Italian, English, Español

 

GREAT HUMANITY. NOT A METAPHYSICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LEO XIV AND THE CUSTODY OF MAN

The problem is not how powerful Artificial Intelligence becomes, but which man uses it. Because no technique perfects what does not exist and for this reason, what is missing in man, it cannot be delegated to the machine to be created […] Civilizations begin to decline when they stop distinguishing between what can be built and what must be preserved. And of all the things man can lose, the most difficult to reconstruct is always the same: freedom.

- Church news -

.

.

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

 

.

Read the first encyclical of a Pontiff a year after the beginning of his pontificate it is always a delicate exercise, if the topic then touches on one of the most complex and controversial elements of our time: Artificial Intelligence.

The risk is twofold: on the one hand, demanding from the text what it does not want to be, on the other hand, attribute to him what he doesn't say. This methodological clarification is necessary from the beginning, Why Magnificent Humanity it was not born as a technological manifesto nor as a philosophical treatise on the nature of Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps it is precisely from here that a first impression of disorientation arises in the theologian accustomed to the great speculative encyclicals of the twentieth century.. Indeed, who expected a document built on the model of The human race, Of Development of Peoples, Of Centennial year o di Faith and Reason he might be surprised. The rest, in the magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs at least two great varieties of documents can be distinguished: texts that speak above all to the present, to the ecclesial community, to society, to politics and the urgencies of their time; texts that inevitably become dated over the years and whose main value no longer consists in offering direct answers to the problems of the present, but in allowing certain passages to be understood, crises and evolutions in the life of the Church. An example among many could be You will be surprised, given by Gregory XVI in 1832, whose sociopolitical conceptions cannot be extrapolated from that precise historical context and transposed into contemporary society. Then there are documents that, even though they were also born within a specific historical season, they mainly address issues that touch on the permanent foundations of faith and Christian anthropology and therefore continue to speak beyond their own time; think about it, with different characteristics, at the The splendor of truth of John Paul II or to Spe salvi by Benedict XVI. It is naturally still early to establish which of the two genres it belongs to Magnificent Humanity, but a first impression is that Leo XIV chose to speak to the historical present, offering orientation criteria for a transformation already underway, rather than elaborating a synthesis intended to constitute a long-term theological reference.

Leo XIV does not address the problem wondering if machines can really think, nor does it enter into the distinction between intelligence, consciousness and computation. This is perhaps a structural limit? More than a limit it seems to be the choice of a different path, outlined from the first pages: read technological transformation as a question that concerns first and foremost the vocation of man, his way of inhabiting the world and ordering his own action. From this perspective, the center of the encyclical does not appear to be Artificial Intelligence as an autonomous object of analysis, but the human subject who develops and uses it. This orientation emerges with particular clarity in chapter VI (cf.. NN. 95-99), where the August Author recalls the risk that technical efficiency is taken as the prevailing criterion for the organization of human action and insists on the fact that progress is inseparable from the formation of conscience, by personal responsibility and man's ability to direct means towards authentically human ends. Hence the insistence of the document not so much on the limits of the machine, as well as on the quality of the person who uses it. This choice also emerges in the symbolic structure of the text. In fact, the encyclical opens its reasoning through two biblical images that the Holy Father uses as a key to understanding the entire document (cf.. chapter I, NN. 8-12). The first is the story of Babel (cf.. Gen 11,1-9): men decide to build a city and a tower "whose top reaches the sky" to affirm their self-sufficiency and "make a name for themselves"; the result is not greater unity, but the confusion of languages ​​and dispersion. The second image is that of the reconstruction of Jerusalem led by Nehemiah (cf.. Born 2-6): a destroyed city is rebuilt not to exalt someone's power, but through an orderly work, shared and oriented towards the possibility for a people to return to live and live. Through these two images the document does not contrast the technical with the non-technical, but two spiritually opposite forms of building: on the one hand the work that arises from man's self-sufficiency, from the claim to dominate the sky and from the uniformity that sacrifices the person to efficiency; on the other, patient reconstruction, shared and ordered to God, in which the common good does not arise from the power but from the responsibility of a people who mend the bonds even before the walls.

However, one question remains open which will inevitably accompany the reading of the entire text: the custody of the person and the reminder of responsibility will be sufficient to address a phenomenon that does not only concern the use of new tools, but the progressive transfer to technical apparatuses of acts that belong to knowing, to judging and deliberating proper to the person?

I. CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY: THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE TECHNIQUE, BUT THE POINT FROM WHICH YOU LOOK AT IT

One of the first questions that the reader inevitably asks himself when faced with this encyclical is whether we find ourselves in continuity with the great magisterium of the twentieth century or before a document that, despite placing themselves in the same ecclesial groove, it belongs to a different level of theological construction, cultural and qualitative. The answer cannot be univocal: in terms of its fundamental contents, the text clearly fits into the continuity of the Social Doctrine of the Church. However, this does not oblige us to maintain that we are faced with a document of the same speculative depth, of the same processing capacity or the same qualitative level that characterized some great encyclicals of the last century. Recognizing this difference does not mean formulating a negative judgment on the magisterium of Leo, own sensitivity and priorities - but take note that not all magisterial documents are constructed with the same degree of speculative elaboration nor do they possess the same ability to generate theological categories destined to have a stable impact on the cultural and historical level.

Already in the introduction Leo XIV recalls the task entrusted to each generation of giving shape to its own time while safeguarding the dignity of the person, promoting justice and making brotherhood possible, reiterating that the permanent risk is that of building an inhuman world precisely at the moment in which man's ability to transform reality increases. The continuity with the previous social teaching is evident, however the observation point chosen by the text appears different. Pius XII developed his teaching through a strong work of conceptual clarification: distinguished the levels of discourse, it delimited categories and tended to build argumentative architectures in which each concept occupied a specific place. An approach supported mainly by constant comparison with the great theological tradition of the Church - from the Fathers to the Doctors - and by the classical metaphysical framework, especially in its scholastic elaboration, assumed as an instrument to safeguard the order between nature and grace, reason and faith, history and truth. Paul VI tended to read the great historical processes - economic development, social transformations, relations between peoples, modernization — trying to understand its consequences on man, on his dignity, on his freedom and on the forms of human coexistence. More than delimiting concepts, he was trying to build a vision capable of holding history together, society, personal development and vocation. John Paul II addressed the issues of his time by constantly bringing them back to the question of man. Its broad categories — person, truth, freedom, work, body, consciousness — were not presented as isolated themes, but as elements of a unitary vision in which man is understood as a moral subject called to truth and responsibility. For this reason its documents are not normally limited to indicating practical guidelines, but they tend to construct a true interpretation of man and history. Leo. A choice that emerges clearly above all in the way in which the document defines the task of discernment: not understanding how far the technique can go, but to establish towards which ends it should be oriented. An important shift ensues: the problem is not placed primarily on the level of efficiency, but on the level of human judgment. The question that remains open is not whether machines can become more intelligent, but if the man, progressively delegating acts that belong to his personal experience, still maintains control over his actions or ends up adapting to the logic of the tools he has built. For this reason the encyclical insists less on the nature of the instrument and more on the responsibility of the person who uses it. This orientation emerges with particular clarity in chapter V (cf.. n. 87), where Leo XIV states that the decisive criterion does not consist in the development of technical capacity as such, but in the question about the subject that governs it and the end to which it is ordered. So that, the decisive question, that's not what machines can do, but what man chooses to become through what he himself builds. In this sense, the document recalls that technological development cannot be evaluated exclusively on the basis of efficiency or increase in operational capabilities, but it must be judged in light of the consequences it produces on the person and on social life. The text insists that no innovation can be considered beneficial simply because it is possible or effective, but must be subjected to discernment on the human good that it is called to serve (cf.. chapter III, NN. 60-64).

However, one question remains open which will inevitably accompany the subsequent debate: whether the call to safeguard the human is sufficient or whether it becomes necessary to also question the way in which technologies modify the concrete exercise of judgment, of freedom and conscience. Therefore, whether this encyclical will have the merit of seriously reopening this question, he will have already accomplished something important.

(II). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: GUARDING MAN OR UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE IS BECOMING?

It is probably on this point that one of the most characteristic nuclei of the encyclical is concentrated. Leo XIV does not address Artificial Intelligence starting from the question of the nature of intelligence or the possibility that artificial processes reproduce human thought. In chapter III (cf.. NN. 52-58) the document refers rather to risk than technique, as an ordered instrument for human action, progressively tends to transform into an environment capable of influencing perception, relationships and forms of experience. Subsequently, in chapter IV (cf.. NN. 71-76), addressing the issue of delegation of decision-making functions, the encyclical insists on the fact that no technical apparatus can replace personal responsibility and moral judgment. From here emerges the central point of the text: the decisive question is not what the machine can become, but what man risks to stop exercising. For this reason the document does not focus its interest on the technical description of Artificial Intelligence systems, but he repeatedly returns to the question of the human subject who designs and uses them. This orientation emerges in chapter II (cf.. NN. 28-32), where the Supreme Pontiff recalls the criterion of the dignity of the person as a measure of progress; in chapter IV (cf.. NN. 79-82), where he insists on the responsibility that accompanies every technological decision; and in chapter VI (cf.. NN. 112-116), where the common good is indicated as a criterion for judging the effects of digital transformations on social life. From this perspective, the problem is not placed primarily on the level of machine performance, but on the relationship between technical development and human responsibility.

The implicit question of the encyclical therefore seems to be: how to avoid man being reduced to a function of the system he himself has built? It is a serious and necessary question. However, right here a possible limit also emerges, or maybe, more correctly, a deliberate choice. Because the text does not seem to want to fully address an issue that today appears increasingly decisive: not just what man should guard, but what man is becoming.

The revolution of Artificial Intelligence in fact, it does not only concern new tools. It touches how we perceive time, we exercise judgment, we build relationships, we understand the body, we live freedom and form conscience. From this point of view, the problem is not simply preventing the machine from replacing man; the problem is understanding whether man, progressively entrusting increasingly larger parts of one's experience to external devices, you risk changing the very way of being a man. The encyclical approaches this question in chapter VI (cf.. NN. 103-108), when it recalls the danger of a progressive reduction of human experience to what can be measured, technically processed and administered, insisting on the fact that the person never coincides with the sum of his functions nor with the processes he is able to delegate. However, the document does not continue this line of reflection to the point of a systematic anthropological elaboration and does not enter extensively into the question of how technologies affect the structure of the cognitive act., of judgment and deliberation. His main interest remains moral and social. For this reason, the most fruitful contribution that the text can offer to the ecclesial debate does not consist so much in having said the last word on Artificial Intelligence, as in having remembered which one should remain the first: the human person. In this sense, the reference contained in chapter VII acquires particular importance (cf.. n. 124), where Leo XIV states that authentic progress does not coincide with the increase in operational capacity, but with the growth of man in responsibility and communion, remembering that no technical advancement can replace the individual's own value.

III. A FIRST CONCLUSION: BETWEEN THE CUSTODY OF MAN AND FREEDOM DENIED

It would be ungenerous to read this encyclical asking it for what it did not intend to offer. Magnificent Humanity choose another path: don't start from the question of what technique is, but by the question of which man is formed by the use of technology. We are faced with a text that chooses a different path: call the Church and the world to safeguard man in the time of digital transformation. A further question remains open - and perhaps will have to be addressed in the coming years: whether protecting man only means protecting his dignity or also understanding more deeply what is happening to his intelligence, to his freedom and his experience of reality. If this encyclical will have the merit of seriously reopening this question, he will have already accomplished something important.

Reading this encyclical I couldn't avoid a comparison with some reflections that I developed in my recent book Freedom denied (Editions The island of Patmos, January 2026), dedicated to the relationship between freedom, ethics, Artificial Intelligence and Christian anthropology. It is not a question of superimposing a personal work on the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff - but by nature, purpose and authority belongs to a completely different order - but to put two different points of observation into dialogue when faced with the same question. The encyclical chooses to address the topic starting from the Social Doctrine of the Church. This orientation emerges in particular in chapter II (cf.. NN. 28-32), where Leo. In my book I instead chose a different starting point: question the relationship between technique and the human act of knowing, judge and decide, developing this reflection in the light of the classical theological tradition and in particular the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The decisive point was not whether the machine can become more efficient than man, but to ask ourselves whether there are acts specific to the person that cannot be delegated without altering the human itself. From this perspective I have taken up one of the central intuitions of the Thomistic synthesis: moral discernment arises from the unity between ratio e understanding, between the ability to analyze and that of grasping truth in its unity. Judgment does not coincide with calculation. And it is precisely here that the Thomistic principle takes on a decisive meaning. In my book I took up the famous axiom: «Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (Grace does not destroy nature, but he perfects it, QUESTION, I, I, 8 ad 2)». This principle does not state that grace replaces what man lacks; states the opposite: it brings a real nature to fruition, without eliminating or replacing it. Applied analogically to the relationship between man and Artificial Intelligence, the principle leads to a radical question: if grace perfects nature but does not replace it, can technique perfect faculties that man does not possess? The answer I have tried to develop is negative: Artificial Intelligence can amplify existing capabilities, speed up processes, support complex operations; but it cannot generate what is missing: it does not produce consciousness where there is no consciousness, it does not generate judgment where there is no moral formation, it does not create discernment where interiority is lacking.

The problem is not how powerful Artificial Intelligence becomes, but which man uses it. Because no technique perfects what does not exist and for this reason, what is missing in man, it cannot be delegated to the machine to be created. In the book I dedicated to this topic I explain that no civilization has ever collapsed because it had too powerful tools. Civilizations begin to decline when they stop distinguishing between what can be built and what must be preserved. And of all the things man can lose, the most difficult to reconstruct is always the same: freedom.

Rome, 25 May 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

GREAT HUMANITY. NOT A METAPHYSICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LEO XIV AND THE CUSTODY OF MAN

The problem is not how powerful Artificial Intelligence may become, but what kind of man makes use of it. Because no technique perfects what does not exist and therefore, what is lacking in man cannot be delegated to the machine in order to be created […] Civilizations begin to decline when they cease to distinguish between what can be constructed and what instead must be safeguarded. And among all the things that man may lose, the most difficult to rebuild remains always the same: freedom.

— Contemporary ecclesial affairs—

.

.

Reading the first encyclical of a Pontiff one year after the beginning of his pontificate is always a delicate exercise, especially when the subject addressed belongs to one of the most complex and controversial territories of our time: Artificial Intelligence. The risk is twofold: on the one hand demanding from the text what it does not intend to be, on the other attributing to it what it does not say. This methodological clarification is necessary from the outset, because Magnificent Humanity was not conceived as a technological manifesto nor as a philosophical treatise on the nature of Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps it is precisely here that a first impression of disorientation arises in the theologian accustomed to the great speculative encyclicals of the twentieth century. Indeed, anyone expecting a document modelled on The human race, Development of Peoples, Centennial year or Faith and Reason may therefore be surprised. Moreover, within the magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs one may distinguish at least two major types of documents: texts that speak above all to the present, to the ecclesial community, to society, to politics and to the urgencies of their own time; texts which, with the passing of years, inevitably remain bound to their historical season and whose principal value no longer consists in offering direct responses to present problems but in allowing certain passages, crises and developments in the life of the Church to be understood. One example among many may be You will be surprised, issued by Gregory XVI in 1832, whose socio-political assumptions cannot be extracted from that specific historical context and mechanically transferred to contemporary society. There are then documents which, although likewise born within a precise historical season, address primarily questions touching the enduring foundations of faith and Christian anthropology and therefore continue to speak beyond their own time; one may think, with different characteristics, of The splendor of truth by John Paul II or Spe salvi by Benedict XVI.

It is naturally still too early to establish to which of these two genres Magnificent Humanity belongs, but a first impression is that Leo XIV has chosen to speak to the historical present, offering criteria of orientation before a transformation already underway rather than elaborating a synthesis intended to constitute a long-term theological reference. Leo XIV does not approach the problem by asking whether machines can truly think, nor does he enter into the distinction between intelligence, consciousness and computation. Is this perhaps a structural limitation?

Rather than a limitation, it appears to be the choice of a different path, outlined from the very first pages: to read technological transformation as a question concerning above all the vocation of man, his way of inhabiting the world and of ordering his own action. In this perspective, the centre of the encyclical does not appear to be Artificial Intelligence as an autonomous object of analysis, but the human subject who develops and uses it. This orientation emerges with particular clarity in Chapter VI (cf. NN. 95-99), where the Holy Father recalls the risk that technical efficiency may be assumed as the prevailing criterion for organising human action and insists that progress is inseparable from the formation of conscience, personal responsibility and man’s capacity to order means toward genuinely human ends. From this derives the document’s emphasis not so much on the limitation of the machine as on the quality of the subject who employs it. This choice also emerges in the symbolic architecture of the text. The encyclical opens its argument through two biblical images that the Holy Father uses as interpretative keys for the entire document (cf. Chapter I, NN. 8-12). The first is the account of Babel (cf. Gen 11:1-9): men decide to build a city and a tower “with its top in the sky” in order to affirm their own self-sufficiency and “make a name” for themselves; the result is not greater unity but confusion of languages and dispersion. The second image is the rebuilding of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (cf. Neh 2-6): a destroyed city is rebuilt not to exalt anyone’s power but through an ordered, shared work directed towards enabling a people once more to inhabit and live. Through these two images, the document does not oppose technology and non-technology, but two spiritually opposed forms of building: on the one hand, a work born of human self-sufficiency, of the claim to master heaven and of a uniformity that sacrifices the person to efficiency; on the other, a patient reconstruction, shared and ordered toward God, in which the common good does not arise from power but from the responsibility of a people that restores relationships before rebuilding walls.

Yet a question remains open and will inevitably accompany the reading of the entire text: whether safeguarding the person and recalling responsibility are sufficient to address a phenomenon that concerns not merely the use of new instruments but the progressive transfer to technical apparatuses of acts belonging properly to the person’s knowing, judging and deliberating.

I. CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY: THE PROBLEM IS NOT TECHNOLOGY, BUT THE POINT FROM WHICH IT IS VIEWED

One of the first questions that the reader inevitably raises before this encyclical is whether we are dealing with continuity with the great magisterium of the twentieth century or with a document which, while remaining within the same ecclesial current, belongs to a different level of theological, cultural and intellectual development. The answer cannot be univocal: from the standpoint of fundamental contents, the text clearly stands in continuity with the Church’s social doctrine. Yet this does not oblige one to maintain that we are dealing with a document of the same speculative depth, the same capacity for elaboration or the same qualitative level that characterised some of the great encyclicals of the previous century. To recognise this difference does not mean to formulate a negative judgement on the magisterium of Leo XIV — each age develops its own languages, sensibilities and priorities — but to acknowledge that not all magisterial documents are constructed with the same degree of speculative elaboration, nor do they possess the same capacity to generate theological categories destined to exercise a lasting influence on the cultural and historical plane.

Already in the introduction Leo XIV recalls the task entrusted to every generation: to shape its own time while safeguarding the dignity of the person, promoting justice and making fraternity possible, reaffirming that the permanent risk is that of building an inhuman world precisely at the moment when man’s capacity to transform reality increases. Continuity with previous social magisterium is evident; nevertheless, the point of observation chosen by the text appears different. Pius XII developed his magisterium through a strong work of conceptual clarification: he distinguished levels of discourse, delimited categories and tended to construct argumentative architectures in which every concept occupied a precise place. An approach sustained principally by constant engagement with the great theological tradition of the Church — from the Fathers to the Doctors — and by the classical metaphysical framework, especially in its scholastic elaboration, assumed as an instrument to safeguard the order between nature and grace, reason and faith, history and truth. Paul VI tended to read the great historical processes — economic development, social transformations, relations among peoples, modernisation — seeking to understand their consequences for man, for his dignity, for his freedom and for the forms of human coexistence. More than delimiting concepts, he sought to construct a vision capable of holding together history, society, development and the vocation of the person. John Paul II addressed the questions of his time by constantly bringing them back to the question of man. His great categories — person, truth, freedom, work, body, conscience — were not presented as isolated themes but as elements of a unified vision in which man is understood as a moral subject called to truth and responsibility. For this reason, his documents normally do not limit themselves to indicating practical orientations but tend to construct a true interpretation of man and history. Leo XIV, by contrast, does not enter into the problem of Artificial Intelligence by asking whether computational processes can truly be considered forms of intelligence or whether calculation may replace the human act of knowing. A choice that emerges clearly above all in the way the document defines the task of discernment: not to understand how far technology may go, but to establish towards which ends it ought to be directed. From this derives an important shift: the problem is not placed first of all on the level of efficiency but on the level of human judgement. The question that remains open, therefore, is not whether machines may become more intelligent, but whether man, progressively delegating acts that belong to his personal experience, still maintains mastery over his own action or instead ends up adapting himself to the logic of the instruments he has built. For this reason the encyclical insists less upon the nature of the instrument and more upon the responsibility of the subject who uses it. This orientation emerges with particular clarity in Chapter V (cf. n. 87), where Leo XIV states that the decisive criterion does not consist in the development of technical capacity as such, but in the question concerning the subject who governs it and the end towards which it is ordered. Thus, the decisive question is not what machines are able to do, but what man chooses to become through what he builds. In this sense the document recalls that technological development cannot be evaluated exclusively on the basis of efficiency or increased operational capacities, but must be judged in light of the consequences it produces for the person and for social life. The text insists, in fact, that no innovation may be considered beneficial simply because it is possible or effective, but must be subjected to discernment regarding the human good it is called to serve (cf. Chapter III, NN. 60-64).

A question nevertheless remains open and will inevitably accompany subsequent debate: whether the appeal to safeguarding the human is sufficient or whether it becomes necessary to ask also how technologies modify the concrete exercise of judgement, freedom and conscience. Therefore, if this encyclical succeeds in seriously reopening this question, it will already have accomplished something important.

(II). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: SAFEGUARDING MAN OR UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE IS BECOMING?

It is probably at this point that one of the most distinctive elements of the encyclical is concentrated. Leo XIV does not approach Artificial Intelligence beginning from the question concerning the nature of intelligence or the possibility that artificial processes may reproduce human thought. In Chapter III (cf. NN. 52-58), the document instead recalls the risk that technology, from being an instrument ordered to human action, may progressively become an environment capable of influencing perception, relationships and forms of experience.

Subsequently, in Chapter IV (cf. NN. 71-76), addressing the theme of delegating decision-making functions, the encyclical insists that no technical system can replace personal responsibility and moral judgement and moral judgement. From this emerges the central point of the text: the decisive issue is not what the machine may become, but what man risks ceasing to exercise. For this reason the document does not concentrate its interest on the technical description of Artificial Intelligence systems, but repeatedly returns to the question of the human subject who designs and employs them.

This orientation emerges in Chapter II (cf. NN. 28-32), where the Supreme Pontiff recalls the criterion of the dignity of the person as the measure of progress; in Chapter IV (cf. NN. 79-82), where he insists upon the responsibility that accompanies every technological decision; and in Chapter VI (cf. NN. 112-116), where the common good is presented as the criterion for evaluating the effects of digital transformations upon social life. In this perspective, the problem is not placed primarily on the level of the machine’s performance, but on the relationship between technical development and human responsibility. The implicit question of the encyclical therefore seems to be: how can man be prevented from being reduced to a function of the system that he himself has constructed? It is a serious and necessary question. Yet precisely here there also emerges a possible limitation — or perhaps, more correctly, a deliberate choice. For the text does not seem willing to confront fully a question that today appears increasingly decisive: not only what man must safeguard, but what man is becoming.

The revolution of Artificial Intelligence concerns not merely new instruments. It touches the way in which we perceive time, exercise judgement, form relationships, understand the body, live freedom and form conscience. From this point of view, the problem is not simply preventing the machine from replacing man; the problem is understanding whether man, progressively entrusting to external apparatuses increasingly extensive parts of his experience, risks modifying the very way of being human. The encyclical approaches this question in Chapter VI (cf. NN. 103-108), when it recalls the danger of a progressive reduction of human experience to what can be measured, processed and technically administered, insisting that the person never coincides with the sum of his functions nor with the processes he is capable of delegating. Yet the document does not pursue this line of reflection towards a systematic anthropological elaboration and does not enter extensively into the question of how technologies affect the structure of the cognitive act, of judgement and of deliberation. Its principal interest remains moral and social. For this reason, the most fruitful contribution that the text may offer to ecclesial debate consists not so much in having spoken the final word on Artificial Intelligence, as in having reminded us of what must remain the first: the human person.

In this sense, particular significance is acquired by the reminder contained in Chapter VII (cf. n. 124), where Leo XIV affirms that authentic progress does not coincide with the increase of operational capacity, but with the growth of man in responsibility and communion, recalling that no technological advancement can substitute the proper value of the person.

III. A FIRST CONCLUSION: BETWEEN THE CUSTODY OF MAN AND DENIED FREEDOM

It would be unfair to read this encyclical by asking from it what it did not intend to offer. We are not, in fact, before a document constructed like some of the great encyclicals of twentieth-century social magisterium, nor before a text whose task is the theoretical analysis of Artificial Intelligence in its conceptual structures, in the relationship between technology and human act, or in the consequences that automation may produce for the understanding of intelligence and freedom. Magnificent Humanity chooses another path: not to begin from the question of what technology is, but from the question of what kind of man is formed through the use of technology. We are before a text that chooses a different way: to recall the Church and the world to the safeguarding of man in the age of digital transformation. There remains open — and perhaps it will need to be addressed in the years to come — a further question: whether safeguarding man means only protecting his dignity, or also understanding more deeply what is happening to his intelligence, his freedom and his experience of reality.

If this encyclical succeeds in seriously reopening this question, it will already have accomplished something important. Reading this encyclical, I could not avoid comparing it with certain reflections I developed in my recent book “Freedom denied” (“Denied Freedom”, Editions The island of Patmos, January 2026), dedicated to the relationship between freedom, ethics, Artificial Intelligence and Christian anthropology. This is not a matter of superimposing a personal work upon the magisterium of the Roman Pontiff — which by nature, purpose and authority belongs to an entirely different order — but of placing two different points of observation into dialogue before the same question. The encyclical chooses to address the theme beginning from the Church’s social doctrine. This orientation emerges particularly in Chapter II (cf. NN. 28-32), where Leo XIV recalls that technical progress cannot be assumed as a self-sufficient criterion of development and insists that every innovation must be evaluated in the light of the good of the person and of the quality of the human relationships it contributes to generate. In my book, by contrast, I chose a different point of departure: to question the relationship between technology and the human act of knowing, judging and deciding, developing this reflection in light of the classical theological tradition and, in particular, the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The decisive point was not to establish whether the machine may become more efficient than man, but to ask whether there exist acts proper to the person that cannot be delegated without altering the human itself. Within this perspective, I resumed one of the central intuitions of Thomistic synthesis: moral discernment arises from the unity between ratio and understanding, between the capacity to analyse and the capacity to grasp truth in its unity. Judgement does not coincide with calculation. And it is precisely here that the Thomistic principle acquires decisive significance. In my book I returned to the celebrated axiom: «Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (“Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it”, QUESTION, I, I, 8 ad 2)». This principle does not affirm that grace replaces what is lacking in man; it affirms the opposite: it brings a real nature to fulfilment without eliminating or replacing it. Applied analogically to the relationship between man and Artificial Intelligence, the principle leads to a radical question: if grace perfects nature but does not replace it, can technology perfect faculties that man does not possess? The answer I attempted to develop is negative: Artificial Intelligence may amplify existing capacities, accelerate processes and support complex operations; but it cannot generate what is absent: it does not produce consciousness where there is no consciousness, it does not generate judgement where moral formation does not exist, it does not create discernment where interiority is lacking.

The problem is not how powerful Artificial Intelligence becomes, but what kind of man makes use of it. Because no technique perfects what does not exist and therefore what is lacking in man cannot be delegated to the machine in order that it may be created. In the book I dedicated to this theme, I explain that no civilisation has ever collapsed because it possessed instruments that were too powerful. Civilisations begin to decline when they cease to distinguish between what can be built and what instead must be safeguarded. And among all the things that man may lose, the most difficult to rebuild has always remained the same: freedom.

Rome, 25 May 2026

.

NOT A METAPHYSICS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LEO XIV AND THE CUSTODY OF MAN

The problem is not how powerful Artificial Intelligence becomes., but on what type of man to use it. Because no technologywas going perfects what does not exist and, therefore, what is missing in man cannot be delegated to the machine to be created […] Civilizations begin to decline when they stop distinguishing between what can be built and what, on the contrary, must be guarded. And among all the things that man can lose, the most difficult to recover always remains the same: freedom.

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

Read the first encyclical of a Pontiff one year after the beginning of his pontificate, it is always a delicate exercise, especially when the topic addressed belongs to one of the most complex and controversial territories of our time.: Artificial Intelligence. The risk is twofold: on the one hand, demand from the text what it is not intended to be; on the other, attribute to him what he does not say. This methodological precision is necessary from the beginning, why Magnificent Humanity It is not born as a technological manifesto nor as a philosophical treatise on the nature of Artificial Intelligence. Perhaps it is precisely here that a first impression of confusion is born in the theologian accustomed to the great speculative encyclicals of the 20th century.. Indeed, who expected a document built according to the model of The human race, Development of Peoples, Centennial year O Faith and Reason you might be surprised. Otherwise, Within the magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, at least two major types of documents can be distinguished.: texts that speak mainly to the present, to the ecclesial community, to society, to politics and the urgencies of his own time; texts that, over the years, They inevitably become dated and whose main value ceases to consist of offering direct answers to the problems of the present and becomes a way that allows us to understand certain passages., crises and evolutions of the life of the Church. An example among many could be You will be surprised, promulgated by Gregory XVI in 1832, whose sociopolitical conceptions cannot be extrapolated from that determined historical context nor mechanically transferred to contemporary society.. Then there are, the documents that, although they were born within a certain historical period, They mainly address questions that touch on the permanent foundations of faith and Christian anthropology and, therefore, They continue to speak beyond their own time; just think, with different features: The splendor of truth of John Paul II or Spe salvi of Benedict XVI. It is still too early to establish which of these two genres it belongs to. Magnificent Humanity, but a first impression is that Leo XIV has chosen to speak to the historical present, offering guiding criteria in the face of a transformation already in progress rather than developing a synthesis intended to become a long-range theological reference.

Leo XIV does not face the problem wondering whether machines can really think nor does it fall into the distinction between intelligence, consciousness and computation. Is this a structural limit?? More than a limit, It seems to be about choosing a different path, outlined from the first pages: read technological transformation as a question that concerns above all the vocation of man, to their way of inhabiting the world and ordering their own action. From this perspective, The center of the encyclical does not seem to be Artificial Intelligence as an autonomous object of analysis, but the human subject that develops and uses it. This orientation emerges with particular clarity in chapter VI (cf. NN. 95-99), where the Augusto Author remembers the risk of technical efficiency being assumed as the predominant criterion for the organization of human work and insists that progress is inseparable from the formation of consciousness, of personal responsibility and man's ability to direct means towards authentically human ends. From this derives the document's insistence not so much on the limit of the machine, how much about the quality of the subject who uses it. This choice also appears in the symbolic structure of the text. The encyclical effectively opens its reasoning through two biblical images that the Holy Father uses as a key to reading the entire document. (cf. chapter I, NN. 8–12).

The first is the story of Babel (cf. GN 11,1-9): men decide to build a city and a tower "whose top reaches to the sky" to assert their self-sufficiency and "make a name for themselves"; the result is not greater unity, but the confusion of languages ​​and the dispersion. The second image is the reconstruction of Jerusalem guided by Nehemiah (cf. Born 2-6): a destroyed city is rebuilt not to exalt someone's power, but through an ordered work, shared and aimed at allowing a people to return to inhabit and live. Through these two images the document does not contrast technical and non-technical, but two opposite ways of building: in the first case, the work tends to replace the good of man; in the second, remains subordinated to the good of the human community.

However, a question remains open that will inevitably accompany the reading of the entire text: If the custody of the person and the call to responsibility are enough to confront a phenomenon that does not only refer to the use of new instruments, but to the progressive transfer to technical devices of acts that belong to knowledge, the judgment and deliberation of the person.

I. CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY: THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE TECHNIQUE, BUT THE POINT FROM WHICH IT IS LOOKED AT

One of the first questions that the reader inevitably asks himself when faced with this encyclical is whether we find ourselves in continuity with the great teaching of the 20th century or before a document that, even situated within the same ecclesial channel, belongs to a different level of theological construction, cultural and qualitative. The answer cannot be univocal: under the profile of the fundamental contents, The text is clearly situated in continuity with the Social Doctrine of the Church. However, This does not imply affirming that we are faced with a document of the same speculative thickness., of the same capacity for elaboration or the same qualitative level that characterized some of the great encyclicals of the last century. Recognizing this difference does not mean formulating a negative judgment about the teaching of Leo XIV — each era develops languages., own sensitivities and priorities - but to recognize that not all magisterial documents are constructed with the same degree of speculative elaboration nor do they have the same capacity to generate theological categories intended to have a stable impact on the cultural and historical level..

Already in the introduction Leo XIV remembers the task entrusted to each generation of shaping its own time while safeguarding the dignity of the person, promoting justice and making fraternity possible; reiterating that the permanent risk is that of building an inhuman world precisely at the moment when the human capacity to transform reality is increasing. The continuity with the teachings of the social teaching is evident; but the point of observation chosen by the text seems different. Pius XII developed his teaching through a strong work of conceptual clarification: distinguished the levels of discourse, It delimited the categories and tended to build argumentative architectures in which each concept occupied a precise place.. An approach sustained mainly in constant confrontation with the great theological tradition of the Church - from the Fathers to the Doctors - and by the classical metaphysical approach, especially in its scholastic elaboration, assumed as an instrument to guard the order between nature and grace, reason and faith, history and truth. Paul VI tended to read the great historical processes - economic development, social transformations, relations between people, modernization — trying to understand its consequences on man, about your dignity, about their freedom and about the forms of human coexistence. More than defining concepts, sought to build a vision capable of keeping history together, sociedad, development and vocation of the person. John Paul II faced the questions of his time by constantly returning them to the question about man. Its major categories — person, TRUE, freedom, job, body, consciousness — were not presented as isolated themes, but as elements of a unitary vision in which man is understood as a moral subject called to truth and responsibility.. That is why their documents are usually not limited to indicating practical guidelines, but rather they tend to construct a true interpretation of man and history. XIV lion, instead, does not address the problem of Artificial Intelligence by asking whether the computational process can be assimilated to intelligence or whether calculation can replace the human act of knowing.. This choice emerges clearly above all in the way the document defines the task of discernment.: not understanding how far technology can go, but to establish the purposes within which it must be oriented. This results in an important change.: The problem is not primarily at the level of efficiency, but in that of human judgment. The question that remains open is not whether machines can become smarter., but if the man, progressively delegating acts that belong to your personal experience, does he still retain control of his own work or ends up adapting to the logic of the instruments he has built. For this reason the encyclical insists less on the nature of the instrument and more on the responsibility of the subject who uses it.. This orientation emerges with particular clarity in chapter V (cf. n. 87), where Leo XIV states that the decisive criterion does not consist of the development of technical capacity as such, but in the question about the subject that governs it and the end to which it is ordered. Therefore, the decisive question is not what machines can do, but what men choose to become through that which builds. In this sense, the document recalls that technological development cannot be evaluated exclusively on the basis of efficiency or the increase in operational capabilities., but must be judged in light of the consequences it produces on the person and on social life.. The text insists, indeed, in that no innovation can be considered beneficial simply because it is possible or effective, but must be subjected to discernment about the human good that it is called to serve. (cf. chapter III, NN. 60-64).

Remains, however, open a question that will inevitably accompany the subsequent debate: if the call to the custody of what is human is sufficient or if it is also, It is necessary to question the way in which technologies modify the specific exercise of judgment, of freedom and conscience. So, whether this encyclical has the merit of seriously reopening this question, will have already done something important.

(II). ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: CUSTODY THE MAN OR UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS BECOME?

It is probably at this point where one of the most characteristic nuclei of the encyclical is concentrated.. Leo XIV does not address Artificial Intelligence from the question about the nature of intelligence or about the possibility of artificial processes reproducing human thought.. In chapter III (cf. NN. 52-58) The document rather reminds us of the risk that technology, of an instrument ordered to human action, progressively tends to transform into an environment capable of influencing perception, relationships and forms of experience. Later, in chapter IV (cf. NN. 71-76), facing the issue of delegation of decision-making functions, The encyclical insists that no technical device can replace personal responsibility or moral judgment. From here emerges the central point of the text: the decisive question is not what the machine can become, but what man runs the risk of ceasing to exercise. For this reason, the document does not concentrate its interest on the technical description of Artificial Intelligence systems., but repeatedly returns to the question of the human subject who projects and uses them. This orientation emerges in chapter II (cf. NN. 28-32), where the Supreme Pontiff recalls the criterion of the dignity of the person as a measure of progress; in chapter IV (cf. NN. 79-82), where he insists on the responsibility that accompanies every technological decision; and in chapter VI (cf. NN. 112-116), where the common good is indicated as a criterion to judge the effects of digital transformations on social life. In this perspective, the problem is not posed primarily at the level of the machine's performance, but in the relationship between technical development and human responsibility.

The implicit question of the encyclical seems to be: How can man be prevented from being reduced to the system that he himself has built?? It is a serious and necessary question. However, precisely here emerges a possible limit - or perhaps, more correctly, a deliberate choice. Because the text does not seem to want to fully address an issue that today appears increasingly decisive.: not only what is it that man must guard, but what man is becoming.

The Artificial Intelligence revolution It is not limited only to new instruments. Affects the way we perceive time, we exercise judgment, we build relationships, we understand the body, we live freedom and form conscience. From this perspective, The problem is not simply to prevent the machine from replacing man; but in understanding if man, by progressively entrusting increasingly larger parts of their experience to external devices, runs the risk of modifying the very essence of the human being.

The encyclical approaches this question in chapter VI (cf. NN. 103-108), when he remembers the danger of a progressive reduction of human experience to that which can be measured, technically prepared and managed, insisting that the person never coincides with the sum of his functions or with the processes he is capable of delegating. However, The document does not continue this line of reflection to a systematic anthropological elaboration and does not go into the question of how technologies affect the structure of the cognitive act., of judgment and deliberation. His main interest remains moral and social.. For this reason, The most fruitful contribution that the text can offer to the ecclesial debate does not consist so much in having pronounced the last word on Artificial Intelligence., as in having remembered what must remain in the first place: the human person. In this sense, the so-called content in chapter VII takes on particular importance. (cf. n. 124), where Leo XIV affirms that authentic progress does not coincide with the increase in operational capacity, but with the growth of man in responsibility and communion, remembering that no technical advance can replace the personal value of the person.

III. A FIRST CONCLUSION: BETWEEN THE CUSTODY OF MAN AND THE DENIED FREEDOM

It would be unfair to read this encyclical demanding from him what he did not intend to offer.. Magnificent Humanity choose another path: not starting from the question about what the technique is, but from the question about what man is formed by the use of technology. We are faced with a text that chooses a different path: call the Church and the world to guard man in the time of digital transformation. A further question remains open – and perhaps will have to be addressed in the coming years.: If guarding man means only protecting his dignity or also understanding more deeply what is happening to his intelligence, with its freedom and with its experience of reality. If this encyclical has the merit of seriously reopening this question, will have already done something important.

Reading this encyclical I have not been able to avoid a dialogue with some reflections that I have developed in my recent book Freedom denied (Freedom denied, Editions The island of Patmos, January 2026), dedicated to the relationship between freedom, ethics, Artificial Intelligence and Christian Anthropology. It is not a matter of superimposing a personal work on the teaching of the Roman Pontiff - who by nature, purpose and authority belongs to a completely different order - but to establish a dialogue between two different points of observation regarding the same question. The encyclical chooses to address the issue starting from the Social Doctrine of the Church. This orientation emerges particularly in chapter II (cf. NN. 28-32), where Leo. In my book I chose, instead, a different starting point: interrogate the relationship between technology and the human act of knowing, judge and decide, developing this reflection in the light of the classical theological tradition and particularly the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The decisive point was not to establish whether the machine can become more efficient than man, but to ask if there are acts specific to the person that cannot be delegated without altering the human being.. From this perspective I returned to one of the central intuitions of the Thomist synthesis: Moral discernment is born from the unity between ratio e understanding, between the ability to analyze and the ability to grasp the true in its unity. The judgment does not coincide with the calculation. And it is precisely here where the Thomistic principle acquires a decisive meaning.. In my book I took up the famous axiom: «Grace does not destroy nature, but finish (Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it, QUESTION, I, I, 8 ad 2)». This principle does not affirm that grace replaces what man lacks.; claims exactly the opposite: complete a real nature, without removing or replacing it. Applied analogically to the relationship between man and Artificial Intelligence, the beginning leads to a radical question: If grace perfects nature, but it does not replace it, Can technology perfect faculties that man does not possess?? The answer I have tried to develop is negative.: Artificial Intelligence can amplify existing capabilities, speed up processes, sustain complex operations; but it cannot generate what is missing: does not produce consciousness where there is no consciousness, does not generate judgment where there is no moral formation, does not create discernment where interiority is lacking.

The problem is not how powerful Artificial Intelligence becomes., but on what type of man to use it. Because no technology perfects what does not exist and, therefore, what is missing in man cannot be delegated to the machine to be created. In the book that I have dedicated to this topic I explain that no civilization has ever collapsed because it had too powerful instruments.. Civilizations begin to decline when they stop distinguishing between what can be built and what, on the contrary, must be guarded. And among all the things that man can lose, the most difficult to recover always remains the same: freedom.

Rome, 25 May 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

I CAN'T BE SILENT: THE DAY WHEN CRIMINAL LAW DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS BORN IN THE SACRESTY

He who remains silent cannot affirm with systematic enthusiasm: «modern criminal law - of which, moreover, canon law is a precursor in many aspects […] - distinguishes between the fact and the responsibility".

—Hypatia's cogitatory—

.

.

I'm asking for a friendly cat, this time not from the city but with a fair amount of legal reading behind him, who asks whether the entire manual should really be updated to adapt it to the latest discovery of those who cannot remain silent and who for this reason affirms with systematic enthusiasm: «modern criminal law - of which, moreover, canon law is a precursor in many aspects […] - distinguishes between the fact and the responsibility" (cf.. who).

Now, the cat in question, who did not attend either the Alma Mater Studiorum or the Lateran University, but it still distinguishes, with a certain obstinacy of times gone by, between common law, Roman law and modern codifications, he asks if he missed something: if Cesare Beccaria, Ludwig Feuerbach and the entire modern criminal law construction must be reread as an appendix of the ecclesiastical forum, perhaps waiting for an amended reprint of the manuals, or whether it is not better to distinguish between historical contributions and systematic genealogies, avoiding easy enthusiasms of fatherhood.

Because it is one thing to recognize that medieval canon law, starting from the great Bolognese Glossators, has affected certain institutions such as imputability, intention, procedure; it is another thing to attribute to it a paternity function, even more so if you even try to mock between the lines other jurists.

The use of the category of «forerunner» even when attenuated by vague formulas such as "in many respects", ends up suggesting a systematic continuity that the history of law does not allow us to support regarding what arises within the crisis of the confessional state and the legal development of the modern age, as if the history of law were a straight line and not a complex stratification.

The cat, confused but not completely clueless, it is therefore limited to a simple question, formulated with due feline prudence: if this is really the principle, perhaps it would not be appropriate to warn the law faculties before they continue to teach the history of criminal law in a way that is now hopelessly outdated, also suggesting the wise reading of the pearls of wisdom of those who cannot remain silent? We must therefore take note of a fact: if the criterion is the "forerunner" one, then modern criminal law was born in the sacristy.

This world full of "unsolved", as those who cannot remain silent like to repeat …

From the island of Patmos, 30 April 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 RIGHT TO INSULT AND THE PROHIBITION OF BEING CRITICIZED

We don't want to compare an irrelevant nonsense, such is a son who mistreats his mother, compared to a priest who after a polemical debate is sued by an LGBT activist and for whom, to the logical rigor of he who cannot remain silent, life imprisonment and maximum security regime pursuant to art. should be requested. 41-bis, subject to excommunication and dismissal from the clerical state?

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

PDF print format article

 

.

In the age of culture hip-hop e, in particular, in music rap we know a methodology for making fun of and mocking the opponent made of songs, of rhymes and lyrics that are passed away social. We're talking about “Dissing”, abbreviation of the English term “disrespecting” (disrespect).

(© The Mirror, 2014)

Between the serious and the facetious, the Dissing it stands between play and provocation, a skirmish between world abilities rap and cultural quips social. Often, however, the "Dissing” reveals itself as a means of making people talk about themselves, to advertise or advertise, to escape from anonymity and make yourself known; to free themselves from the label of "loser" and to enter the Olympus of those who count. Many "Dissing” have brought undeniable advantages in terms of visibility and notoriety to people around the world rap e pop, to the point of also touching other aspects of public life, so we also witnessed “Dissing” between political exponents or from the world of television and cinema.

Even in the world of digital Catholicism, let's include those who mock and invective Modus Operandi usual to attack those who are not to his liking and who do not align with his personal vision of the Catholic world. And "Dissing” much more malevolent and radical that has lost the note of playfulness and skirmish between equals (whose value and respect is recognised) to clothe itself with all that perversity and insolence of the worst clerical resentment which should be promptly removed, under penalty of being seriously entangled.

There is a now sadly well-known character «whose name it is merciful and wise to keep silent» (cf.. The Name of The rose, 1986), because you just need to read it to recognize it: aggressive language, judgments without appeal, labels handed out generously to anyone who doesn't fit his mold. It is a subject that cannot be kept silent, or as Saint Augustine states in his Letter 23 the 392: I can not remain silent (I can't keep silent). This is why he writes a lot, always hits, it spares no one: priests, bishops, cardinals, but above all journalists. Anything can become a target. Every verbal attack is justified in the same way: frankness, justice, freedom of speech, defense of the faith. There is no measure, nor respect for the opponent, nor distinction between criticism and insult: everything flows into the same register, that of systematic and repeated aggression.

It's not an excess, but a method. Language is no longer useful for understanding reality, but to reduce it and bend it: a word replaces an argument, a label an analysis, a liquid formula a person. It requires no expertise or verification, but only safety and repetition. And this is precisely why it works in the digital ecosystem: there speed matters more than precision and impact more than truth.

This language doesn't build anything: does not clarify, does not distinguish, it doesn't open spaces, but it simplifies and closes, transforming reality into a sequence of targets. More than what he says, this character is recognizable by what he avoids: the real comparison. And here the decisive point emerges: does not tolerate being contradicted. You don't need an attack, a documented denial or calm criticism is enough. At that point everything changes. Whoever insulted until a moment ago presents himself as a victim; those who delegitimized everyone report being delegitimized; those who spoke without limits now demand protection. The reversal is immediate and systematic.

You can see it clearly even when facts enter into the discussion, for example when he accuses and incites third parties to accuse a priest dedicated to journalistic activity of having been sued years ago for defamation by an LGBT activist, However, the matter is awaiting trial at the appeal court. At the same time, But, is capable of tearing his clothes and declaring himself highly aggrieved if someone replies to him that in a provision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, relating to a dispute he brought against his own parents, dragged to the final stage of trial - after having lost at first instance and on appeal -, the judge of legitimacy writes:

"there is no evidence of the alleged mistreatment suffered by the complainant while a trial is underway for the same crime against him for actions committed against his mother" (cf.. pag. 3, see who).

However, it may be that for the one who cannot remain silent, a lawsuit brought by an LGBT activist for defamation in the press and currently awaiting the appeal judgment, is much more serious than a judge of cassation who writes in an order that a trial is underway against him for mistreatment of his mother. We don't want to compare an irrelevant nonsense, such is a son who mistreats his mother, compared to a priest who after a polemical debate is sued by an LGBT activist and for whom, to the logical rigor of the one who cannot remain silent and of the unfortunate people who give him credence, life imprisonment and ex-maximum security regime should be requested art. 41-bis, subject to excommunication and dismissal from the clerical state?

It's always the same pattern depicted in a previous article dedicated to the psychology of the malignant narcissist (see who): those who attack pretend to appear as victims. As long as the word proceeds in only one direction, the system holds up, as long as reciprocity does not take over, because you can strike a word, but don't be put, with the same word, in the face of its own evident inconsistencies. So people attack and then report having been attacked; he exposes himself and then complains about being exposed; you strike and then you invoke protection; you declare that you have been mistreated by your mother and you find yourself before a judge who, far from falling into the trap of this inversion, he writes in an order that proceedings are underway against his son, as it was he who mistreated his mother and not vice versa. Ordinary inconsistency? No, it is a system perfectly coherent in its logic: absolute freedom for oneself, absolute limit for others.

When this dynamic is put to the test, the comparison disappears. We don't go into the merits, the arguments are not answered: you change plan. And so the question is no longer what is true or false, but who has the right to speak. The truth is not refuted: it is circumvented and manipulated if necessary. This shift has a definite effect: brings attention from the content to the person. It doesn't matter what is said, but who says; not the correctness of an argument, but the legitimacy of those who pronounce it. The discourse thus becomes impervious to any verification.

At this point a further step is taken. We are no longer limited to the word: reports are used, complaints and formal actions aimed at platforms or other subjects, not to protect a right that is actually violated, but to hit the interlocutor in any way. Tools created to guarantee protection are thus bent to a different function: do not clarify, but discourage; don't defend, but create pressure; do not ascertain, but wear out through reiteration. You don't have to be right: it is sufficient to activate the mechanism. The mere fact of forcing the other to defend himself already produces a result: time taken away, energy consumed, continuous pressure.

We are no longer in the midst of controversy, but in that of mafia-type intimidating dynamics. The confrontation is replaced by the attempt to prevent it, the response from pressure, the dialectic circumvented rather than addressed. At this level it becomes clear that we are not faced with someone who defends the faith, but to someone who uses religious language as a violent instrument of personal affirmation. I'm not interested in clarifying, but prevail; do not convince, but take up space; do not seek the truth, but control the narrative.

This also produces a broader effect. Who reads, especially if less trained, tends to internalize the schema: if those who speak like this are not contradicted, then he must be right; if he uses absolute tones, then he has certainties; if he attacks everyone, then he defends something. This is how an aggressive dynamic transforms into apparent authority: not because it is founded, but because it is continuous. The insult becomes ordinary language, the delegitimization method, the conflict system. Everything is based on simple logic: what is permissible for oneself is not permissible for others. E, as was written in these columns in an article already referred to before (see who), the Ecclesiastical Authority has its own responsibilities in this sense for never having taken action to protect those weak and fragile subjects - including certain priests - who listen to the falsehoods of similar characters, thinking that everything could resolve itself over time by simply ignoring the problem, instead of facing it and nipping it in the bud with all the legitimate means at our disposal.

The paradox is evident: those who accuse everyone because they cannot remain silent, does not accept being contradicted, he who judges everyone does not accept being judged, those who claim to tell the truth do not accept that truth being verified. Eventually, no comparison is sought, but a monopoly: don't argue, but to establish who can speak without being contradicted. Freedom of speech is thus reduced to its poorest form: always talk, never answer. It is not a defense of the faith, it's his caricature, to the extent that the subject who embodies it is sadly caricatured, which is not so much a personal name, which it also has, but a sad paradigm of the worst that they can offer social media.

Sanluri, 22 April 2026

.

.

The books of Ivano Liguori, to access the book shop click on the cover

.

.

.

______________________

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:

 

Read more

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

.

 

.

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

.

.

.

.

.

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.

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

.

.

 

.

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

.

.

.

.

.