ENZO BIANCHI AND THE DEATH OF CAMILLO RUINI: PLEASE PRAY IN FRONT OF A DECEASED, THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SETTLED

«Even the card. Ruini is dead! A clergyman who caused many in the church to suffer. She gave the face of her stepmother to the church, the face of the church seeking authority, influence and seat among the powerful. But he did not have approval from the card. Martini nor by Pope Francis" (Enzo Bianchi).

- Church news -

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

PDF print format article

.

When the Church accompanies one of its children to death he does not convene a historic tribunal, it does not open a political debate and does not proceed with an ideological verification of the life of the deceased.

The Church does something much simpler e, at the same time, infinitely deeper: pray. He does so because he looks at death in the light of the victory of the risen Christ, according to the proclamation of the Apostle: «Death was swallowed up for victory. Where, death, your victory? Where, death, your sting?» (1 Color 15,54-55). For this reason, the general premises of the Funeral Rite remind us that the deceased remains a brother in the faith and that the entire ecclesial community gathers around him to accompany him with prayer, offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and raising suffrages. In fact, the Church prays for the deceased because it believes that corporal death does not interrupt their belonging to Christ and that, for this, the prayer of the Church can still benefit them.

It is from this faith that we must start when looking at the death of a Christian, not first of all by the role he held in the Church, from the battles he fought or from the judgments that history will formulate on his person and his work. All this belongs to legitimate historical judgment and can be discussed and even severely criticized. In the face of death, But, the Church looks first of all at the baptized person. It is not without significance that, in the official verification of the death of the Roman Pontiff, he who bore that pontifical name for years was called three times by his baptismal name: in the face of death, in a sense, everyone returns to the origin. This is why the first word of the Church is not judgement, but prayer, because the deceased is first and foremost a child of the Church entrusted to the mercy of God and accompanied by the intercession of his brothers.

It is in the light of this faith that what happened after the death of Cardinal Camillo Ruini must be considered. It is not of interest here to establish whether he was right or wrong in the great ecclesial battles of recent decades, nor discuss the historical judgment on his vision of the Church. The question is another and concerns the reaction aroused by his disappearance, because precisely at the moment in which the Church entrusts one of her children to the mercy of God and accompanies him with prayer, the Christian is called to measure his words and his judgments with the very meaning of Christian death.

They were not missed, in the hours following his death attempts to read this figure almost exclusively through political and ideological categories. The Daily, the 16 June 2026, published the article by Francesco Antonio Grana: «Cardinal Camillo Ruini has died. Interference in politics, proximity to the right, the relationship with Berlusconi: history of the Italian Richelieu»; The Manifesto was titled «Ruini, religion as a political instrument". Certainly legitimate readings on a historical and journalistic level, but which show how easy it is to continue discussing a person in terms of sides, influence and power even at the moment of his death. And so, in this same vein, a few hours after the death of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, Enzo Bianchi intervened on his X profile by writing:

«Even the card. Ruini is dead! A clergyman who caused many in the church to suffer. She gave the face of her stepmother to the church, the face of the church seeking authority, influence and seat among the powerful. But he did not have approval from the card. Martini nor by Pope Francis".

The question that emerges from those words it concerns Cardinal Ruini much less than it concerns Enzo Bianchi himself: which conception of Christian death manifests who, in front of a deceased person, first of all he feels the need to reopen an ecclesial controversy? It is a question that does not arise from controversy, but by the faith of the Church. A militant atheist who continues his polemic in front of a dead person acts according to the logic he professes, although he often avoids doing so because he shows the respect for death that some Christians do not have. Instead, by Enzo Bianchi, who for decades spoke of evangelical spirituality and eccentric monastic life, becoming a celebrity disputed by Italian bishops who competed to invite him to hold conferences in their cathedrals during the years of Cardinal Camillo Ruini's long presidency of the CEI, one would expect at least the elementary memory of what the Church does in front of a deceased person.

In this context the spiritual testament of Camillo Ruini takes on a meaning that goes far beyond the personal story of its author. Anyone expecting self-defense from a protagonist of Italian ecclesial life will be surprised, because those pages do not contain claims or attempts to justify their historical choices. What emerges instead is the confession of one's own insufficiencies, the request for forgiveness and the invocation of divine mercy. He acknowledges that he has sometimes acted harshly, he asks for forgiveness, confesses the smallness of his faith and presents himself simply as a man called to appear before God. This is where the contrast becomes evident. On the one hand there is a man who has reached the end of his life and entrusts himself to divine mercy; on the other who, in the face of that death, feels the urgency of reopening the accounting of ecclesial controversies. Which of the two is looking at death in a Christian way: Camillo Ruini or Enzo Bianchi?

Even more so it is not a question of establishing who was right in the controversies that have crossed the Italian Church in the last forty years. It is not a question of deciding whether this Cardinal was a great ecclesial protagonist or a questionable protagonist. Nor is it a question of denying Enzo Bianchi the right to radically disagree with his vision, but to understand what happens when a Christian dies. Because there is a substantial difference between historical judgment and the polemical use of death: the first is legitimate; the second instead reveals a loss of the Christian meaning of death. When a man's coffin becomes the latest battlefield of a decades-long ecclesiastical war, when the body of a deceased is used as polemical material and the death of a brother in the faith becomes an opportunity to settle scores that have remained open, It's not just the respect due to the dead that is damaged: the very faith in God's judgment is called into question, in mercy, in the communion of saints and in eternal life. Because of this, in the end, the problem is not Cardinal Camillo Ruini. The problem is us. Because if faced with the death of a Christian we no longer know how to pray, if faced with a spiritual testament imbued with a request for forgiveness and mercy we only know how to reopen old processes, if we continue to think like faction militants at the very moment in which the Church invites us to pray for a deceased brother, then we have not simply lost our sense of proportion, but something essential about the Christian faith has been lost. When this happens, prophecy gives way to controversy, which ends up imposing itself even in the face of death.

It must be said that Cardinal Camillo Ruini, nicknamed “Cardinal Thin”, he did not fail to write in his will:

«When Pope Francis was elected I rejoiced and, as much as I could, I was immediately a supporter of his. Even today I rejoice and thank him for his extraordinary evangelizing enthusiasm. However, I must confess that I find myself in an uncomfortable situation, certainly not for personal reasons but because I struggle to understand some orientations that seem to me to reopen wounds, after the Council they were barely medicated. I humbly ask the Lord to convince me internally that the Church is his and that he himself takes care of it, beyond our human sights".

This is not the place to address issues that would require other spaces. However, it remains difficult not to observe that many of the most serious contemporary ecclesial problems have their roots in the long and complex pontificate of John Paul II, of which Camillo Ruini was one of the most influential figures, arriving gangrenous at the pontificate of Benedict XVI - under which he continued his mandate as President of the CEI and Vicar General of the Diocese of Rome for another two years - and in certain respects out of control during the complex pontificate of Francis, everything to be understood before even being studied in the face of a very difficult situation inherited by him from the two previous pontificates, which he tried to cope with in situations that were very difficult to manage. It is therefore striking to read in his will the confession of the difficulty in understanding some ecclesial orientations specific to Francis' pontificate. If the profound meaning of these events was not fully clear to him during his earthly life, it is reasonable to think that today, coming face to face with God, understand it with a fullness that remains closed to those who, like us living people, look at history from within its inevitable partiality.

Florence, 22 June 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

.

.

.

Italian, English, Español

«MY MOTHER MUST NOT KNOW». WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POPES IS BORN AND DIES

If the Pontiff has not been informed, who did not inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, in the examination of quite a few cases, is that these figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

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

.

In the exercise of government in general, perhaps in the pastoral one of the Church in particular, the principle according to which the king cannot make mistakes applies and, if he were to make a mistake, someone else has to pay for him. This principle tends to protect not so much the person himself, as the institution that it is called upon to cover or, in the case of the papacy, to embody (cf.. Mt 16, 18-19).

To stay in the political sphere and represent everything with an effective example: according to the article 89 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, all acts of the Head of State are countersigned, as politically irresponsible. The countersignature in fact transfers the political and legal responsibility for the act from the President of the Republic to the proposing ministers or to the Government, while guaranteeing the formal regularity of the measure.

If we move from the political sphere to the spiritual one instead we discover something substantially different: while the Head of State of the Italian Republic, like other Heads of State governed by different but similar constitutional systems, Republican president or monarch, is not responsible for political acts carried out in the exercise of its functions, even though he could be called to answer for serious crimes against the State, the Roman Pontiff is not judged by any human authority (cf.. Code of Canon Law, can. 1404: The first seat is judged by no one). His supreme power, milk, immediate and universal on the Church (cf.. can. 331) in fact he knows no superior earthly authority.

but yet, despite these immunities created to protect the office, of the Petrine ministry and his apostolic succession, the Roman Pontiff, unlike any other political figure, republican or monarchic, remains fully responsible for its own actions, of their own words, of one's works and omissions on a spiritual and moral level before God and before the Church. In fact, he enjoys total human legal immunity, but precisely for this reason his moral responsibility is not attenuated, quite the opposite: if anything it is increased by the singularity of his office and the absence of any superior earthly authority called to judge him. This regardless of the fact that, if necessary, someone may be exposed, sacrificed or called to pay in his place. In fact, these are dynamics attributable to government policy, sometimes even its most unscrupulous forms, which, however, have no relevance on a doctrinal level, ecclesiological or metaphysical. Before God there are no ministerial countersignatures, nor responsibilities transferable to others.

Over the last few decades However, that period has progressively established itself which I have already had the opportunity to define as the era of uninformed and kept in the dark Pontiffs.. In these cases, not even the ancient scapegoat sacrificed to save the sovereign who cannot make mistakes or be exposed for his own mistakes no longer pays.. Responsibility rather tends to dissolve in a generic lack of information, in news that would not have reached its destination, in filtered alerts, incomplete or even altered by others. And that this could happen occasionally is entirely plausible. No man, not even the Roman Pontiff, possesses the gift of omniscience. However, less plausible appears to be the fact that this explanation recurs with surprising regularity under different pontificates, in different eras and in profoundly different events. In fact, it is at this point that an inevitable question arises: if the Pontiff has not been informed, who did not inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, in the examination of quite a few cases, is that these figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.

Here's an example. Let's assume that within the micro-state of which the Roman Pontiff is sovereign, blatant and serious violations of human rights occur, even as he is particularly active on the international scene in calling out governments, supranational institutions and bodies to respect the dignity of the person and the protection of fundamental rights. It is in cases like these that various justifying mechanisms tend to be activated: we are talking about information that was not received, of news filtered along the way, of incomplete relationships, of collaborators who would not have reported, of apparatuses that would have shielded reality and so on. All subjects almost always shrouded in vagueness, nameless, of face and precise identity.

Vladimir Putin governs a federation that spans over seventeen million square kilometers and spans eleven time zones. Donald Trump presides over a federation that spans nearly ten million square kilometers and spans six time zones. Both, wanting, they could argue with some reasonableness that they are not able to know everything that happens in the most remote points of their territories, of the various central administrations and above all of the peripheral ones. The same argument can also be invoked by the Supreme Pontiff, sovereign of a state that extends for just over half a square kilometre? A state in which, to go from the Apostolic Palace to the Vatican Gardens, it is not necessary to face an intercontinental flight, cross deserts, mountain ranges or tropical forests, nor even change the time on the clock to adapt to different time zones. However, also in this case, it may happen that certain news stories undertake such long journeys, tortuous and bumpy that they will never be able to reach their final destination.

The distance between the Vatican City State and Gaza is considerable. However, this does not prevent - rightly - from raising our voices in defense of the tormented Palestinian people, as well as other peoples deprived of their rights in even more distant lands. It may be, however, that this constant and necessary reminder of human rights violations committed thousands of kilometers away sometimes makes it more difficult to deal with the different Gazas and their respective tortured Palestinians who may find themselves right inside the sacred palaces of that half square kilometer.

It is perhaps due to the lack of information? Can be. It's because of filtered news, withheld or never reached their destination? It could be this too. Anything can be. As it can be, to quote the late and unforgettable Giuni Russo: «My mother must not know that I want to go to Alghero in the company of a foreigner» (cf.. who).

One thing, however, remains out of question on a doctrinal and juridical level: the Roman Pontiff is not judged by any human authority. But perhaps precisely for this reason he is called to answer in a particular way before God for his own thoughts, of their own words, of one's works and omissions, without anyone being able to countersign his documents to relieve him of responsibility or assume responsibility, if necessary, political responsibility in his place. Because if the sovereign can be protected by men, the question always remains open of how he will be judged by Him who knows perfectly what men have seen, what they did not see and even what they preferred not to see. It is written:

"To whom much is given, much will be asked for; to whom men have committed much, It will ask the more " (LC 12, 48).

And before the divine tribunal it will be very difficult to say you don't know, that they were not informed or were deceived in half a square kilometre.

From the island of Patmos, 7 June 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

«MY MOTHER MUST NOT KNOW». WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PONTIFFS IS BORN AND WHERE IT DIES

If the Pontiff was not informed, who failed to inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was actually deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, upon examining not a few cases, is that such figures almost always remain without a name, without a face and without any precise identification.

— Contemporary ecclesial affairs—

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

In the exercise of government in general, and perhaps in that of the Church’s pastoral governance in particular, there operates a principle according to which the king cannot be wrong and, should he happen to err, someone else must pay in his place. This principle is intended to protect not so much the person himself as the institution he is called to occupy or, in the case of the papacy, to embody (cf. Mt 16, 18-19).

To remain within the political sphere and illustrate the matter with an effective example: according to Article 89 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, all acts of the Head of State must be countersigned, since he is politically irresponsible. The countersignature transfers the political and legal responsibility for the act from the President of the Republic to the proposing ministers or to the Government, while at the same time guaranteeing the formal validity of the measure.

If we move from the political sphere to the spiritual one, we discover something substantially different: whereas the Head of State of the Italian Republic, like other Heads of State governed by different but analogous constitutional systems, whether republican president or monarch, is not accountable for political acts performed in the exercise of his office, although he may be called to answer for grave crimes against the State, the Roman Pontiff is judged by no human authority (cf. Code of Canon Lawi, can. 1404: The first seat is judged by no one). His supreme, full, immediate and universal power over the Church recognises no higher earthly authority (cf. can. 331).

Yet, despite these immunities established for the protection of the office, the Petrine ministry and its apostolic succession, the Roman Pontiff, unlike any other political figure, whether republican or monarchical, remains fully responsible for his acts, his words, his deeds and his omissions on the spiritual and moral plane before God and before the Church. He indeed enjoys complete juridical immunity before men, but precisely for this reason his moral responsibility is not diminished; quite the contrary: it is heightened by the singularity of his office and by the absence of any superior earthly authority called to judge him. This remains true regardless of the fact that, when circumstances require it, someone else may be exposed, sacrificed or called upon to pay in his place. Such dynamics belong to the sphere of governmental politics, at times even in its more ruthless forms, yet they possess no relevance whatsoever on the doctrinal, ecclesiological or metaphysical plane. Before God there are no ministerial countersignatures, nor responsibilities transferable to others.

During the past decades, however, there has gradually emerged what I once described as the era of Pontiffs who are uninformed and kept in the dark. In such cases, not even the ancient scapegoat sacrificed in order to save the sovereign who cannot err or be exposed for his own mistakes is called upon to pay. Responsibility tends instead to dissolve into a generic lack of information, into reports that allegedly never reached their destination, into notices filtered, incomplete or even altered by others. That such things may occasionally occur is entirely plausible. No man, not even the Roman Pontiff, possesses the gift of omniscience. Less plausible, however, is the fact that this explanation recurs with surprising regularity under different pontificates, in different periods and in circumstances profoundly unlike one another. It is at this point that an inevitable question arises: if the Pontiff was not informed, who failed to inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was actually deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, upon examining not a few cases, is that such figures almost always remain without a name, without a face and without any precise identification.

Let us take an example. Let us suppose that within the micro-State over which the Roman Pontiff is sovereign there occur manifest and serious violations of human rights, precisely while he is particularly active on the international stage in calling governments, institutions and supranational bodies to respect human dignity and safeguard fundamental rights. It is in cases such as these that various justificatory mechanisms are promptly set in motion: one hears of information that never arrived, of reports filtered along the way, of incomplete briefings, of collaborators who allegedly failed to report matters, of bureaucratic structures that supposedly screened reality from view, and so forth. All subjects almost invariably enveloped in vagueness and deprived of any clear name or identity.

Vladimir Putin governs a federation extending across more than seventeen million square kilometres and spanning eleven time zones. Donald Trump presides over a federation extending across nearly ten million square kilometres and spanning six time zones. Both, if they wished, could reasonably maintain that they are unable to know everything that takes place in the most remote corners of their territories, within the various central administrations and, above all, within the peripheral ones. May the same argument also be invoked by the Supreme Pontiff, sovereign of a State extending over little more than half a square kilometre? A State in which, in order to pass from the Apostolic Palace to the Vatican Gardens, there is no need to undertake an intercontinental flight, cross deserts, mountain ranges or tropical forests, nor even to adjust one’s watch to different time zones. Yet even in such a case it may happen that certain pieces of information undertake journeys so long, tortuous and hazardous that they never succeed in reaching their final destination.

The distance between the Vatican City State and Gaza is considerable. Yet this does not prevent the Holy See – rightly so – from raising its voice in defence of the long-suffering Palestinian people, just as it does for other peoples deprived of their rights in lands even more distant. It may be, however, that this constant and entirely justified concern for human rights violations committed thousands of kilometres away sometimes makes it more difficult to come to terms with the various Gazas and their respective suffering Palestinians who may be found within the sacred palaces of that half square kilometre.

Is it perhaps the fault of a lack of information? It may be. Is it the fault of reports filtered, withheld or never delivered to their destination? That too may be the case. Anything is possible. Just as it may be, to borrow the words of the late and unforgettable Giuni Russo: «My mother must not know that I want to go to Alghero in the company of a foreigner» (cf. here).

One thing, however, remains beyond dispute on both the doctrinal and juridical levels: the Roman Pontiff is judged by no human authority. Yet perhaps precisely for this reason he is called in a particular way to answer before God for his thoughts, his words, his deeds and his omissions, without anyone being able to countersign his acts in order to relieve him of responsibility or assume political responsibility in his stead. For if the sovereign may be protected by men, there remains the question of how he will be judged by Him who knows perfectly what men have seen, what they have not seen and even what they have preferred not to see. For it is written: «Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required; and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more» (Page 12:48).

And, quite frankly, before the divine tribunal it will be very difficult to claim not to have known, not to have been informed, or to have been deceived within half a square kilometre.

From The Island of Patmos, 7 June 2026

.

«MY MOTHER SHOULD NOT KNOW». WHERE IS BORN AND WHERE DOES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PONTIFFS DIE??

If the Pontiff was not informed, Who stopped reporting it?? If you were misinformed, who misreported it? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What attracts attention, when examining many cases, is that such figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.

- Ecclesial news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

In the exercise of government in general, and perhaps particularly in the pastoral government of the Church, governs the principle according to which the king cannot make a mistake and, if I were to make a mistake, someone else must pay instead. This principle tends to protect not so much the person themselves as the institution they are called to occupy or, in the case of the papacy, to embody (cf. Mt 16, 18-19).

To remain in the political sphere and represent all this with an effective example: according to the article 89 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, all acts of the Head of State must be endorsed, because this is politically irresponsible. The endorsement transfers the political and legal responsibility for the act from the President of the Republic to the proposing ministers or the Government., while guaranteeing the formal regularity of the act.

If we move from the political sphere to the spiritual we discovered something substantially different: while the Head of State of the Italian Republic, like other Heads of State governed by different but analogous constitutional systems, whether president of a republic or monarch, is not responsible for political acts carried out in the exercise of its functions, although he may be called to answer for serious crimes against the State, The Roman Pontiff cannot be judged by any human authority (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1404: The first seat is judged by no one). Indeed, his supreme power, full, immediate and universal over the Church recognizes no higher earthly authority (cf. can. 331).

However, despite these immunities established for the protection of the office, of the Petrine ministry and his apostolic succession, the Roman Pontiff, unlike any other political figure, republican or monarchical, remains fully responsible for his actions, of his words, of their works and their omissions on the spiritual and moral level before God and before the Church. He certainly enjoys total legal immunity from men., but precisely for this reason his moral responsibility is not diminished; quite the opposite, It is increased by the singularity of his profession and by the absence of any higher earthly authority called to judge him.. This is true regardless of whether, if necessary, someone can be exposed, sacrificed or called to pay in his place. These are dynamics inherent to government policy., sometimes even in its most ruthless forms, but which lack any relevance at the doctrinal level, ecclesiological or metaphysical. Before God there are no ministerial endorsements or responsibilities transferable to others..

During the last decades that stage that I already had the opportunity to define as the era of the Pontiffs who were not informed and kept in the dark has progressively been affirmed.. In these cases, not even the former scapegoat sacrificed to save the sovereign who cannot make mistakes or be exposed for his own errors no longer pays.. Rather, responsibility tends to dissolve in a general lack of information, in news that supposedly never reached its destination, in leaked ads, incomplete or even altered by others. That this can happen occasionally is entirely plausible.. no man, not even the Roman Pontiff, possesses the gift of omniscience. It is less plausible, however, the fact that this explanation reappears with surprising regularity under different pontificates, in different times and in profoundly different circumstances. It is precisely at this point that an inevitable question arises.: if the Pontiff was not informed, who failed to inform you? If you were misinformed, who misreported it? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What attracts attention, when examining many cases, is that such figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.

Let's take an example. Suppose that within the microstate of which the Roman Pontiff is sovereign, serious and clear violations of human rights occur., precisely while he is particularly active in international politics urging governments, supranational institutions and organizations to respect the dignity of the person and the protection of fundamental rights. In cases like these, when various justification mechanisms are usually activated from time to time,: we talk about information not received, leaked news, of incomplete reports, of collaborators who supposedly did not report, of bureaucratic structures that would have hidden the truth and so on. Subjects, almost always, wrapped in vagueness, without precise name and identity.

Vladimir Putin governs a federation that spans more than seventeen million square kilometers and spans eleven time zones. Donald Trump presides over a federation that spans nearly ten million square kilometers and crosses six time zones.. Both, if they wanted it that way, could maintain with reasonable grounds that they are not in a position to know everything that happens in the most remote corners of their territories, of the various central administrations and, above all, of the peripheral. Can the same argument be invoked in the case of the Supreme Pontiff, sovereign of a State that extends for just over half a square kilometer? A state in which, to go from the Apostolic Palace to the Vatican Gardens, it is not necessary to take an intercontinental flight, cross deserts, mountain ranges or tropical jungles, much less modify the clock time to adapt to different time zones. And even in this case, It may happen that certain news undertake such long journeys, tortuous and bumpy roads that never reach their final destination.

The distance between Vatican City State and Gaza is considerable. However, This does not prevent – ​​and rightly so – from raising our voices in defense of the tortured Palestinian people., as well as other peoples deprived of their rights in even more distant lands. It can happen, nevertheless, that this constant and justified attention to human rights violations committed thousands of kilometers away sometimes makes it more difficult to confront the various Gaza and the respective tortured Palestinians who can be found precisely within the sacred palaces of that half a square kilometer.

Is it perhaps the fault of the lack of information? Could be. ¿It's the fault of leaked news, held or never reached their destination? It can also be. everything can be. In the same way it can be, to say it in the words of the unforgettable Giuni Russo: «My mother must not know that I want to go to Alghero in the company of a foreigner» (cf. here).

One thing, however, remains beyond discussion at the doctrinal and legal level: The Roman Pontiff cannot be judged by any human authority. But perhaps precisely for this reason he is called to respond in a particular way before God for his thoughts., his words, his works and his omissions, without anyone being able to endorse his actions to exempt him from responsibility or assume, if necessary, political responsibility in place. Because if the sovereign can be protected by men, The question always remains open as to how he will be judged by Him who knows perfectly what men have seen., what they have not seen or even what they have not preferred to see. Well it is written: «To whom much was given, a lot will be required of him; and to whom much was entrusted, "even more will be asked of him" (LC 12,48).

Y, sincerely, before the divine court It will be very difficult to say that you did not know, that they had not been informed or that they had been deceived in half a square kilometer.

From the Island of Patmos, 7 June 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