for new “reference points”. Firm points necessary to decipher reality, to not be carried away by the ideologies of the moment and to resist the spiritual desert.

Pope Leo XIV emphasizes precisely this aspect: the young. Young people are not looking for a perfect Church, but a credible Church, able to admit its limits and get back on track. From here arises the urgency of a new mission, as the Apostle Paul recalls quoted by the Pontiff: «Now is the favorable time, "Now is the day of salvation." (2Color 6,2). The Pope sends us as missionaries among young people, inviting us to come down from our chairs and look for new pastoral and theological paths to make us understand the beauty of being Christians.. It is an invitation to make the desert bloom, offering solid proposals that overcome intimacy and embrace the drama of history.

Let's try to imagine some paths so that this search of the young, together with the young, becomes an effective pastoral action and theologically founded on the Theodrama of Christ that generates saving action and Hope. There is a precious reading key that emerges every year, at the beginning of penitential time, in conversations with a dear friend who always reminds me how Lent is her favorite liturgical season. The motivation, translated into theological language, It is illuminating: Lent is the path in which we are called to enter physically and spiritually into the drama of Christ, to immerse ourselves in its deepest action, taller and more beautiful.

All other liturgical mysteries —Christmas, Ordinary Time, the Marian solemnities — find their center of gravity and their perfect convergence precisely here, in the dramatic and saving action of Jesus. It is here that thought inevitably refers us to the brilliant intuition of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In its monumental Theodramatic, The great Swiss theologian reminds us that Revelation is not a static picture to attend, but a drama in which God personally enters, engaging with history. He writes:

"God […] is like a poet. From there it is also explained that he is found in evil and in all the filth... He himself is everywhere on the scene, observa, continue composing, in a way with poetically impersonal ways, attentive, so to speak, to everything" (2).

The man is then torn from his condition as a mere spectator and is drawn to play his own part in Christ, since:

«This entire existence can be understood – in its relationship with the cross and from the cross – as a drama» (3).

Here is the heart of the proposal that we must offer to our young people. We must bring them back to live the drama of Christ, to understand that Christianity is the most daring adventure in which the infinite is intertwined with the finite. It is necessary to help them insert their action, your failures, their frustrated hopes and their bewilderment in the victorious action of Jesus. When a young person understands that his pain and aspirations have been assumed by the Son of God on the “stage” of the Cross, secularization suddenly loses its deceptive charm.

Let's look at this Lent then, guided by the teachings of Leo XIV, with unwavering optimism and deep hope. Despite the shadows of our time, The Holy Spirit continues to stir up in the hearts of new generations a hunger and thirst for the Absolute that no human logic can ever satisfy.. Accompany young people in this exodus towards freedom, become companions on the journey to rediscover the dazzling beauty of faith in Christ, It is the most exciting challenge that the Church today is called to face. and the victory, in the drama of redemption, it has already been assured to us.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, a 8 March 2026

.

NOTES

(1) J.D.. SALINGER, The catcher in the rye, Torino, Einaudi, 1961, cap. 22.

(2) H.U. FROM BALTHASAR, Theodramatic, Vol. I: Introduction to drama, Jaca Book, Milan, 1980, 30.

(3) H.U. FROM BALTHASAR, Theodramatic, Vol. IV: The action, Jaca Book, Milan, 1986, 368.

.

Subscribe to our Channel Jordan the Theological club directed by Father Gabriele by clicking on the image

 

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

.

.

______________________

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

.

.

.